Surprisingly, I actually liked the blog assignment. Once I got the hang of meeting the requirements while still saying what I wanted to say, it became a great place to work through my thoughts. Much of the assignments in my classes this last year of school have been structured this way. They have in the form of "think pieces" or daily response papers that require the student to reflect on class material, working through it using critical thinking and personal experience. This has been a great way to learn. Rather than taking in huge amounts of material and then regurgitating it back on test days, you actually get a chance to analyze and reflect on the information, formulating and establishing thoughts that are your own. In a sense, you get to evolve as a person with regard to ways of thinking, rather than just getting good at "shipping and receiving" information. I think this type of learning gets us closer to the type of education that Postman talks about in his final chapter--putting together an understanding of something that is your own without regard for "marketable skills."
Also, I have enjoyed expressing myself to others. Rather than simply handing in a paper and waiting for a grade from my professor, I have been able to write something designed to be read by several other people. From this, I get responses from different people from different perspectives and backgrounds. To me, this process is a crucial part of self-development and education.
The main thing this course has contributed to my self-development is awareness--cyber-awareness so to speak. I have been able to take an "outside looking in" perspective on CMC and my place within it. I have also been able to evaluate how people communicate differently in cyberspace than in face to face communication. And of course, I have become aware of the significant advantages and disadvantages of CMC. In fact, this awareness led me to cancel my facebook account last week. I realized many things about facebook recently. Obviously, facebook takes up too much of people's time. Some people spend every waking hour on it. For most, it is just a pacifier or a go-to place during down time. More importantly though, I think the convenience of facebook has taken certain experiences away from us. Facebook seems to combine the family reunion, the high school reunion, interactions between "friends" and makes them less meaningful by saturating the experience. Facebook makes being a friend or family member too easy. I have more reasoning behind my abandonment of the facebook ship but I'll leave it at that for now. What does everyone else think of facebook now?
One thing I did not like about this course was the structure of the discussion (or rather, the need for such structure). What I mean to say is, I wish we could have been a bit more involved and legitimate in our participation. Responses seemed not only basic but last minute. I'm guilty as well.
One thing I would certainly change is the requirement of the Wood and Smith text. It's outdated. As I sit here thinking about its contents, I can't think of anything substantial that I got from that book. Whatever information was actually necessary was not presented well enough. The book seems to simply mention all that was considered pertinent to online communication at the time of its writing. Technopoly however, is a keeper. Even though Postman goes a little over the top in getting his point across, he provokes some purposeful thought about technology and society as a whole.
Thank you everyone for responding to my posts and helping me learn. I hope you do well in your summer classes and still have some time left for yourselves this summer. I know I'm hurting for a break (this is my tenth term in a row without one).
Angkor Wat at Dawn
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
take this job and shove it!
I had some trouble coming up with an experience on the internet that was of any significance. I don't really communicate via the internet very often (compared to most people, that is). I take an online class occasionally, which requires a ton of online correspondence, but haven't had any notable issues. I make a smartass comment on facebook now and then, which receives mixed responses--nothing too serious. Other than that, I communicate mostly by phone or in person.
This got me thinking though. In the past few weeks I've been getting restless about not working and started job hunting a bit prematurely. I say it's premature because I still have four more classes to take before I graduate. Most of the jobs I have been applying for though don't necessarily require a degree; it's preferred but not required. This job hunt is relevant because the entire application process is done online. Resumes and cover letters are sent to human resources or to an individual via email. Follow-up correspondence is usually done only by email. And larger companies often have an online application system in addition to the usual resume and cover letter. Long story short, I have applied for several jobs and have spoken to no one, either in person or on the phone. And I am still jobless of course. Not to worry though. As I said, it's really too soon for a job, but if the right one came along I would certainly take it.
This experience of everything to do with my potential employment being handled online and impersonally is quite strange to me. And, in an attempt to tie this to the assignment, has been detrimental to potentially being hired. As I've mentioned before, I have been in construction since I was sixteen and almost every job I've gotten by introducing myself to the boss, giving him a brief summary of my qualifications, and asking for a job. When I began working for myself I did the same thing when asking builders for the opportunity to bid work. I ALWAYS had work. Recently, I haven't even gotten the chance to interview. Now, I realize that the economy is awful, especially in Central Oregon, and the positions I have applied for lately have been inundated with applicants. But really, not even an interview? One company--a large one with an online application system--didn't even look at my application personally before rejecting it. The computer system analyzed it for key words and qualifications and rejected it within the hour.
