Rhetoric and Technology – ENC 6421

“Literacy, Technology and Monopoly Capital” by Richard Ohmann

In terms of organization and execution, “Literacy, Technology, and Monopoly Capital” is clear and concise. Richard Ohmann, after a short anecdote, states his thesis that the cry for “computer literacy” that occurred in the 1980’s mirrors the cries for literacy that started in the 19th century and that these pleas for literacy have more to do with economic and social control that with intellectual pursuits.

The paper is split into five major sections, with a loosely chronological arrangement. The first deals with the history of the term and the concept of literacy. Many of the citations in this section deal with social or economic theory, including quotes from George R. Stetson and Adam Smith. This section seems to be used only to clarify that he is speaking of literacy as a way to “conceptualize an attribute of theirs [the masses], which might be manipulated (39).

The second section, titled “Monopolistic Capital,” deals with the control of the masses by the robber barons of the time, using consolidation of wealth and incorporation to control both labor and consumption. Ohmann then ties this system of corporate control to the rise of mass communication.

The third section deals with technology in general and attempts to strip the preconceptions we have about current communication technologies by reimagining their invention under very different circumstances. He does this in an attempt to establish that changing technology is not a natural process but is instead steered by those who would use it as a system of control. Think of an intelligent design vs. evolution debate applied to technological innovation.

The fourth section narrows the scope to computers. Ohmann openly admits that his comments are prejudiced by his lack of knowledge about computers and his related distrust of them as liberating devices. As a reference, he uses his own English department, where the only computer-literate person is the lowest person on the ladder. He sees computers as a dehumanizing factor, which will, “expand the minds and the freedoms of an elite, meanwhile facilitating the degradation of labor” (46).

The last section, titled “Literacy,” takes the same course as the others, framing literacy as an issue for social or political control. The story in the last section highlights the political nature of literacy. Ohmann argues that it is the context of literacy and what it is used for that measures its importance.

The article ends with Ohmann’s basic assertion, “that work for literacy is not in itself intrinsically liberating” (51).
-Maysel Markham