Her professed point of view was that print had no place in the future, and barely had a place in the present, and we should just embrace the wonder that is the digital age and accept whatever is created within it.
As an XY Cusper (born on the cusp between Generations X and Y), I've had to listen to this twaddle my entire life. Theorists keep saying digital literacy is more important than any other form of literacy, and most of my peers and successors have either bought into the theory or have been taught by people who have bought into it hook line and sinker. At the heart of the theory is a fundamental flaw:
Everything worth doing is digital, so we don't need print or anything to do with print any more.There is this fundamental, basic concept at the core of the 'digital movement' that says "print is dead - linear thinking is dead. Let us speak of it no more."
To me, that's a bit like saying "we have elevators and escalators - you no longer need to climb stairs so stop doing it". For one thing, the stairs are still very much all around us regardless of how many buildings are now using elevators. For another thing, periodically, escalators and elevators have been known to stop working. Then the escalators mysteriously turn into stairs, and the elevators turn into pointless boxes taking up space in the building.
When such things happen, the ability to find and use stairs becomes handy.
This is where I sit on the whole 'print vs digital' debate: We need to be literate in both, in equal measure. We need to be able to create both comfortably and with some degree of skill. We can't just (dare I say it?) toss out the baby with the bathwater. Heck, in these drought stricken times we can't even afford to toss out the bathwater - not when it could be put to use somewhere else.
Sure, it's a great thing to be able to think and create in a non-linear fashion. It's also important to be able to think and create in a linear fashion. Sure, it's great to be able to jump from A to T without feeling bogged down by all the bits in between. It's just as important to be able to go right through the whole sequence from start to finish and be able to appreciate what effect that sequence has on the world around it. It's also good to be able to know where to find F without a computer just in case (heaven forbid!) you find yourself without one on occasion.
You see, my big beef with the 'digital age' is that our new tools are not infallible, and we need to have a Plan B that can work when the lights go out. You always have candles in the house in case the electricity fails. You should keep books and dictionaries on hand for the same reason.
I'm a big believer in not being deskilled or unskilled - especially if it involves basic things like being able to read a book or write a letter. However, too many people have bought into the idea that digital has done away with the need for print related skills. As a result, I'm surrounded by students my age and younger who simply cannot 'climb stairs'. More than that, they get highly offended if you imply it's something they should be able to do - that they're lacking a basic skill by not being able to do it. They have been actively deskilled (or allowed to remain unskilled) and they have been led to believe it is their God given right to remain so.
They try to tell me the future belongs to these people. I believe, in a world where the non-linear is being celebrated at the expense of the linear, the future belongs to whoever can read more than three paragraphs at a time without getting bored and loosing the plot. We'll see who's right.