So what's the problem? Why do my qualifications not have the same effect when presented in text that they do when presented in person? Or, is it that I am really not qualified? I think it is probably both. I have come from a field which values applied skills that cannot be evaluated on paper, but rather, in the actual work itself. In other words, one must prove themselves through actual product of skill rather than a textual claim of such skills. I think this has caused me to place too little importance on, or maybe too little understanding of, how I look on paper, thus hindering my chances of success in this new textual world I am attempting to enter. Also, most of my experience IS in the construction field and NOT in the field I am applying for. Part of what I am fighting though, is the autonomous management techniques that Postman talks about in the latter half of chapter eight. On page 140, he writes: "Grading provides an "objective measure of human performance and creates the unshakable illusion that accurate calculations can be made of worthiness. The human being becomes, to use Michel Foucault's phrase, 'a calculable person.'" In this online and impersonal system of applying for a job, I feel like I am being calculated or graded not on my abilities or potential, but rather, on a piece of paper designed to summarize or give someone an idea of those qualities. And, in the larger companies, the person "grading" my paper is not even the person for whom I would work for. They might even be in a human resources department in another state or not even a person at all. My paper worth might be calculated by a software system. I think my experience is evidence to back up what Postman is concerned with--that systems, or techniques, of management often control and determine what happens. Everything in our society has either gotten too big or too efficient to allow for personal interaction and evaluation.
Now, I realize I am being a bit dramatic about the whole thing and am probably reacting to a blow to my ego, but this experience has opened my eyes to the systems in place in our society and has also prompted me to consider which type of world I want to participate in. It doesn't really matter though how I choose to live or what I choose to value. Every position that I applied for will be filled by someone via whatever technique is implemented. The system will go on without me. If I don't conform, will I have to work for myself forever? Maybe I should just focus on actually graduating first and then worry about it.
This got me thinking though. In the past few weeks I've been getting restless about not working and started job hunting a bit prematurely. I say it's premature because I still have four more classes to take before I graduate. Most of the jobs I have been applying for though don't necessarily require a degree; it's preferred but not required. This job hunt is relevant because the entire application process is done online. Resumes and cover letters are sent to human resources or to an individual via email. Follow-up correspondence is usually done only by email. And larger companies often have an online application system in addition to the usual resume and cover letter. Long story short, I have applied for several jobs and have spoken to no one, either in person or on the phone. And I am still jobless of course. Not to worry though. As I said, it's really too soon for a job, but if the right one came along I would certainly take it.
This experience of everything to do with my potential employment being handled online and impersonally is quite strange to me. And, in an attempt to tie this to the assignment, has been detrimental to potentially being hired. As I've mentioned before, I have been in construction since I was sixteen and almost every job I've gotten by introducing myself to the boss, giving him a brief summary of my qualifications, and asking for a job. When I began working for myself I did the same thing when asking builders for the opportunity to bid work. I ALWAYS had work. Recently, I haven't even gotten the chance to interview. Now, I realize that the economy is awful, especially in Central Oregon, and the positions I have applied for lately have been inundated with applicants. But really, not even an interview? One company--a large one with an online application system--didn't even look at my application personally before rejecting it. The computer system analyzed it for key words and qualifications and rejected it within the hour.
So what's the problem? Why do my qualifications not have the same effect when presented in text that they do when presented in person? Or, is it that I am really not qualified? I think it is probably both. I have come from a field which values applied skills that cannot be evaluated on paper, but rather, in the actual work itself. In other words, one must prove themselves through actual product of skill rather than a textual claim of such skills. I think this has caused me to place too little importance on, or maybe too little understanding of, how I look on paper, thus hindering my chances of success in this new textual world I am attempting to enter. Also, most of my experience IS in the construction field and NOT in the field I am applying for. Part of what I am fighting though, is the autonomous management techniques that Postman talks about in the latter half of chapter eight. On page 140, he writes: "Grading provides an "objective measure of human performance and creates the unshakable illusion that accurate calculations can be made of worthiness. The human being becomes, to use Michel Foucault's phrase, 'a calculable person.'" In this online and impersonal system of applying for a job, I feel like I am being calculated or graded not on my abilities or potential, but rather, on a piece of paper designed to summarize or give someone an idea of those qualities. And, in the larger companies, the person "grading" my paper is not even the person for whom I would work for. They might even be in a human resources department in another state or not even a person at all. My paper worth might be calculated by a software system. I think my experience is evidence to back up what Postman is concerned with--that systems, or techniques, of management often control and determine what happens. Everything in our society has either gotten too big or too efficient to allow for personal interaction and evaluation.
