No Telescope Except Our Attention

I shouldn’t pick back up here before first acknowledging head bow hands folded and humbly that Earth Wide Moth received the John Lovas Award from Kairos last Friday evening at the 2025 Computers & Writing Conference. I learned about the award early that week, so I drove to Athens, Ga. to accept the award on Earth Wide Moth’s behalf. Striking to realize this event as punctuation, a pause EWM—dash to notice simultaneously how much and how little a two-decade-plus installation of this serial variety holds. The nomination was co-signed by sixteen or so brilliant, generous, and ever-supportive colleagues; some of them even wrote brief rationale, testimony to the value of what happens here from time to time. I’m grateful for the twenty-one years of write-living, a variation on life-living (Manning), the sorts of activation and articulation loops that, come what meandering-may, dances as moth to flame and flame to moth.

Figure 1. Athena statue, Athens, Ga., stony and still before the Classics Center at the University of Georgia.

While in Georgia, I attended a few sessions, the opening reception, the Kairos-Digital Rhetoric Collaborative karaoke event, a meeting, Saturday’s keynote by Jen Sano-Franchini, titled “What’s Critical about Critical Interface Analysis? A Recommitment to Humanistic Inquiry In the March to Hyper-Automation,” and the social gathering at Creature Comforts. I drove home on Sunday, on the road by 8 a.m. ET, 370 miles, four states, giant peach water towers and turbulent speed differentials from one lane to the other along I-85, and as I drove I kept thinking about conferences and bandwidths, about desires for disciplinary community and mutual attention. It’s not such a surprise that Computers & Writing was saturated with polemics, gestures, and questions revolving heavily around generative AI. What are we, 2.5 years on since the November 2022 release of Chat GPT? 

Many have turned sharply to AI; love AI or hate AI, the polemic casts triumphalists and refusalists in sometimes-heated exchanges, though much of the time we are nevertheless grasping for context and honing definitions that eventually return us to earth.

Returning to Earth Wide Moth, I happened across an entry from a decade ago, “Overlooking,” the entire entry consisting of a quotation from Oliver Sacks’ book, A Leg to Stand On (1994). Here it is:

I thought of a dream related by Leibniz, in which he found himself at a great height overlooking the world–with provinces, towns, lakes, fields, villages, hamlets, all spread beneath him. If he wished to see a single person–a peasant tilling, an old woman washing clothes–he had only to direct and concentrate his gaze: “I needed no telescope except my attention.”

It helps to remember that dreams, though they are not the same as windows, shake up monadic tendencies. There was a time, too bad it has elapsed, when the digital opened up a comparable sense of possibility. Byung-Chul Han writes in Hyperculture about how the hypertextual world roils with “possibilit[ies] of choice” (43), its windowing refrains inviting inhabitants–hypercultural tourists–to experience the vastness of boundless opening. Yet, as Han continues, screens akin to windows, the possibilities of choice run their course, and the “Being-before-a-window” resembles “the old windowless monads” (45).

I understand why there is so much wrapped up in generative AI, its swift onset flaring as it has across every sector, informational and communicative, industrial and material. Academics are thrashing AI for its promises and pitfalls, separating out its big-tech-pushed inevitabilities and coming to terms with its consequences. Monadic routines, or call them turtles, lurk all the way down. Post-C&W 2025, though, I don’t harbor any particularly renewed perspective on AI, digitality, or the panacea of a World Brain, impressively omnipotent. Something about a cheaper (seeming) writing tutorbot who never sleeps. Something about assessment magic and administrators raising course caps because automation frees up your time. Is the hype gaining? Fading by now? Still-glinty gewgaw, I don’t know. But I have returned from the conference uneasy about the hype cycle, for in the event of swivel-necking toward AI, what are we turning away from, abandoning, suspending mid-gesture as unsuspecting mortals covered over by volcanic ash. Almost had that last slurp of ramen, almost gathered that last fleck of pollen, almost fetched today’s eggs from the nesting box, almost sighted something marvelous through the telescope, almost, almost, but for AI’s dooming and dominant gusts.

