I've been blogging since 2007, however my blog has basically served as an online photo album. Starting a new blog in this class felt like a whole new experience. It was fun to create a specific place on the internet to express my ideas. The only thing I didn't enjoy about my blogging experience is that Google Blogger makes it impossible for me to cut and paste the content of my blog entries. I typically like to type anything I write in Microsoft Word and then paste it to the domain in which I want it. I wasn't able to do that.
It was fun to communicate in multiple ways throughout this course. It was even more fun to analyze the differences between different modes of communication. I have come to appreciate face-to-face interactions more as I've recognized all that we miss out on when we communicate via the internet. I value nonverbal cues now more than ever, especailly after revisiting memories of all of the misunderstandings internet communication created between my brother-in-law and I not all that long ago.
I learned a lot about our culture as this course progressed. Week after week I discovered how much of our internet communication is driven by an ever-increasing concern with efficiency. For the most part, we communicate online simply because it allows us to accomplish more in a shorter amount of time. We value efficiency and we value our own personal objectives. I've become a lot more familiar with the impact our individualistic culture has on our communication habits. Efficiency makes our goals easier to achieve so we often choose internet communication for its efficiency even at the expense of social harmony and/or group goals.
Postman suggests that modern education is failing because what is being taught has no moral, social, or intellectual center (Postman, p.186). I think that our education system produces people with plenty of marketable skills, who lack commitment and point of view, as he suggests because it is a lot more efficient to teach a "hodgepodge of subjects" than it is to try and tie knowledge together in a meaningful way. Maybe we shouldn't value efficienty quite so much.
Wood and Smith write that "computer technology is, at heart, an attempt to manipulate abstract data with physical tools" (W&S, p.208). So, does computer technology aid us in the process of discovering knowledge? I think it does. It helps us understand knowledge in new and meaningful ways. Can computer technology create new knowledge beyond what we can keep up with though? I am not so convinced. Wood and Smith mention how the Matrix Trilogy poses a question: "If all human experience can be replicated by software and if all human choices can be shaped by computer programs, how can an individual act as if his or her choice matters" (W&S, p.208)? They emphasize the energy our culture is putting into making sense out of the "emerging wired-world" (W&S, p.208). I agree with them that it is good to discern the relationship between technology and our lives instead of simply accepting that technology is changing popular culture.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Internet Communication...Is it really that great?
My brother-in-law said many hurtful things to me in a conversation we had about 2 years after I married his brother. I was so hurt and so angry that I didn't want to talk to him face-to-face or even over the phone. I decided to write him an email explaining why the things he said had hurt me. I didn't want a response from him in return. I just wanted to make sure that he knew what he'd done.
About a week later I received an email from him explaining in further detail why he'd said everything he'd said. I took it as though he was saying, "I'm sorry, but not really because I believe I am right." Anyway, the whole mess just got messier as we attempted to deal with it over the internet. Misunderstanding after misunderstanding only drove us to have more and more issues with each other.
Eventually I decided that internet communication was never going to allow us to mend our relationship. Without having a firm foundation for our relationship, our offenses determined the way we interpreted every word in the absence of nonverbal cues. Now we only communicate face-to-face. It allows us to see each other beyond our past offenses. We can read each other better because we are able to see past the words that are spoken. Nonverbal cues and tone of voice allow us to see the heart behind what is spoken. Our relationship is gradually getting stronger with each face-to-face conversation we have.
My internet interactions with my brother-in-law represent the influences that our individualistic culture has on us. Both of us were more concerned about our own interests that we were about each other. Since we were prideful, and both of us knew it, we didn't want to communicate face-to-face for fear that we might have shown that we felt we should have been sorry. We knew that meeting in a physical place would mean that nonverbal cues and all of the rules for what may be said would come into play, making us more vulnerable, so we took advantage of the space provided by the internet that allowed us to resist discourse. We said things that weren't 100% true because space, in the absence of a physical place, allowed us to hide our true thoughts and feelings.
Our individualistic culture is grounds for a lot of dishonest communication now that the internet has provided us with space that allows for discursive resistance. We manipulate others, disregarding all of the rules for what may be said, as we communicate online. Many of us say exactly the opposite of what we feel, only wanting to make sure that others perceive us in certain ways. I think it is very sad that we have thrown discourse to the wind in so many ways, just because we can. I would hope that things will turn around in the future, but I think that the more technology provides us with space lacking place, the more discursive resistance will occur.