Now, I realize I am being a bit dramatic about the whole thing and am probably reacting to a blow to my ego, but this experience has opened my eyes to the systems in place in our society and has also prompted me to consider which type of world I want to participate in. It doesn't really matter though how I choose to live or what I choose to value. Every position that I applied for will be filled by someone via whatever technique is implemented. The system will go on without me. If I don't conform, will I have to work for myself forever? Maybe I should just focus on actually graduating first and then worry about it.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Mind The Gap (the generational one)
I had to interview my wife for the 18-35 generation, not because she only has a couple of years left in that age range and not just out of convenience (as she is usually right downstairs). It is because she is always on her computer. My wife has been a graphic designer for ten years now and has two small businesses related to that trade. One of those businesses designs and prints things like advertisements and customized greeting cards for corporations (GM, Zurich, Freightliner, even Halliburton--she'll do anything for a buck). That business is almost completely online. Orders are done mostly online, proofs are sent online, orders are sent to the printer online, and most other correspondence is done via email. Since that business is seasonal and quite slow in general these days, she does freelance work for a few steady local clients. Almost all of that information is sent via the internet as well. Once in a while a product example will come in the regular mail. Her third job (yes, she has three) is real estate broker. She is fairly new to the field so she has to do a lot of advertising. She has constructed a monthly newsletter which she sends through Constant Contact, a service that allows you to track who is actually opening the email and who is actually clicking the links within it. Also, she does all of her property searches, comparative market analyses, and general correspondence via the internet. I realize this is the long version of what my wife does but it illustrates just how much she uses the internet. She is obviously very comfortable communicating in the internet by now, but she is very careful with what she sends and spends a lot of time proofing what she writes, not just for accuracy but to make sure that the message will not be misinterpreted. She says this is especially true with new clients with whom she hasn't had much correspondence with. Overall, my wife, while she says she doesn't have an infatuation with technology and the internet, says she is grateful for it. The internet has allowed her to have a lucrative business (or three) that she enjoys, and all from the comfort of home. She doesn't have to get up at 6 am to get ready for work. She doesn't have to get dressed up and commute to an office. In all, the internet has allowed her to create her own preferred lifestyle.
For the 36-60 generation, I interviewed my mom. She has been a nurse for the last twenty years, and for the last ten she has wandered around the U.S. taking different temporary travel positions. Other than a few rental properties in Northeastern Oregon, she is footloose. She says she uses the internet mostly to check her bank accounts to make sure that rents are being deposited, her paychecks are being deposited, and to check things out at her next destination. She has recently opened a facebook account but she says it's not for her. She says she doesn't like the expectation that she communicate with everyone all the time and she doesn't feel comfortable posting things for everyone to see. She would rather just call someone if she wants to talk to them. In general, my mom likes the convenience of the internet but has no interest in being glued to a computer all day.
Lastly, I interviewed my father in law, as he has recently purchased his first real computer. I say real because he had one for years at his jewelry store but never learned how to use it. He did all of his bookkeeping and kept track of all his records on paper ledgers. He might as well have used the computer and saved the paper because he still managed to screw it all up. He's retired now though and doesn't have to worry about that anymore. Anyway, my wife has him set up with a nice Mac laptop and is slowly teaching him how to do different things. He can now communicate with his family and old friends through email, check his bank account (to make sure Obama isn't shorting him on his social security check to pay for his evil socialist agenda, of course), and download old music. Soon, my wife is going to show him how to burn CDs. My father in law says the internet has made his life worse in that it is just one more thing to deal with. He says he sees its importance and its usefulness but hates that he is now expected to be a part of it. He would rather call his friends and family, go directly to the bank to check on things, and browse the music store for his music. But now it isn't normal to do things the "old-fashioned way." Reluctantly, I have to agree with him in certain ways.
In analyzing the three generations together, I think we can see a definite set of trends: younger people are highly entrenched in the internet for work and daily functioning; middle-aged people rely on it as well but resist at least some of it; and crusty folk like the entertaining aspects but remain somewhat leery and fearful. I'm blatantly generalizing of course, and am pulling from observations outside my three interviews, but, in general, this is what I see. I think Postman comes closest to explaining this trend when he writes about the function of language in society. On page 123 and 124, he writes, "We live deep within the boundaries of our linguistic assumptions and have little sense of how the world looks to those who speak a vastly different tongue. We tend to assume that everyone sees the world in the same way, irrespective of differences in language." I think this has to do with not only different languages but within languages themselves. And, as language is intertwined with our ways of thinking and being, ideologies and values, through it we may begin to understand differences in generational cultures within the greater culture. What I'm trying to say, with some difficulty, is that technology is a part of our language and changes language over time. More specifically, different generations speak different languages--different things make sense to different generations. The youngest people have grown up with computers, the internet, and everything that goes along with. In essence, it is a part of their ways of knowing and being--their language. This becomes less so as people get older.
For the 36-60 generation, I interviewed my mom. She has been a nurse for the last twenty years, and for the last ten she has wandered around the U.S. taking different temporary travel positions. Other than a few rental properties in Northeastern Oregon, she is footloose. She says she uses the internet mostly to check her bank accounts to make sure that rents are being deposited, her paychecks are being deposited, and to check things out at her next destination. She has recently opened a facebook account but she says it's not for her. She says she doesn't like the expectation that she communicate with everyone all the time and she doesn't feel comfortable posting things for everyone to see. She would rather just call someone if she wants to talk to them. In general, my mom likes the convenience of the internet but has no interest in being glued to a computer all day.
