In the excerpt from Gramophone, Film, Typewriter by Friedrich Kittler the reader takes a look into the evolution of new media technologies in todays society that alter the way we look at how the message flows between the addresser and the addressee. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, we see the hegemony of the printed word change to new technologies that offers new ways to communicate and store data. Before digital technology came into the mainstream, physically writing operated as a symbolic meditation in a way. All data passes through the pencil which is the signifier. For instance, photography stores the actual physical effects of the real in the shape of the actual image. From there, the typewriter changed the perception of writing from that of a unique expression of a literate individual than that of seeing the image as a material signifier.

The typewriter symbolizes a momentous shift in the history of technological advancement. Using the work of Foucault, Lacan, and McLuhan there is an analysis of the technological shift that the Typewriter caused. There is a combination of discourse analysis, structuralist psychoanalysis, and media theory that adds a vital historical dimension to the current debates over the relationship between electronic literacy and poststructuralism, and the extent to which us humans are controlled by our technologies.

There is a further comparison between Mechanical Media and Digital Media, with Mechanical Media being the break of the 1900’s , and Digital Media arising at the break of the 2000’s. During the 1900’s there was almost a monopoly of culture that was wielded by the book, if it is not in the book then it did not happen in a sense. The most famous book, the bible, can be seen in this manner. Some people believe that the only thing that can be known for certain in the bible is the written commandments on the tablets. There is almost an aura around the commandments because it is written. With written material there is a scarcity amongst them because it is the only existing form of that representation. As Benjamin theorized, the rise of mechanically reproduced art strips the aura of the original object. This is the same with media. With the introduction of digital media, media is ubiquitous and it is everywhere. The aura is stripped and it is no longer a scarce form of information. The evolution of these media outlets allows different interpretations of the message between the addresser and the addressee.

In Matthew G Kirschenbaum’s Track Changes, the author explores the relationship between the human art of writing and the form of the writing instrument. Like Kittler, again we see a theorist who thinks in terms of McLuhan’s famous aphorism: “The medium is the message”. Kirschenbaum begins his introduction by considering the recently revealed writing process of George R. R. Martin. Martin’s use of an outdated word processor gains the attention of his fans, and for good reason, says Kirschenbaum. The word processor may hold some insights about the authors work. At the very least, Martin’s adherence to it goes to show that “we can become habituated to something like a piece of software just as we do a favorite pen or a particular weight of paper” (2).

As Kirschenbaum begins, he first clarifies that the works of art that he intends to examine “are not reducible to a single explanatory agent or element” (6). This is an important principle to remember going forward, so that we do not confuse the authors focus on technology for a belief in its primacy. However, Kirschenbaum does not wish that we undervalue the effect of technology either. He quotes literary scholar Evija Trofimova, who analyses the ways in which the environment that Paul Aster wrote in affected his work, and comments, “all of this … can only become visible is one dares to turn away, for a moment, from the centered intent of the human author and to look more closely at the work of ‘things'” (9). If we are to compose a more complete understanding of an author, we should consider all of the influences on his or her writing.

In the age of digital technology, such as word processing, this observance of the “work of things” becomes less obvious. Many theorists follow what Kirschenbaum calls as “emancipatory logic” (5), which views electronic media as a dematerialization of many technological apparatus. From this perspective, word processing somehow transcends the physical limitations of writing. This reminds me of the novel You Are Not a Gadget, by Jaron Lanier. Lanier, once a programmer in the upstart Silicon Valley of the 1980’s, discusses the philosophy with which the “world wide web” was created. They all believed that they were created a technology that would make the world immune to tyranny, for there would always and forever be a free flow of information, unrestricted by the material constraints of past technologies. Lanier has since split from this philosophy, and uses his novel to explore the ways in which Web 2.0 (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) creates very narrow channels through which people communicate digitally. The idealistic freedom that they envisioned did not survive the materiality of the technology.

Kirschenbaum, Like Lanier, does not buy into the “emancipatory logic” that considers electronic media as dematerialized communication. He argues that word processing does have materiality. One way this materiality is evidenced is through the development of “tacit knowledge,” or, “the extraordinary combination of muscle memory and unarticulated experience that enables us to perform very complex tasks without conscious effort or consciously knowing how to do them” (10). At the very least, the technology is effecting the writer in particular ways. This begs the question: Can the effects of this technology can be found in the literary work itself? For Kirschenbaum, the search for this technological materiality is an important aspect of literary criticism.

In Judith Halberstam’s “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Men, Women, and Masculinity,” Judith tries to deconstruct masculinity. Masculinity is usually applied to men and feminism is generally applied to females. Masculinity is similar to a hegemony, it shows leadership and dominance. Halberstam describes masculinity and feminism in such a way that it connotes a negative feelings towards femininity. The way she constructs her argument about masculinity, she empowers masculinity and states there are different forms of masculinity even within females and homosexual men. The question is, why is there such a negative connotation with femininity, why do we need to identify female masculinity as masculine to be empowered?

Halberstam describes masculinity in a way which masculinity dominates and while doing so, takes power from femininity. She describes, “As masculinity is ever more naturalized in hererosexual, homosexual and transexual male bodies, femininity becomes ever more degraded as a subject position and female masculinity becomes simply unimaginable” (2643). Here, Halberstam is stating how all forms of masculinity are recognized yet the female masculinity is not only seemingly shameful, it is also impossible to be understood in this (white) male dominated culture.

Halberstam describes throughout her writing that white males are the dominant group in society. She goes onto explain that having a penis is equivalent to having social power. According to Freud, we can generate social power in other body parts that become phallic and can access the social power reserved for white males. She mentions that lesbians can attain power as well, through Lacan’s framework of the “Lesbian Phallus.” Lesbianism has always been associated with female masculinity which is ultimately, undesirable and linked to female ugliness. Lesbians do however threaten heterosexual men because of the attractive lesbian who rejects them and the butch lesbian who rivals their masculinities (2652).

While deconstructing Halberstam’s words and thoughts, I can say that she identifies as a masculine female but I feel that she is using the non-masculine females, the feminine females as a stepping stone to have herself and those that identify as a masculine female get ahead in the patriarchal society. She complains that the dominant systems must be updated in order to remain relevant to the social and political systems, which I agree is true but identifying as a masculine–anything to get ahead in society is just reinforcing the patriarchal dominated culture. Females, transexuals, and homosexuals should not have to identify as anything to have their voices heard and to be taken seriously. Heterosexual white men should be stripped of the “masculine” title. Identifying as anything masculine creates the divide of social groups and creates this disparity among us. Women should strive to empower through other means, instead of ultimately backing the patriarchal system.