David Kolb argues that key elements of hypertext, nonlinearity and open-endedness in particular, pose significant obstacles for its applicability to the work of philosophy.

"The principal argument against web-writing in philosophy is straightforward: philosophy essentially involves argument, and argument essentially involves a beginning, middle, and end, so that a truly philosophical text needs a line. . . . Philosophy's line cannot be dissolved in the way some have dreamed of dissolving the narrative line. On this view hypertext would have to respect the line by making arguments the units of presentation and by maintaining some overall linear argumentative structure" (Kolb 326-327).

If philosophy is about a quest for the Truth, a Platonic form or idea, then perhaps the careful development of "the line" is of primary importance. As Kolb points out, if one does not retain linearity then philosophy is lost. "Hypertext appears at best an informational convenience, but its shapeless depths must not be allowed to weaken argumentative linearity, or philosophy will be reduced to rhetoric" (Kolb 325).

When the choice is between a clear line through an argument on one hand, and "shapeless depths" of nonlinear hypertext fragments in the form of Landow's lexia, it is difficult to imagine any instructor or author choosing to assign, encourage, or construct hypertext essays. But Kolb's title, "Socrates in the Labyrinth," is something of a misnomer since the picture of philosophy he paints has more in common with Plato's metaphysics than it does with the socratic method.

Kolb does acknowledge that the dialogic elements of Plato's work (what I read as clues to the socratic method) reveal the more open-ended elements of early western philosophy (325; 329). And he sets up this apparent chasm between philosophy and nonlinearity in order to conceive what it might mean to bridge the gap, suggesting that hypertext and the work of philosophy may not be incompatible.

Given that most of academic research writing does not pursue Platonic forms or a formal logic, it may be possible to loosen Kolb's emphasis on "the line" in any argument. Might there be multiple "lines" in an essay? What of an essay that entertains a number of interesting ideas, perhaps without reaching clear conclusions about any of them, along the path to something larger? If academic texts can do these things, then hypertext might be an appropriate mode for (at least some) research writing.

Copyright © Enculturation 2002

Navigate Enculturation:
Home | Contents 4:2 | Editors | Issues
About | Submissions | Subscribe | Copyright | Review | Links