Lastly, I interviewed my father in law, as he has recently purchased his first real computer. I say real because he had one for years at his jewelry store but never learned how to use it. He did all of his bookkeeping and kept track of all his records on paper ledgers. He might as well have used the computer and saved the paper because he still managed to screw it all up. He's retired now though and doesn't have to worry about that anymore. Anyway, my wife has him set up with a nice Mac laptop and is slowly teaching him how to do different things. He can now communicate with his family and old friends through email, check his bank account (to make sure Obama isn't shorting him on his social security check to pay for his evil socialist agenda, of course), and download old music. Soon, my wife is going to show him how to burn CDs. My father in law says the internet has made his life worse in that it is just one more thing to deal with. He says he sees its importance and its usefulness but hates that he is now expected to be a part of it. He would rather call his friends and family, go directly to the bank to check on things, and browse the music store for his music. But now it isn't normal to do things the "old-fashioned way." Reluctantly, I have to agree with him in certain ways.
In analyzing the three generations together, I think we can see a definite set of trends: younger people are highly entrenched in the internet for work and daily functioning; middle-aged people rely on it as well but resist at least some of it; and crusty folk like the entertaining aspects but remain somewhat leery and fearful. I'm blatantly generalizing of course, and am pulling from observations outside my three interviews, but, in general, this is what I see. I think Postman comes closest to explaining this trend when he writes about the function of language in society. On page 123 and 124, he writes, "We live deep within the boundaries of our linguistic assumptions and have little sense of how the world looks to those who speak a vastly different tongue. We tend to assume that everyone sees the world in the same way, irrespective of differences in language." I think this has to do with not only different languages but within languages themselves. And, as language is intertwined with our ways of thinking and being, ideologies and values, through it we may begin to understand differences in generational cultures within the greater culture. What I'm trying to say, with some difficulty, is that technology is a part of our language and changes language over time. More specifically, different generations speak different languages--different things make sense to different generations. The youngest people have grown up with computers, the internet, and everything that goes along with. In essence, it is a part of their ways of knowing and being--their language. This becomes less so as people get older.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
the difficulties of finding my place in a virtual community
I had a bit of trouble getting started in becoming a "netizen." Much like in real life, I couldn't seem to find a place that I liked and fit in. In my first search for an online community, I ended up at a sort of one-stop-shopping type of forum where you could select the type of forum you wished to participate in from a main menu. The forums I participated in were...well...stupid. It didn't seem that participants were really interested in voicing a legitimate opinion of theirs or in a legitimate discussion. I didn't realize this fully though until I had already jumped in on a thread about poverty in America. I put together a couple of what I though were thoughtful, well-written reply posts and waited. The next day, one of the participants responded snootily and asked why I felt it necessary to dig up old threads and said she couldn't believe that she used to think that way. Apparently, I had failed to look to see how recent the discussion thread was, as I was commenting on things written over two years ago. Needless to say, no one else replied. Lesson learned. Apparently some forums run their course and fizzle out.
Frustrated with this forum I decided to look for something else. I have been on craigslist constantly lately, trying to find a new bike and sell my old one, so I decided to check out some of the discussion forums. Foiled again. I checked out several that seemed to fit my interests but couldn't find any discussion going on that had any substance. Once in a while there was something worth reading but for the most part it all just seemed like random babbling. People just seem to throw out anything, whether it is relevant or not, and respond in a similar manner. I gave up on finding a forum for a while.
As I got closer to the point of needing to be involved in a forum, I started the hunt once again. And, once again, ended up at a discussion forum mall. This time it was different though; there was some good stuff in this one. I settled into a set of threads based loosely on the social sciences and actually started having some fun. There are threads like: "Mass Transit in America," "Left vs. Right," and "Philosophy Challenge." One of the first things I noticed was that I felt compelled to comment on what others were writing. Their posts were not the short, stupid little blurts posted in the previous forums. Rather, they were serious and well thought out perspectives on the subject at hand (most of them anyway). Second, participants seem to be fairly active and engaged, so responses came more quickly and it felt more like I was in a discussion than just posting my random thoughts to no one in particular. Having people make legitimate and considerate responses to my thoughts let me know that I was actually a part of the community. Not only that, it made me want to be and remain a part of this community. As stated in Wood and Smith, "in order for a virtual community to exist, there must be a flow of messages among the participants," and "the richness of different virtual communities is enhanced by the variety of people who participate and the contributions they make." (115) Ending up at this particular forum after exploring others allowed me to see the importance of these statements. This forum is also different from the other ones I looked at in that disagreements seem to be handled in a very cordial and almost academic manner. Participants seem to respect the opinions of others and see no point in writing derogatory remarks. Instead, they address points of disagreement with a rational argument.
Even though I probably won't be spending much time in these communities in the future, I am glad that I was able to experience them, good and bad. As I mentioned in my discussion post, I feel that virtual communities can be a sort of complimentary or supplemental place to real communities. Virtual communities allow people to participate at their convenience with anonymity and without the deterrence of physical or face to face judgment. This allows one to have a safe place to discuss and test ideas in a way that they might not be able to in real communities. I certainly felt like I was able to learn more about my thoughts and express myself more freely in my forum than in my real communities. Not only that, I was able to better understand the perspectives of others from different states, nations, and cultures. I think that the more experiences like this that one has, the better citizen they will become in the rest of their communities. Whether people are conscious of this or not, I don't know. I do think that our culture was sort of looking for this alternate and potentially anonymous community and technology has allowed for it. On the other hand though, I have asked several friends and family members if they participate in any online communities and almost all of them said no. Some had in the past but lost interest. I don't know if this means that they were never a big deal, lost popularity, or now facebook and myspace have replaced them as an all-inclusive channel of communication.
