I’m reading James Inman’s Computers and Writing. He says that apparatus theory has been problematized as too essentialist. Here’s the section:

Ulmer “means [electracy] to represent the state of meaning-making at the time that its central apparatus is electronic media. I am not sure that we can ever reach electracy, and scholars have certainly problematized apparatus theory as being too essentialist. However electracy does provide an important possible trajectory for meaning-making” (161).

If I insert “tool” in place of “apparatus” I can understand, sort of, what he’s saying, but I think doing so risks over simplifying the issue. Can anyone shed a little bit of light for me on apparatus theory?