Dinosaurs can put down their pens
Here are some signs that you’re a dinosaur:
1) You’re reading this on newsprint.
2) You still think “Happy Days” was a great show.
3) You believe the slow death of handwriting is a sign that civilization as we know it is doomed.
I can easily count myself among the dinosaurs of the world, and I have plenty of other evidence to attest to this. I learned to type on a manual typewriter, took sewing and cooking classes in middle school, and still take copious notes using pen and paper.
But I am not among those who hold with No. 3 above. The way I see it, the raging controversy over the steady decline of penmanship taught in our schools is overblown, and the most ardent defenders of handwriting could do more good if they directed their passions toward other educational failings.
Now I know I’m not alone, as a new book that’s getting a lot of attention seeks to calm the storm and let us know that the de-emphasis of handwriting isn’t as terrible a development as some fear.
And by the way, when I refer to this as a “raging controversy,” I’m not kidding. As Anne Trubek notes in “The History and Uncertain Future of Handwriting,” it was a tendentious topic as far back as 1528, when the Dutch scholar Erasmus wrote, “I never saw a hotter argument on so unexciting a subject.”
That statement rings true today, as debates over cursive writing are waged in state legislatures across the country. The recent squabble has been stoked by the introduction of Common Core educational standards, which don’t include a requirement for the teaching of cursive writing and seem to favor electronic keyboards rather than handwriting.
The backlash spawned an effort to protect handwriting. Today, many states, California included, have cursive writing requirements in their educational standards.
Yet worries continue that as handwriting is driven to obsolescence in our technology-enabled world, all manner of negative effects will proliferate, including a lack of fine motor skills, decreased neurological development, and a dearth of romanticism. I even read an editorial recently that championed the theory that an absence of handwriting instruction could lead to impulse-control problems in children.
As Trubek, an Oberlin College English professor, writes in the introduction to her well-researched book, “the prospect of not teaching students handwriting strikes many as unimaginable.”
She persuasively argues that our fixation with writing by hand is driven more by emotion than evidence, as it is perceived to be inextricably linked to our history, core values and individual identities.
Innovations, cultural shifts and changing technologies have always been greeted with trepidation, she notes: In Ancient Greece, Socrates thought the written word would lead to a dumbing-down of society by discouraging memorization and critical thinking, and 16th-century monks decried the invention of the printing press.
Trubek reminds us, however, that with every new development, while some qualities may be lost, much can sometimes be gained. And so it will likely be as society becomes increasingly digitized. Older folks — the aforementioned dinosaurs — might fret over how little our mobile device-addicted kids write by hand.
“But if the goal of public education is to prepare students to become successful, employable adults, typing is unarguably more useful than handwriting,” Trubek wrote in a recent New York Times Op-Ed piece. “There are few instances in which handwriting is a necessity, and there will be even fewer by the time today’s second graders graduate.”
Indeed, she contends, children’s mastery of keyboarding at ever-younger ages allows them to focus on higher-order cognitive functions, such as rhetorical structure and word choice. Today’s kids may become better and more prolific writers, and those with certain learning disabilities will benefit. Moreover, the inherent bias toward awarding better grades to those with neater penmanship will disappear.
“The kids will be all right,” Trubek assures us.
Predictably, Trubek’s book and the attendant publicity have spawned a rash of opposing-view editorials, letters and commentaries. Although her critics are largely thoughtful and can cite lots of brain-based research in their defense of handwriting, I have certainly noticed the inclination noted by Trubek toward more visceral arguments.
“I feel sorry for any person who has never had the pleasure of receiving a beautifully crafted or perhaps clumsily handwritten letter in cursive writing that reflects time, effort and the personality of the writer,” one letter writer stated.
Another lovingly recalled her husband’s hand-written marriage proposal decades ago. Yet another wondered how future generations would be able to sign checks. I assume the latter wasn’t intended to be sarcastic, despite the blindingly obvious inevitability that checks will die out long before handwriting disappears.
I can’t deny the appeal of these handwriting admirers’ poignant devotion to the craft, nor can I ignore the reality that writing by hand does have many well-demonstrated merits. Neither does Trubek.
But if I may presume to sum up her point, very roughly, it is that things change, progress often comes with a cost, and our nostalgia for a time past shouldn’t preclude us from appreciating the real benefits that can be attained through new developments.
Fellow dinosaurs, don’t despair. Handwriting might be a dying art. But we’ll always have “Happy Days” reruns.
--
PATRICE APODACA is a former Newport-Mesa public school parent and former Los Angeles Times staff writer. She lives in Newport Beach.