Frustrated with this forum I decided to look for something else. I have been on craigslist constantly lately, trying to find a new bike and sell my old one, so I decided to check out some of the discussion forums. Foiled again. I checked out several that seemed to fit my interests but couldn't find any discussion going on that had any substance. Once in a while there was something worth reading but for the most part it all just seemed like random babbling. People just seem to throw out anything, whether it is relevant or not, and respond in a similar manner. I gave up on finding a forum for a while.
As I got closer to the point of needing to be involved in a forum, I started the hunt once again. And, once again, ended up at a discussion forum mall. This time it was different though; there was some good stuff in this one. I settled into a set of threads based loosely on the social sciences and actually started having some fun. There are threads like: "Mass Transit in America," "Left vs. Right," and "Philosophy Challenge." One of the first things I noticed was that I felt compelled to comment on what others were writing. Their posts were not the short, stupid little blurts posted in the previous forums. Rather, they were serious and well thought out perspectives on the subject at hand (most of them anyway). Second, participants seem to be fairly active and engaged, so responses came more quickly and it felt more like I was in a discussion than just posting my random thoughts to no one in particular. Having people make legitimate and considerate responses to my thoughts let me know that I was actually a part of the community. Not only that, it made me want to be and remain a part of this community. As stated in Wood and Smith, "in order for a virtual community to exist, there must be a flow of messages among the participants," and "the richness of different virtual communities is enhanced by the variety of people who participate and the contributions they make." (115) Ending up at this particular forum after exploring others allowed me to see the importance of these statements. This forum is also different from the other ones I looked at in that disagreements seem to be handled in a very cordial and almost academic manner. Participants seem to respect the opinions of others and see no point in writing derogatory remarks. Instead, they address points of disagreement with a rational argument.
Even though I probably won't be spending much time in these communities in the future, I am glad that I was able to experience them, good and bad. As I mentioned in my discussion post, I feel that virtual communities can be a sort of complimentary or supplemental place to real communities. Virtual communities allow people to participate at their convenience with anonymity and without the deterrence of physical or face to face judgment. This allows one to have a safe place to discuss and test ideas in a way that they might not be able to in real communities. I certainly felt like I was able to learn more about my thoughts and express myself more freely in my forum than in my real communities. Not only that, I was able to better understand the perspectives of others from different states, nations, and cultures. I think that the more experiences like this that one has, the better citizen they will become in the rest of their communities. Whether people are conscious of this or not, I don't know. I do think that our culture was sort of looking for this alternate and potentially anonymous community and technology has allowed for it. On the other hand though, I have asked several friends and family members if they participate in any online communities and almost all of them said no. Some had in the past but lost interest. I don't know if this means that they were never a big deal, lost popularity, or now facebook and myspace have replaced them as an all-inclusive channel of communication.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
purposeful communication
I have to admit I wasn't very excited at first about writing to people who have had an influence on me. Most of the people who have an influence on me--a positive one at least--I don't really know that well or would not feel comfortable writing to them. Most people wrote to a parent but I am at a weird point in my life when my parents seem more like children and I am the responsible adult. Maybe they're just at a weird point in their lives, I don't know. Regardless, I didn't feel like writing them a thank you letter right now. Luckily, one letter was a no-brainer. My wife, of almost ten years (I got married young), has been an amazing partner. Her ability to not only put up with me but also grow with me has been inspirational in itself. And her support in my return to school has been wonderful too. This got me thinking about what people have been inspirational in her life, and more specifically, her parents. Her mother died this winter of a rare Alzheimer-like disease, her father taking care of her mostly by himself until the end. I decided that he was certainly deserving of a letter of thanks for his influence.
I hand-wrote the letter to my father in law and emailed my wife. My father in law is beginning to use a computer and has email but I don't think he checks it very often (or necessarily knows how). My wife works from home and is always on her computer. And why use a stamp to send a letter to my own house? The two letters were much the same in message and content, in that I thanked my wife for her commitment to our relationship and thanked my father in law for being a role model for not only his daughter but for the both of us. The letters did vary in length, language, and approach. The hand-written letter to my father in law needed much more preface. It was going to seem odd that I was writing to him, let alone writing about things that are serious and personal. So, I felt I need to be more specific in the letter about why he has been influential and what I have taken from this influence. It was a bit awkward writing to him in that way, as it is a completely different kind of talk than we have established over the years. When I would read back over it, it reminded me of the old letters the narrator reads on the History Channel programs. The email to my wife however, was completely different--more like a note than a letter. In the email, I could just make my main points without explaining why I was doing so. I think though that in this situation this had to do more with who I was writing to rather than the communication channel. It seems natural that I would briefly acknowledge my appreciation of my wife and we have a greater sense of shared meaning between each other.
