The non-phonetic moment in writing challenges the metaphysic of the proper (self-possession). It is chiefly concerned with speaking pictures. We are still into logocentrism as we are into philophemes of sight and voices. This realization is in indeed important because what we call Big Data Analytics desemiotizes, squeezes, and hollows out speaking pictures and converts them as figures of numbers which are then resemiotized producing intimate knowledge of each of us who have our presence in the social network sites. This is why education has to equip us to resist and teach us to transgress the invasion of big data analytics into the intimacy of our life. This means grammatology as a pedagogy opens us to the this speaking pictures (new alphabets) and numeric figures of information (big data analytics) and thus enable to decipher other forms of writings that dominates the world of electracy.
This attention to the dephonetization depictographfiction and firgurative or numbergraphification is important to understand how information Data Analytics is used to allure and enslave us. In this grammatology as a pedagogy deconstructs phonetic writings, picto-ideogahic writings, number picto- graphic as well as number-graphic writings. This squeezes out of all shades of logocentric traces from our writings. This means we deconstruct both semiotic and asemantic forms of writing and we are launched from the hermeneutic, semiotic forms of writing to dramatic modes of writings. We have to critically examine the critical dramatic or the performance aspect of the non-phonetic writings in the web. The dramatic writings examine the performative aspects of non- phonetic and non-discursive shades of meanings.
With the sphere of dramatic modes of writing, we have the challenge to think fetish. It works as substitute or displacement on which we invest emotive energy and think that it is directed to the real. Fetishizing is not merely a pictogram it is an emotive form of writing. In this context, we have to consider, what Melanie Kline calls partial object. An infant for instance relates to the feeding breast of the mother by substituting the nipple for her mother. We invest on these partial objects and they too emanate pleasure to us. This is a form of writing and being written. Jacques Lacan posits the role of object petit a as the source of desire. These are forms of writings that produce a return of the gaze. Somehow they bring about a sense of void/ sense of loss and trigger a psycho –dynamism of recovery. These loss-recovery dynamisms are other forms of non-phonetic writings.
We can find several complex ecologies in the internet. They have power over us and often control and organize our ways of being human in the world. They open to us the world of possibilities. They produce in us an imperative to seek fulfillment of our desire. In this context, we can also think of forms of identifications or ego-extensions that are also other forms of writing and being written. These are producing autographies. We are written as we write. All forms of our writings carry our signature. We tried to call these forms of writings as ecologies of writings because they are complex ways of writing and be written about. This may indicate that there is an eco-logic at work in this kinds of complex non-phonetic writings. They can produce de-motivating (signify oneself as insignificant) as well as highly motivating response in us. Grammatology as a pedagogy therefore can open us to the way these ecologies of non-phonetic writings work and produce us.
Electracy being a world of post-literacy requires grammatology as pedagogy to understand and respond to non-phonetic writings. We need logic of juxtaposition in order to understand and decode the world of electracy. But to respond we need a rebellious logic or transgressive logic that will enable us to resist the lures of the world of electracy. This does not mean everything the internet is bad. What we need is critical approach that will enable us to embrace what is good and right and reject that which is harming our ways of being in the world. Therefore, teaching to transgress means not reproduction of the status quo of the old. It is transgressing the old and working to bring about transformation and innovation.
If we employ grammatology as a pedagogy, we can bring about innovation and transformation. It will deconstruct the scene of teaching in our educational institutions which has largely become a monologue. The teacher thinks that he/she is the master of knowledge which he can only repeat rather than produce. This means teacher operates from extrinsic location from the scene of education. This eccentricity to scene of education becomes the legitimacy of the magisterial authority of the teacher. Against this traditional topology of education, grammatology proposes to turn the educational scene into a learning space rather than a teaching space. This means it blurs the boundaries between teachers and students. This means grammatology challenges us to de-semiotizes or destructralizes the reigning scene of education and challenges us to build learning communities and not passive, silenced, and domesticated community.
Therefore, what we need is Heideggerian mode of Alethia ( revelation) and rather than the reigning Platonic and Aristotelian edaeuquatio (correspondence ) that has taken hold of the educational scene. The mode of Alethia gives us a heuristic sense of discovery and is therefore not to be seen as one that which is slowly revealing what we may call a thing in itself. We therefore have the challenge to embrace this new grammatology of the classroom. The challenge therefore boils down to both the teacher and students to produce (autograph) themselves. This rethinking of the scene of education is actually a rethinking of what Derrida calls spacing. In fact, grammatology as a pedagogy takes us to a shifts in the operation of education as a domain of representation ( repetition) to the education as a domain of production/ invention . Here the concern is not so much in the production of truth as representation of some essence ( logocentrism) but the production of effects. This is an exercise of heterology that avoids the closure at a singularized point or destination. Such a production of truth or knowledge does not closes put stays into what we may call dynamic openness.
