This article suggests that orality, literacy, and electracy are flowing; one leads into another. While I see the author’s point, I don’t entirely agree. I think that the step between oral language and written language is much different than the step between the written word and the internet. Electracy is an improvement of literacy, while orality and literacy are similar but separate entities.
I do, however, agree with “the argument…that the disciplines of Arts and Letters have as much to contribute to the essential formation of electracy as do science, engineering, computing and related technical fields.” This fits into my original idea, that electracy is an improvement of literacy. Literacy is simply a way of communication without having to be in the presence of the speaker. Electracy is built on the same foundation, but its ultimate goal is the efficiency of this communication. Electracy has no point without literacy.
Electracy is based on a good idea, I do admit. I think the addition of technology into our platforms of communication means that things must be re-organized. There is no way to say that all aspects of technology can fit into our communication schemas from previous eras. The forms of communication are changing, and so must the methodology. While I don’t necessarily agree with the exact classification of all aspects of it (practice, procedure, institution, etc.) I agree that the internet and other forms of technology based communication need to be analyzed.
A question this article raises is if this is really a valid classification. Is there a way to make electracy fit into a literacy, maybe as a subcategory? Or must it stand alone?