Ironically, my father in law responded via email. I'm not sure if he was being funny, trying to show off, or both. It did serve to ease my anxiety about writing to him about such personal things. To me, the email response sent the message that a shared meaning or understanding about our relationship had been established and that we could now communicate about that relationship in a more shorthand fashion. My wife simply came upstairs to my office and asked me what I was up to--what did I want from her. I think she thought I wanted to spend money on something and I was buttering her up.
Through this assignment, I believe I have come closer to understanding what Postman is saying about our high-speed information culture. In chapter four, he works to illustrate how our culture has become inundated with information--a glut of communication so to speak. We are saturated in it. He writes, "...the tie between information and human purpose has been severed, i.e., information appears indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, in enormous volume and at high speeds, and disconnected from theory, meaning, or purpose." (70) In short, I think he is saying that we can only have so much relevant, important, and meaningful stuff to say in our lives and the more we spread out this meaningful stuff over an ever-growing number of increasingly less meaningful messages, the more we become meaningless. This assignment, especially the hand written part, has brought a realization of the difference between the thinned out version of what communication in our culture has become with the onslaught of technology and the antiquated slow version that is based on purpose and meaning rather than on the technology itself. People used to communicate because they had something important to say, not just because they could?
I hand-wrote the letter to my father in law and emailed my wife. My father in law is beginning to use a computer and has email but I don't think he checks it very often (or necessarily knows how). My wife works from home and is always on her computer. And why use a stamp to send a letter to my own house? The two letters were much the same in message and content, in that I thanked my wife for her commitment to our relationship and thanked my father in law for being a role model for not only his daughter but for the both of us. The letters did vary in length, language, and approach. The hand-written letter to my father in law needed much more preface. It was going to seem odd that I was writing to him, let alone writing about things that are serious and personal. So, I felt I need to be more specific in the letter about why he has been influential and what I have taken from this influence. It was a bit awkward writing to him in that way, as it is a completely different kind of talk than we have established over the years. When I would read back over it, it reminded me of the old letters the narrator reads on the History Channel programs. The email to my wife however, was completely different--more like a note than a letter. In the email, I could just make my main points without explaining why I was doing so. I think though that in this situation this had to do more with who I was writing to rather than the communication channel. It seems natural that I would briefly acknowledge my appreciation of my wife and we have a greater sense of shared meaning between each other.
Ironically, my father in law responded via email. I'm not sure if he was being funny, trying to show off, or both. It did serve to ease my anxiety about writing to him about such personal things. To me, the email response sent the message that a shared meaning or understanding about our relationship had been established and that we could now communicate about that relationship in a more shorthand fashion. My wife simply came upstairs to my office and asked me what I was up to--what did I want from her. I think she thought I wanted to spend money on something and I was buttering her up.
Through this assignment, I believe I have come closer to understanding what Postman is saying about our high-speed information culture. In chapter four, he works to illustrate how our culture has become inundated with information--a glut of communication so to speak. We are saturated in it. He writes, "...the tie between information and human purpose has been severed, i.e., information appears indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, in enormous volume and at high speeds, and disconnected from theory, meaning, or purpose." (70) In short, I think he is saying that we can only have so much relevant, important, and meaningful stuff to say in our lives and the more we spread out this meaningful stuff over an ever-growing number of increasingly less meaningful messages, the more we become meaningless. This assignment, especially the hand written part, has brought a realization of the difference between the thinned out version of what communication in our culture has become with the onslaught of technology and the antiquated slow version that is based on purpose and meaning rather than on the technology itself. People used to communicate because they had something important to say, not just because they could?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Facebook. It's what you make of it.
I have had a facebook page for a little over a year now, and I admit I was pretty excited about it at first. I was able to reconnect with old friends and family and it is always great to see what people are doing and new pictures they post. Mostly, I like having a way to keep in touch with people whom I would rarely talk to otherwise, and in a such a way that I get to choose whether or not to send a message. In other words, I like that facebook is anonymous in that I can read posts without responding to them and I can post them without specifying a receiver. Phone calls and emails don't work that way.
Really though, I don't participate very much on facebook. Once in a while, friends of mine and I may get into a witty (or at least we think so) sparring match about an embarrassing old photo or something, or I will sometimes make sarcastic comments about someone's post--things my family and friends expect of me. This is rare though. I might make a comment two times a month and create a post of my own once a month. However, I check my facebook page probably three times a day. I like being the anonymous receiver.
