Printed Animals

Sean Morey

Sean Morey is an Assistant Professor of English at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville where he teaches writing and digital media in the Department of English. His research focuses on developing theories of writing at the intersections of rhetoric, digital media, and technology, primarily through the lens of electracy. He is the author of Rhetorical Delivery and Digital Technologies (Routledge, 2016), The New Media Writer (Fountainhead Press, 2014), and The Digital Writer (Fountainhead Press, 2017). With Sidney I. Dobrin, he co-edited the collection Ecosee: Image, Rhetoric, Nature (SUNY Press, 2009), and with John Tinnell, co-edited Augmented Reality: Innovative Perspectives across Art, Industry, and Academia (Parlor Press, 2017).



Creator's Statement

As digital technologies continue to emerge, most scholarship about digital writing, digital culture, and the digital humanities focuses on changes in human communication and behavior. This focus usually attends to only human animals, neglecting how the relationships between human and nonhuman animal might change as well.

This video project explores how writing technologies change the ways in which humans understand and interact with the natural world, and how emerging writing technologies provide new modes through which to write nature, affecting how humans relate to natural spaces and nonhuman animals. As Sidney I. Dobrin and Christian R. Weisser discuss in Natural Discourse, there is no nature; nature is constructed through language. Each language exists within a larger apparatus, made up of not only the technology through which language and communication occur, but also the institutions that develop the primary uses for language, as well as the individual and collective identities that emerge from this interaction.

Grammatologically, we know that as humans change how they communicate, they also change how they relate to their worlds. As grammatologists such as Walter Ong, Eric Havelock, and Gregory L. Ulmer have argued, any change in writing apparatus usually leads to significant changes in how a culture interacts with its environment. Oral language allowed humans to provide the elements of the world with individual names and to mythologize the world in poetry and other oral mnemonic devices, while alphabetic writing allowed nature to be recorded, studied, codified, and eventually analyzed, leading to the natural sciences.

The sciences became further refined along with writing technologies, in turn further refining writing technologies, and the two became modern together. As Derek J. de Solla Price argues “If science helped give birth to the printed book, it was clearly the printed book that sent science from its medieval habits straight into the boiling scientific revolution” (102). Science helped to create the printed book, and the printed book produced a more exact, methodical science: “Typography made possible a new level of standardization of textual material, which in turn promoted greater accuracy” (Logan 191).

A language apparatus changes human identity, but it changes animal identity as well. While humans gained a sense of selfhood from the technology of writing, and print helped found the first nation state in Spain, animal identities grew more precise as well, locked more rigidly in space along with blocks of type.

As Elizabeth L. Eisenstein explains, botanists in the mid-sixteenth century competed to collect the latest specimens coming out of India, the New World, and other new locations. This new knowledge created new uncertainties about the current state of nature, and even more surveys and scientific descriptions were produced, with “the accumulation of more data making necessary more refined classification, and so on—ad infinitum” (84). Print allowed for a new level of feedback on these descriptions and data, further refining what nature was to be (Eisenstein 84-85).

As animals were collected, scrutinized, described, systematized, taxonomized, categorized, and eventually created, their identities drifted from the mythological associations provided by oral stories. Each animal became printed, locked rigidly in place, conceptually as well as through the words that came to represent those animals. Each animal’s history was no longer individual, but representative of its class, for sacrificing one member of a species was justified because it taught us about all members of its species. An animal was not valued for its individuality (if it ever was, even within orality), but for its relation to a group, its wolfness, or its sharkness. As Ong might note, these are abstract animals, no longer close to the human lifeworld, no longer as situated as animals might have been for oral cultures (48-49).

Despite the proliferation of digital technologies, animals are still printed. Approaches to understanding animals mostly remain scientific, and therefore alphabetic. Even though animals have now mostly been differentiated and identified by DNA, the premise of DNA depends on the legacy and logic of print, of isolation, of finding a precise topos for each animal. Ecology, a nascent scientific field, has attempted to put these pieces together again, but perhaps like Humpty Dumpty, they were never meant to be taken apart.

My approach here does not mean to denigrate the sciences, only to point out that while the scientific method can produce certain types of knowledge, or while the natural sciences can tell us how the natural world functions, the sciences alone cannot tell us what to do about natural problems that connect with social issues, such as climate change, environmental racism, animal rights, and a host of other issues that we face. While the scientific method can explain to us the state of the planet, and at what rate it might be changing, this method is ill-suited for understanding how physical changes will in turn change the cultural fabric of our societies, and thereby ill-suited for making decisions that must account for cultural contexts.

What is the alternative? As scientific information continually fails to convince Americans about potential environmental dangers, conversations have shifted, albeit slowly, toward the Humanities. Speaking about climate change, novelist Amitav Ghosh argues that “The climate crisis is a crisis of culture and thus of imagination.” Ghosh is not the first to stress the importance and promise that imagination has for solving our problems. Lawrence Buell, a scholar of environmental literature, has long promoted imagination as the pivotal human faculty for contending with environmental issues; Albert Einstein has stated that “Imagination is more important than knowledge”; the late computer scientist Mark Weiser reasoned that the Humanities must lead the way in developing the computer of the future. We can repurpose these claims to argue that we must turn to the Humanities for solutions to natural problems, not only the sciences.

Currently, as Ulmer argues, we are undergoing another language shift: from literacy to electracy, fostered by the invention of emerging digital technologies. Digital writing platforms, from the Internet to imaging software to mixed reality applications, offer new modes of writing that are not wholly alphabetic, nor wholly image-based, but a combination of modes, often situated in specific places. So far, the methods of electracy resemble the arts more than the sciences, opening new opportunities to imagine animals anew. Just as science is a method, so is imagination and creativity, and electracy offers an apparatus through which to begin developing and employing creative faculties to create more than just printed animals. The alternative, then, is not to invent a new chimera via oral mythologies, nor biological chimeras via scientific techniques, but to invent new approaches to animals that can help spur our imaginations about what an electrate animal might be, and how those animals might be better off than they are now.

