| Postmodern Knowledge and Authority in Electronic Publishing. | ||
| Introduction and overview. Recent theorists are making huge claims about the power of electronic communications to transform the nature of cultural authority, and indeed the way we produce and interpret knowledge itself. Others predict equally foundational cultural, political and economic shifts that will produce a political world order quite unlike the one we are accustomed to. Some, like Richard Lanham and James J. O’Donnel, have argued that because of electronic publishing we will witness changes in the relationship between readers and writers, and a new, expanded sense "intertextuality," (following the poststructuralists, notably Derrida). These theorists argue that we will see a leveling of hierarchies, and a new distribution spectrum giving many more people the power to generate knowledge, as well as a burgeoning influx of new voices in an increasingly democratic and egalitarian society of the future. While Lanham and O’Donnel favor this type of future, others, such as Sven Birkerts have deep concerns and oppositions. I give Birkerts his own section where he is critiqued by Wen Stephenson, and lambasted by John Unsworth. Ronald J. Deibert sees shifting notions of political and national territories, and changing power relationships between groups occupying certain positions in society. Espen J. Aarseth provides an insightful critique of the implications in Lanham, O’Donnel, Birkerts' and Deibert’s work.
|
||
| These theories are inherently postmodern. All assume or reflect to one degree or another the idea of "intertextuality," the "death of the subject," and the disappearing paradigm of the solitary, autonomous author and the positivist authority that goes along with the modern concept of authorship. In fact, according to these theories, our current conception of and reliance upon centralized knowledge and power may be impossible to reconcile with future electronic communications environments. | For an fuller look at postmodern thought and "intertextuality," see the next section. For more, see Porter. |