As a student in  ETEC 565B: METatheory¹ of the Master of Educational Technology² program at the University of British Columbia, I developed a five-slide presentation with speaker notes addressing the following topics: applying McLuhan’s tetrad to the pencil, representing the main ideas of actor-network theory, exploring how the pencil impacts us and what it ‘prescribes’ to us, identifying the differences between object vs. thing and matters of fact vs. matters of concern, and comparing and contrasting actor-network theory and media ecology.

Photo by @beautybyearth – Giphy

What if one day, today, right now, the pencil was to just disappear. The inexpensive, basic, erasable, writing utensil, the pencil. That are used by carpenters since graphite can be painted over or by artists who want to sign their work in a method that is nearly impossible to reproduce or mass produce. How many automatic responses from the pencil will disappear? What could be done with not a pencil in your hand?


Maybe the pen, or paint, or a word editor, or maybe even a scratching device may functionally take the place of a pencil, but the ‘invisible’ actions of the pencil would be lost.

As learning doesn’t exist in a vacuum (Suter, 2014) nor does the pencil. But most won’t see it that way, as they call the pencil an object and not a thing – an object, as Latour (2005) describes, designated as objective and independent. We will explore how the pencil is a thing – how the pencil is subjective, how the pencil is a matter of concern, and not of fact, how the pencil exists in our educational parliament of things. (A parliament since this educational network of things instills ‘laws’).

Writing utensils have been part of human media ecology for 25’000 years. Over time they have evolved making use of prevalent materials or stock to write on encouraging writing to be easier and easier and slowly displacing oral communication with written communication.

From the actual writing in stone to the impermanence of pencil, not only has writing utensils become more efficient, but they have become inexpensive, readily available, and versatile in all settings.

Is it a coincidence that the pencil was created amidst the Renaissance? A time of great social change, art, and ‘new’ thinking. A time where the printing press was invented that delivered democratization and popularization of knowledge through writing (WikiPedia, 2021a). More than just the popularization of knowledge and writing, there are some deeper points of overlap (if you stretch):

One. For science the increased value of observation pairs with the pencil – a simple method for record keeping
Two. Inductive reasoning – the non-certain and instead probable conclusion paired with the pencil – impermanence

Using McLuhan’s tetrad to analyze the effects and possibilities of the pencil, we find the following potential relations of the pencil.


Enhances
The pencil enhances the written form, enabling writing in nearly all environments (including underwater and the vacuum of space … actually in a vacuum though still part of a complex system). What may be ‘somewhat’ unique of the pencil compared to previous writing forms is the impermanence. Pencil can be erased, corrected, and rewritten with ease, unlike the pen.

Obsolesces
The pencil is part of a complex family of writing utensils. It, to a certain extent, replaces charcoal, however not in all art forms. The pencil also reduces the pen or more accurately pushes the pen to take upon the more ‘permanent’ form of writing. However, the inexpensiveness of the pencil may have had a greater effect of obsolescing the pen in times of need.

Retrieves
The pencil retrieves the stream of consciousness of thought and oral communication which may have been impeded due to the slower act and/or fear of permanence from writing with pen (and more dramatically, ‘hammering’ home the point, from writing in stone).

Reverses
The pencil enables writing, the communication of ideas, as valuable; though, it can flip writing from power to uselessness. When the time of permanence becomes no time at all, value also disappears. And, with the ease of writing, the value of each word diminishes (supply and demand), as is apparent when the sheer volume of work is too time-consuming to sift through.

(As an object, the pencil has many uses. It can be used as a skewer, as kindling, as a post to support a plant. Two can be used as chopsticks. A bajillion can make a house. Really, it’s endless.)
 
But the pencil as a ‘thing’ prescribes us humans to its bidding (Latour, 1992). Nearly every human has used the pencil to scratch it’s lead across a surface leaving behind an inscription – maybe writing or a doodle or working through mathematical problem sets. This is the pencil’s primary mandate: to create in 2D and implant ideas from a human’s head onto a surface. Even still better is when the inscriptions are not planned to be permanent, when they are a work-in-progress. Pencils allow for mistakes and reworking – pencil’s believe in a growth mindset. This, the pencil’s primary function is how educators delegate educating to the pencil: to provide an independent method of practice for performing thoughts and better yet an independent ability for reflection and iteration.


Now, the best way the pencil enslaves us mere humans is when it prescribes us to sharpen its dull point. Maybe the human is lazy and won’t sharpen it, continuing to write in fat blurs that slowly become indiscernible – defeating the pencil’s primary function. Or maybe the pencil’s point just broke right off then a human must do the pencil’s bidding to reinstate the pencil’s primary mandate.

Remember that the pencil doesn’t exist in a vacuum. All these non-humans and humans forces shape the pencil as much as the pencil shapes anything else (Latour, 199) – the pencil is just one actor of the educational network of things.
For example, certain surfaces ‘call’ to the pencil more than others. For most, the blank paper is what the pencil ‘wants’ most – a fresh start. The pencil is also ‘attracted’ to drafts or books to fill spaces between the lines or in the columns. But in other hands, such as the toddler’s, the pencil ‘desires’ every surface including walls, tables, and clothes as the pencil (or other actors such as the parents) have not had the time to train this little human on the pencils best functioning.

Both the theory of media ecology and actor-network theories see objects as complex – Postman (1992) sees every tool to be embedded with an ideological bias where technologies are not neutral. Similarly, Latour (1992), speaking of actor-network theory calls objects, ‘things’, of not being factual but being complex and sharing many different, at times contradictory, ‘facts’. For example, a pencil inscription is both permanent and impermanent, the pencil is both the means to an end and is the value of the process.
A pencil is indeed more than just a pencil, and both media ecology and actor-network theory encourage us to dive deeper.

Where media ecology and actor network theory start to diverge, is the perspective they take with regards to humans. Media ecology studies the effects on humans – where media is an extension of human senses (Strate & Lum, 2000). Media ecology may say that the pencil enhances less permanent thoughts.

Actor-network theory examines the reciprocity as well, of humans influencing and delegating to nonhumans. Actor network theory does not discriminate between non-humans and humans, as humans and non-humans share equal influence in an actor-network (Latour, 1992). Actor-network theory may come to a similar conclusion: that the pencil has been delegated to provide continual and evolving practice.


In a way, media ecology views tools as intrinsic to humans while actor-network theory views tools as extrinsic.

---

References

---

1. METatheory taught by Dr. Suzanne de Castell. https://blogs.ubc.ca/565d/
2. Master of Educational Technology. University of British Columbia. https://met.ubc.ca/