Works Consulted

“Animals in a Cage.” Pexels Videos,

Aptara Inc. “Campbell's Biology Textbook.” YouTube, 17 June 2014,

BBC Earth. “Cute Affectionate Monkeys - Lands of the Monsoon - BBC.” YouTube, 17 May 2015,

BBC News. “Chauvet Cave: Preserving Prehistoric Art - BBC News.” YouTube, 24 April 2015,

The Beginners Bible. “The First Five Episodes - The Beginners Bible.” YouTube, 18 February 2016,

“Cattle Farm.” Pexels Videos,

“Chicken Recipe Video.” Pexels Videos,

“Chicken Searching for Food.” Pexels Videos,

CinemaExpert. “Cows Eating Grass Stock Video.” Videezy,

Clear Bench Co. “Video Ad - Monkey on Computer.” YouTube, 10 March 2017,

“Curious Little Bird Looking at Camera.” Pexels Videos,

de Solla Price, Derek J. “The Book as a Scientific Instrument.” Review of Peter Apianus und sein Astronomicum Caesareum, by Peter Apianus. Science, New Series, 158 (3797), 6 Oct. 1967, 102–104.

Divemaster. “School of Barracuda.” Videvo,

Dobrin, Sidney I. and Christian R. Weisser. Natural Discourse: Toward Ecocomposition. State University of New York Press, 2002.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth. L. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Farah, Marilyn. “Alphabet Phénicien (the Phoenician Alphabet).” YouTube, 10 July 2012,

“Flock of Birds in the Sea.” Pexels Videos,

Fricke, Ron, director. Baraka. Magidson Films, 1992.

Ghosh, Amitav. “Imagining Climate Change.” To the Best of Our Knowledge, 12 August 2017,

Huyett, Sabrina. “How a Gutenberg Printing Press Works.” YouTube, 3 March 2014,

InformOverload. “Monkey Suing Photographer.” YouTube, 14 July 2017,

Kumar, Pradeep. “Funny Monkey on Computer.” YouTube, 10 August 2016,

Late Night with Seth Myers. “Amy Poehler and Seth Reunite for a New Really!?!” YouTube, 24 June 2015,

Lines, William J. Open Air: Essays. New Holland, 2001.

“Lions at the Wild.” Pexels Videos,

List25. “25 Most Legendary Creatures from Greek Mythology.” YouTube, 5 June 2013,

LiveScience. “Great White Shark Caught, Tagged, Released For Science | Raw Video.” YouTube, 12 May 2015,

Logan, Rober K. The Alphabet Effect: A Media Ecology Understanding of the Making of Western Civilization. Hampton Press, 2004.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “The History of Making Books: Build a Printing Press at MIT.” YouTube, 25 May 2016,

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. MIT Press, 1994.

MediaGL. “Dog Sledding in Greenland.” Mazwai,

Mywebcowtube. “Educational Movie/Documentary of 1960's - This is Marshall McLuhan: The Medium is the Message.” YouTube, 23 May 2016,

National Museum of American History. “Founding Fragments - OncoMouse.” YouTube, 11 April 2014,

NativLang. “The Day the Greeks Invented Vowels - History of Writing Systems #8 (The Alphabet).” YouTube, 2 October 2015,

Nerdist. “Chicken Lady - The Kids in the Hall.” YouTube, 13 April 2012,

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy. Routledge, 2002.

PC III. “It Feels Good (to Feel Good Again).” Ad Astra, Vol. 2, Pipe Choir Music,

“Person Going through a Bible.” Pexels Videos,

PG. “Monkey Uses iPhone.” YouTube, 22 July 2011,

“Pigeons on the Ground.” Pexels Videos,

Rossen, Robert, director. Alexander the Great. MGM, 1956.

Sappi Tube. “The Printing Process - Sheet Offset Press - English.” YouTube, 27 May 2013,

Sarton, George. “The Scientific Literature Transmitted through the Incunabula.” Osiris, vol. 5, 1938, pp. 41-123+125-245.

Soundfxlibrary. “Typewriter Sound Effect.” YouTube, 4 September 2014,

Stone, Oliver, director. Alexander. Warner Bros., 2004.

“Sunrise Drone Video.” Pexels Videos,

TED-Ed. “Plato’s Best (and Worst) Ideas - Wisecrack.” YouTube, 25 October 2016,

Van Der Gaag. “Autumn by the Lake.” Mazwai,

Van Eekhout, Lodewijk. “Wiffling Grayleg Goose.” Mazwai,

Videezy. “A Herd of Sheep.” Videezy,

“Video Inside a Library.” Pexels Videos,

“Video of a Creepy Animal.” Pexels Videos,

Videvo. “DNA Strand Rotate Loop with Alpha Matte.” Videvo,

Vox. “How a Dictionary Writer Defines English.” YouTube, 14 March 2017,

Weir, Peter, director. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Twentieth Century Fox, 2003.

Wildlife Conservation Society. “Chattering Black-crested Macaque | WCS Indonesia.” YouTube, 27 May 2016,

Yan, Holly. “PETA Suit Claims Monkey Holds Copyright to Famous Selfie.” CNN, 23 Sept. 2015. CNN,

The Young Turks. “PETA Sues Over Monkey Selfies.” YouTube, 7 January 2016,

Yourgenome. “DNA Sequencing - 3D.” YouTube, 28 September 2016,