Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Affordance and Manipulanda

What does a network afford?

I'm setting out with hopes that I can wrap together a few thought-strands running through other coursework this week. It tracks through Weinberger, as well, so the application here isn't out of the blue.  In his chapter on Space in Small Pieces Loosely Joined Weinberger says, "Our space is full of opportunities, obstacles and dangers, or what the psychologist James Gibson called affordances (e.g., the chair affords us the possibility of sitting) and the philosopher Martin Heidegger called the ready-to-hand" (32).  I can't remember if I'd learned about affordances before this semester; seems like a basketball coach once hollered something about the affordances of the game:  playing through potentials and opportunism constantly responsive to in-game context, or something.  But maybe not.

Whatever the case, affordances came up in other reading this week. This succinct bit comes from a 1974 essay from Bransford and McCarrell called "A Sketch of a Cognitive Approach to Comprehension," and it matched up nicely, I think, with another term--manipulanda--and, as well, some of our conversation last week about characterizing network literacy (whatever you call it):

The notion of a nonarbitrary relation between what something looks like and what it means is related to J.J. Gibson's (1966) notion of affordances.  Certain objects and their properties provide visual information for the activities and interactions they afford.  So, for example, sharp objects afford piercing, certain extensions (e.g., handles) afford grasping, hardness affords pounding, and roundness affords rolling.  Even surfaces afford activities since they are 'walk-onable,' 'climbable,' and the like.  Tolman (1958) presented similar notions in his essay on 'sign-gestalts.' These are not simply information about 'the larger wholes in which the perceived configuration will itself be embedded as one term in a larger means-end proposition [p. 79]." Tolman further introduced the term "manipulanda" which he defines as:
properties of objects which support (or make possible) motor manipulations of the species...One and the same environmental object will afford quite different manipulanda to an animal which possesses hands from what it can and will to an animal which possesses only a mouth, or only a bill, on only claws...grasp-ableness, pick-up-ableness, throw-ableness, heaviness (heave-ableness) and the like--these are manipulanda [p. 82].

Basically, I'd like to propose the inclusion of these terms in the network(ed) rhetorics glossary (wanna second it?).  I'm finding these terms/concepts helpful for understanding many of the paradoxes Weinberger works through and many of the tensions surrounding the assignment of genres to weblogs (or weblogs to genres).  It's as if we have available to us an abundance of digital manipulanda--affordance-ness with the network and with our related involvements. 

What does a web(log) afford?  A link?  A network?

Cross-posted to Network(ed) Rhetorics.

Bookmark and Share Posted by at February 15, 2005 3:18 PM to Networks
Comments

Y'know, I didn't read your post closely enough to understand it, but I just adore the word "manipulanda." I would name my child that. Or, at least, a cat.

Posted by: susansinclair at February 15, 2005 6:10 PM

I like the term "afford" -- and I like how your applying it to the network. Maybe I'm conflating it, but I'm again thinking about the authorship issue Jen raised in class and how I read it as a matter of opportunity.

Does the network provide "opportunities"? Absolutely. Can those opportunities be enumerated? I don't know. It seems like Weinberger would, on one had, have think that the network affords us limitless, boundless "things". On the other hand, he seems raises the question about the non-physical dimension of the network. So maybe a good place to start is thinking about what the network can't afford. What ever is left could arguably be considered "affordable"(?).

Posted by: mike at February 16, 2005 12:12 PM

Glad to offer up potential cat names, Susan!

And Mike, I think I follow your logic here. I'm not sure what we gain from enumerating the affordances. I suppose we ought to take stock (of some sort), inventory whatever the net enables or makes possible (maybe invites is another way to put it). It's interesting, too, to question what the web doesn't afford (defordance? de-affordance?), but I think that's the kind of approach that too often gets invoked to shut down wonder about what more/else it might do (I know you've heard: "But look at all that it *can't* do."). Plus, it'll change again bc some folks are confronting limitations with a more exploratory method, thereby transforming the web--its shifts and turns--endlessly.

Posted by: Derek at February 16, 2005 12:31 PM