I find it difficult to write about what I reveal or distort on facebook based on potential anonymity, as all of my "friends" know me. I'm not on there to network or anything like that. In fact, the lack of anonymity determines what I do or do not reveal or say. My parents--even my grandparents--are on there. I don't want them logging on and seeing a stupid picture or something I've written without thinking. I did have one wake up call regarding comments I made on a post without thinking. My aunt is running for state representative in a Midwestern state (notice I didn't say which state!)and her post threads often turn into a political debate forum. Reading it one day, I came across some statements I couldn't keep my mouth shut about. They were ridiculous. Needless to say, people were embracing the "norm" of symbolic convergence and assimilation by regurgitating buzz-words and one-liners they heard somewhere. I set them straight though. Or so I thought. Really, I upset everyone. And these weren't even my friends; they were my aunt's supporters. Needless to say, I had to publicly apologize to them and of course, my aunt. So, maybe I'm a little gun shy now about speaking my mind on facebook. I thought I was expressing myself via "the ultimate liberating channel, freeing [me] to be the [person][I] always wanted without the stifling restrictions..." (Wood and Smith 76). Apparently, the people involved with that thread were participating based on established norms which I was either not aware of or had simply failed to consider. Regardless, I am more mindful in my participation now.
One thing I do fairly often is post pictures. I don't just post anything though--it is usually something I think is cool like rock climbing, backpacking, my dogs, or travel pictures. I get to choose how I portray myself, or construct my identity, by strategically choosing what I post. Someone who I don't talk to regularly might think that all I do is those things. What they don't see is what I am really doing 95% of the time. As Wood and Smith write, "...Internet technologies offer us the possibility of controlling more aspects of our identity for public consideration than has been possible before." (52) Take my blog for instance. My background picture is the sun rising over Angkor Wat in Cambodia and my profile picture is me climbing at Smith Rock. Cool aren't I? Why didn't I post a picture of me in middle school with braces and a mullet? Why didn't I post a picture of my first car (1983 monte carlo, baby blue)? How about me with my classmates who are ten years younger than me? I have most likely ruined the identity I was shooting for, but the truth is, we all do it to some extent.
Really though, I don't participate very much on facebook. Once in a while, friends of mine and I may get into a witty (or at least we think so) sparring match about an embarrassing old photo or something, or I will sometimes make sarcastic comments about someone's post--things my family and friends expect of me. This is rare though. I might make a comment two times a month and create a post of my own once a month. However, I check my facebook page probably three times a day. I like being the anonymous receiver.
I find it difficult to write about what I reveal or distort on facebook based on potential anonymity, as all of my "friends" know me. I'm not on there to network or anything like that. In fact, the lack of anonymity determines what I do or do not reveal or say. My parents--even my grandparents--are on there. I don't want them logging on and seeing a stupid picture or something I've written without thinking. I did have one wake up call regarding comments I made on a post without thinking. My aunt is running for state representative in a Midwestern state (notice I didn't say which state!)and her post threads often turn into a political debate forum. Reading it one day, I came across some statements I couldn't keep my mouth shut about. They were ridiculous. Needless to say, people were embracing the "norm" of symbolic convergence and assimilation by regurgitating buzz-words and one-liners they heard somewhere. I set them straight though. Or so I thought. Really, I upset everyone. And these weren't even my friends; they were my aunt's supporters. Needless to say, I had to publicly apologize to them and of course, my aunt. So, maybe I'm a little gun shy now about speaking my mind on facebook. I thought I was expressing myself via "the ultimate liberating channel, freeing [me] to be the [person][I] always wanted without the stifling restrictions..." (Wood and Smith 76). Apparently, the people involved with that thread were participating based on established norms which I was either not aware of or had simply failed to consider. Regardless, I am more mindful in my participation now.
One thing I do fairly often is post pictures. I don't just post anything though--it is usually something I think is cool like rock climbing, backpacking, my dogs, or travel pictures. I get to choose how I portray myself, or construct my identity, by strategically choosing what I post. Someone who I don't talk to regularly might think that all I do is those things. What they don't see is what I am really doing 95% of the time. As Wood and Smith write, "...Internet technologies offer us the possibility of controlling more aspects of our identity for public consideration than has been possible before." (52) Take my blog for instance. My background picture is the sun rising over Angkor Wat in Cambodia and my profile picture is me climbing at Smith Rock. Cool aren't I? Why didn't I post a picture of me in middle school with braces and a mullet? Why didn't I post a picture of my first car (1983 monte carlo, baby blue)? How about me with my classmates who are ten years younger than me? I have most likely ruined the identity I was shooting for, but the truth is, we all do it to some extent.
Monday, July 5, 2010
cooler online?
Unfortunately, I have already seen You've got mail, and Wall-E sounded ridiculous as well. Paisley's video seemed funnier (and less time consuming) to watch. It was pretty dumb though-a great example of what country "music" has become. It seems I'm a little grumpy this morning.
The Paisley video, "So Much Cooler Online," is exactly what it sounds like. It portrays what seems to be a thirty-something, short, balding, dorky pizza delivery boy (Jason Alexander), who of course still lives at home, using the internet as a way to escape into a world where he is "so much cooler." The video begins with Alexander delivering pizza to a nice house where there is certainly a party going on. The blond stud who answers the door takes the pizza and slaps Alexander on the forehead with the cash--"keep the change jerkwad," he says. A disappointed Alexander gets in his car, pushes play on his laptop, and says, "Wow, I want to be him" (Paisley). Apparently, Alexander has an alter-ego online, where he is a 6'3" rockstar who drives a Maserati. He also has 3-ways (chats) with beautiful women. In the end though, Alexander realizes that his life online is not his own and is worthless if it has no relevance in the "real world." He puts on his band outfit, straps on his tuba, and marches off into the sunset with the girl next door.