Wicked and Tame

This afternoon I finished re-reading Selber’s Multiliteracies for a Digital Age (2004), which we’ve picked up in ENGL516 for its tightly applicable yet expansive heuristic: functional, critical, and rhetorical literacies. For Tuesday we’re also looking at a complementary tier, network literacy. There’s not a lot I want to recount or highlight about the Multiliteracies book in general this time through, but one specific section drew me in more this time than when I first read the book a few years ago.

Under rhetorical literacy, the section on deliberation (152), Selber refers to a 1973 article by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Both professors at Cal-Berkeley, Rittel (Science of Design) and Webber (City Planning) differentiate between wicked problems and tame problems. Selber summarizes their position this way:

Although tame problems can be enormously complex, their complexities are largely technical in character, as are their solutions. In contrast, wicked problems are more intractable in that wicked problems do not have single solutions, only interim and imperfect solutions. Adjustments in tax rates, changes in school curricula, procedures to reduce crime–these problems can all be understood, addressed, and resolved in countless ways because there are elusive social dimensions that muddy the causal waters. (153)

Selber continues for another page or two to apply the wicked/tame distinction to challenges facing interface designers. That design planning and implementation is wicked, not tame, reminds us of the important limitations of technical rationalism for addressing situated social problems at a variety of scales (e.g., poverty to usability). I am inclined to accept the proposition that follows for Selber, which is that deliberation ensures a humanistic perspective in response to HCI challenges. Among questions that remains for me, I still wonder after tracking down and reading the Rittel and Webber article whether deliberation makes a wicked problem less wicked. In other words, what does deliberation do to the problem? Does it make it appear more tame? Does it blunt (or defer) its wickedness? I find it easy to value deliberation, but I wonder whether deliberation sometimes seduces us to conceiving of wicked problems as tame.

To enlarge the context–and with it these questions–a bit further, here is one point when Rittel and Webber compare tame and wicked problems:

The problems that scientists and engineers have usually focused upon are mostly “tame” or “benign” ones. As an example, consider a problem of mathematics, such
as solving an equation; or the task of an organic chemist in analyzing the structure
of some unknown compound; or that of the chessplayer attempting to accomplish
checkmate in five moves. For each the mission is clear. It is clear, in turn, whether or
not the problems have been solved.
Wicked problems, in contrast, have neither of these clarifying traits; and they
include nearly all public policy issues–whether the question concerns the location
of a freeway, the adjustment of a tax rate, the modification of school curricula, or the
confrontation of crime. (160)

They also say that wicked problems are notoriously difficult to “define” and “locate” (159). Perhaps this is what deliberation increases–our means of defining and locating problems, of sorting out “what distinguishes an observed condition from a desired condition” and “finding where in the complex causal networks the trouble really lies” (159). Curriculum, which both sources list, is a fine example. But so is just about any composing situation, isn’t it? Writing and rhetoric strike me as deeply, constantly, willingly entrenched in wicked problems, and perhaps only in reductive notions of techne and in formulism do we find disappointing instances of writing-understood-as-tame(d).

For a closely related thought-exercise, I scraped from the Rittel and Webber article the ten traits they assign to wicked problems. Selber draws correspondences between the first three and interface design problems, which profit “from a more rhetorical and less rational view of things” (154). Others on down the list might prove more difficult to align with interface design, specifically, but they do match up intriguingly with other problems encountered by writers.

  1. “There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem” (161)
  2. “Wicked problems have no stopping rule” (162)
  3. “Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-and-bad” (162)
  4. “There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem” (163)
  5. “Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly” (163)
  6. “Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan” (164)
  7. “Every wicked problem is essentially unique” (164)
  8. “Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem” (165)
  9. “The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution” (166)
  10. “The planner has no right to be wrong” (166)

The original article is worth a read, particularly for the way they elaborate each of these qualities of wicked problems. The degree of overlap between composing problems and wicked problems piles up, making this both a theory of problems/planning worth returning to and one I wished I’d noticed (and also deliberated) more fully a long time ago.

