I was in Stavanger today as the external examiner for an MA thesis at the department of lesevitenskap, which I think translates as literacy. (They offer an MA in literacy in English and in Norwegian) The MA thesis was written by Arne Olav Nygard, and was really interesting, proposing a combination of Eco and Aarseth as a model for analysing cybertexts. It also suggested ways of building on Aarseth’s cybertext model that might help us understand the social texts that are increasingly important today. In Stavanger they don’t have oral defences as we do, instead the candidate has to deliver a trial lecture on a set topic, and so I had the pleasure of hearing about social, digital texts (like blogs, wikipedia, SMSes) from a literacy perspective. Most promising for the future of the field in Norway.

One of the pleasures of the Norwegian system of having external examiners at all levels (it’s optional for undergrads but most still have them) is the connections made between researchers and teachers at different institutions. Arne Olav’s supervisor, Arne Apelseth, wrote his dissertation on how Norwegians learned reading and writing from 1760-1840. Now did you know, that while people in most countries learnt to read and write at the same time, Norwegians became reading-literate almost a hundred years before they became writing-literate, as a nation? If I understood Arne’s fascinating digression from what we were really talking about correctly, the church and state wanted the people to be able to read, but they specifically didn’t want them to write. The Lutheran way to salvation is through reading the bible, whereas the Catholics have a multithreaded web of possible ways to salvation – and at this point the other internal reader objected, but Arne continued, wonderfully ignoring his critic, saying (if I remember correctly) that Lutherans were supposed to be receivers of godliness and not speak back (and I suspect I exaggerate but it sounds so good) while Catholics were permitted a two-way relationship with God.

In her book on blogs, Viviane Serfaty argues that blogging is a particularly American form, grown forth from the Puritan ideal of spiritual work as self-reflection through writing in a diary (the second-last page of my paper on self-portraits has more about this). The different forms and goals and cultural meanings of diaries that she points out are really illuminating for our current understandings of blogs, I find, and I suspect that this Norwegian history might also help us understand how social writing works.

Perhaps we really should be thinking more about the ideals of writing and reading in different cultures. If Norway is built on an age-old suspicion that the people being able to write is really rather a dangerous idea (which would explain why the word formidling is such an important concept here yet impossible to translate) then what does that mean for our current support and respect for – or lack of support and respect for – people writing back online?

4 thoughts on “digital literacy research in Norway

  1. Marion

    Interesting indeed, although I disagree with the view on Catholics/Lutherans.
    Confession is not two-way communication in any stronger way than prayer is.

  2. Jill

    Hm. I’m going to have to read that dissertation to find out what Arne really meant, I guess.

  3. carrie mcmillan

    Interesting work on literacy and digital cultures. But got to disagree with the Catholi dialogue thing too. My understanding was that Catholicism preserved the Mass in Latin for so long to keep the message distant from the increasingly literate public. Only priests were expected to interact with the Word

    Been lurking on your blog for ages by the way, it’s really interesting stuff!

  4. Ben Wilkoff Network

    [from dajbelshaw] jill/txt » digital literacy research in Norway: "Now did you know, that while people in most c… http://bit.ly/b2wp7V

Leave a Reply to carrie mcmillan Cancel reply

Recommended Posts

Machine Vision

Cultural Representations of Machine Vision: An Experimental Mixed Methods Workshop

Call for submissions to a workshop, Bergen, Norway
Workshop dates: 15-17 August 2022
Proposals due: 15 June

The Machine Vision in Everyday Life project invites proposals for an interdisciplinary workshop using qualitative approaches and digital methods to analyse how machine vision is represented in art, science fiction, games, social media and other forms of cultural and aesthetic expression.

Digital Humanities Machine Vision

What do different machine vision technologies do in fiction and art?

For the Machine Vision in Everyday Life project we’ve analysed how machine vision technologies are portrayed and used in 500 works of fiction and art, including 77 digital games, 190 digital artworks and 233 movies, novels and other narratives. You can browse […]

AI and algorithmic culture Presentations

My talk on caring AIs in recent sci-fi novels

I’m giving a talk at an actual f2f academic conference today, Critical Borders, Radical Re(visions) of AI, in Cambridge. I was particularly excited to see this conference because it’s organised by the people who edited AI Narratives A History of Imaginative Thinking […]