For the most part, this video seems to be a sort of lesson in that it shows that life online is not to be taken seriously and does not bring legitimate happiness or self-efficacy. Not only was Alexander's character revealed for who he really was, his online lady-friends' personal exaggerations were also brought to light. Apparently, they weren't as attractive or exotic as they had let on. For me though, the video brought some insight to what we are like as people--what we value. Not only are we expected to be a certain way in life, tall, blond, famous, and wealthy, we should strive to be so online even if we cannot do so in real life. What I mean to say is that we don't even try to escape the ridiculousness online, rather, we reiterate it and even exacerbate it. Why didn't Alexander try to find a place online where the real him and his real interests would be accepted? Why does he still fantasize about the "beautiful" people who reject him?
I suppose this brings us back to the question of "are we better off" with such technology? I think we realize by now that the answer is both yes and no. The logistic "we" is certainly better off--life is easier anyway. I think though that the Paisley video shows us that the personal and conscious "we" is greatly compromised by anything that comes between us in our self-portrayal and communication, or that enhances our ability to not be or understand ourselves. However, I also think it is evident that the real problem does not exist in the technology itself, but in our own human behavior. I think that maybe our brains are entirely too capable of inventing shiny pacifiers, yet are all too limited in their ability to discern legitimate happiness and purpose from such pacifiers. We are also unable to see it when technology is the the greatest factor controlling such perceptions. I leave you with a relevant quote from Postman:
"Marx argued that history had its own agenda and history was taking us where it must, irrespective of our wishes. Freud taught that we had no understanding of our deepest needs and could not trust our traditional ways of reasoning to uncover them. John Watson, the founder of behaviorism, showed that free will was and illusion and that our behavior, in the end, was not unlike that of pigeons. And Einstein and his colleagues told us that there were no absolute means of judging anything in any case, that everything was relative." (54-55)
The Paisley video, "So Much Cooler Online," is exactly what it sounds like. It portrays what seems to be a thirty-something, short, balding, dorky pizza delivery boy (Jason Alexander), who of course still lives at home, using the internet as a way to escape into a world where he is "so much cooler." The video begins with Alexander delivering pizza to a nice house where there is certainly a party going on. The blond stud who answers the door takes the pizza and slaps Alexander on the forehead with the cash--"keep the change jerkwad," he says. A disappointed Alexander gets in his car, pushes play on his laptop, and says, "Wow, I want to be him" (Paisley). Apparently, Alexander has an alter-ego online, where he is a 6'3" rockstar who drives a Maserati. He also has 3-ways (chats) with beautiful women. In the end though, Alexander realizes that his life online is not his own and is worthless if it has no relevance in the "real world." He puts on his band outfit, straps on his tuba, and marches off into the sunset with the girl next door.
For the most part, this video seems to be a sort of lesson in that it shows that life online is not to be taken seriously and does not bring legitimate happiness or self-efficacy. Not only was Alexander's character revealed for who he really was, his online lady-friends' personal exaggerations were also brought to light. Apparently, they weren't as attractive or exotic as they had let on. For me though, the video brought some insight to what we are like as people--what we value. Not only are we expected to be a certain way in life, tall, blond, famous, and wealthy, we should strive to be so online even if we cannot do so in real life. What I mean to say is that we don't even try to escape the ridiculousness online, rather, we reiterate it and even exacerbate it. Why didn't Alexander try to find a place online where the real him and his real interests would be accepted? Why does he still fantasize about the "beautiful" people who reject him?
I suppose this brings us back to the question of "are we better off" with such technology? I think we realize by now that the answer is both yes and no. The logistic "we" is certainly better off--life is easier anyway. I think though that the Paisley video shows us that the personal and conscious "we" is greatly compromised by anything that comes between us in our self-portrayal and communication, or that enhances our ability to not be or understand ourselves. However, I also think it is evident that the real problem does not exist in the technology itself, but in our own human behavior. I think that maybe our brains are entirely too capable of inventing shiny pacifiers, yet are all too limited in their ability to discern legitimate happiness and purpose from such pacifiers. We are also unable to see it when technology is the the greatest factor controlling such perceptions. I leave you with a relevant quote from Postman:
"Marx argued that history had its own agenda and history was taking us where it must, irrespective of our wishes. Freud taught that we had no understanding of our deepest needs and could not trust our traditional ways of reasoning to uncover them. John Watson, the founder of behaviorism, showed that free will was and illusion and that our behavior, in the end, was not unlike that of pigeons. And Einstein and his colleagues told us that there were no absolute means of judging anything in any case, that everything was relative." (54-55)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)