UL

  • How is the resolution to blog every day in 2011 going? Not too shabby. Not too shabby, at all.
  • Shabby or shabbily? Shab. Shabulous.
  • IHE today reports that distance ed critic David Noble died last week at the age of 65. I read an article or two by Noble in 2004, but I never did get around to picking up his book, Digital Diploma Mills. I should, though. In fact, it undoubtedly connects with work I’m doing lately (and in the semester to come) to shift EMU’s UWC into online consultation. Also, for that matter, stuff like power adjuncting (a topic of fascination for me more than anything else) and, too, the dissoi logoi that for all of our belly-aching about automaticity in higher ed (in the humanities, particularly), there are a whole lot of ways in which we could better adopt and apply automation to some aspects of our work, especially where long-term data-keeping is at issue. Anyway, I live in an Automation Alley county, surely indicative of something.
  • Winter semester begins Wednesday. I am teaching a Tuesday night grad class, ENGL516: Computers and Writing: Theory and Practice (the titular colonpede tempts me to add another segment: 011000010111011101100101011100110110111101101101011001010000110100001010).
  • That we meet on Tuesday the 11th for the first session leaves me no other choice than to assign two articles for the first class. Right? Right! I am mildly concerned the articles will be met with a chorus of “Shabulous!” Besides the grad class, I have a faculty consulting appointment in the UWC (mentioned that earlier) and then a course release carried over from last semester from an internal research grant. My plan is to make this the hardest working semester ever and actually get a couple, maybe three, of these two-thirds finished projects sent off by May.
  • Ph. flies back to Kansas City on Saturday, ending his month-long visit. I guess this can only mean I owe him a day snowboarding at Alpine Valley, probably tomorrow.
  • Will put together a slow-cooker lentil soup so that everybody has something hot and good to come home to. They might be thinking this tastes shabulous, but their mouths will be too full to say it.
  • Last thing: Weird about the fallen birds in Arkansas, right? I mean, 1,000 birds within one square mile? The question I can’t put down is to what extent this is rhetorical–a rhetorical happening, perhaps purely of nature’s precarious course. We don’t know a cause. But then! A school of fish were found belly up in the Arkansas River a few days later, and, according to one report, “Investigators said there is no connection between the dead fish and the dead birds.” No connection? If these are rare events whose cause(s) remain(s) unknown(s) and they are geographically proximate, why assert that they are disconnected? Even if it is too early to identify a causal connection, their coincidence does foist upon them at least a choral connection. Then again, what better than “no connection” and “this happens all the time” to suppress panic. (Reminds me of this entry on dropping paper messenger “birds” during wartime)

    Saw a clever tweet linking this curious event with taking Angy Birds too seriously. I’m inclined to relate it to Twitter, though, more along the lines of subjecting my own Twitter account to “lightning or high-altitude hail.” To be continued.

    More: a turn to labs for answers. Though still no speculation about zombie scarecrows.

Regan, “Type Normal Like the Rest of Us”

Regan, Alison. "’Type Normal Like the Rest of Us’: Writing, Power, and Homophobia in the Networked Composition Classroom." Computers and Composition 9.4
(Nov 1993): 11-23. <http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v10/10_4_html/10_4_2_Regan.html>

Continue reading →

George, “Taking Women Professors Seriously”

George, E. Laurie. "Taking Women Professors Seriously: Female Authority in the Computerized Classroom." Computers and Composition 7
(April 1990; Special issue): 45-52. <http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v7/7_spec_html/7_spec_3_George.html>

Continue reading →

Bolter, “Theory and Practice of New Media Studies”

Bolter, Jay David.
"Theory and Practice of New Media Studies." Eds. Gunnar Liestøl,, Andrew Morrison and Terje Rasmussen. Digital Media Revisited: Theoretical and Conceptual Innovations in Digital Domains. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. 15-34.

Continue reading →

Wysocki, “Opening New Media to Writing”

Wysocki, Anne.
"Opening New Media to Writing: Openings and Justifications."
Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding
the Teaching of Composition
. Wysocki et. al., eds. Logan: Utah State Univ. Press, 2004. 1-23.

Continue reading →