About a week later I received an email from him explaining in further detail why he'd said everything he'd said. I took it as though he was saying, "I'm sorry, but not really because I believe I am right." Anyway, the whole mess just got messier as we attempted to deal with it over the internet. Misunderstanding after misunderstanding only drove us to have more and more issues with each other.
Eventually I decided that internet communication was never going to allow us to mend our relationship. Without having a firm foundation for our relationship, our offenses determined the way we interpreted every word in the absence of nonverbal cues. Now we only communicate face-to-face. It allows us to see each other beyond our past offenses. We can read each other better because we are able to see past the words that are spoken. Nonverbal cues and tone of voice allow us to see the heart behind what is spoken. Our relationship is gradually getting stronger with each face-to-face conversation we have.
My internet interactions with my brother-in-law represent the influences that our individualistic culture has on us. Both of us were more concerned about our own interests that we were about each other. Since we were prideful, and both of us knew it, we didn't want to communicate face-to-face for fear that we might have shown that we felt we should have been sorry. We knew that meeting in a physical place would mean that nonverbal cues and all of the rules for what may be said would come into play, making us more vulnerable, so we took advantage of the space provided by the internet that allowed us to resist discourse. We said things that weren't 100% true because space, in the absence of a physical place, allowed us to hide our true thoughts and feelings.
Our individualistic culture is grounds for a lot of dishonest communication now that the internet has provided us with space that allows for discursive resistance. We manipulate others, disregarding all of the rules for what may be said, as we communicate online. Many of us say exactly the opposite of what we feel, only wanting to make sure that others perceive us in certain ways. I think it is very sad that we have thrown discourse to the wind in so many ways, just because we can. I would hope that things will turn around in the future, but I think that the more technology provides us with space lacking place, the more discursive resistance will occur.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Internet Across Generations
It has been fun this week to think about some of the different perspectives of the internet that are out there. Different generations definitely view the internet in very different ways.
One of my friends, a 24-year-old woman, uses the internet for nearly everything. She is an online student, pursuing her Master's degree. She also uses the internet for doing research, checking the weather report and the news, paying bills, budgeting, shopping, selling things, and of course, as most of our generation does, for social networking. She sees the internet as a critical component of her life, because she's never really known life without it. She doesn't have much to say about how the internet has changed her life, considering she's pretty much grown up using it, but she is aware of how most of the things she does online are things that her parents had to do by other means until recently.
My dad, who's 55-years-old, primarily uses the internet for business purposes. He is a real estate broker so he makes fliers, updates and checks the MLS, and sends and receives a ton of emails. He recently joined Facebook, but only for the purposes of seeing pictures that I post. Rarely does my dad look to the internet to see the latest world news or weather reports. He pretty much uses the internet because the social institutions in which he lives his life require him to. He thinks the internet is a great tool for gathering information, such as found on the MLS website, but for personal communication with he still prefers a simple phone call.
My 82-year-old grandma only uses the internet for keeping in touch with younger generations in our family who all seem to have more time to send emails and post digital photos online than to pick up the phone. She doesn't initiate any online communication. She anxiously awaits emails and pictures from her children and grandchildren, responding with a simple "Thanks" email when she gets them. My grandma wishes she didn't have to mess with the internet, though she loves not having to wait to receive photos in the mail.
This week I have gained great insight into how cultural traditions have changed across generations. Tradition used to be to go to many different places to get things done, enjoying those things as they were what living was all about. Now, tradition is to get as much as possible done in one "place", on the internet, so that once it is all done life can really be lived. These changes in tradition reflect a change in cultural values as our culture has increasingly valued efficiency. They also reflect a change in our cultural beliefs about life. Also, tradition used to be to meet up with friends in a physical place to chat face-to-face. Now, tradition is to asynchronously communicate online via Facebook or other social networks. These changes also reflect a change in cultural values, as we used to value having a few close friends and now we value having many acquaintances around the world. They also reflect a change in cultural norms, as online communication is now an acceptable form of communication whereas it didn't used to be so highly esteemed.
Increased internet use across generations also shows how information has become "more broadly valued," as Wood and Smith suggest (p.148). The internet allows us to have instant access to all types of information, which each generation values more than the previous generation did. Wood and Smith also say that "technology is not a tool imposed on us, but one we willingly accept and use" (p.150). Although technology is often seemingly imposed on us as our social institutions adopt its use and seem to give us no option but to use it ourselves, we do willingly accept it and use it. We see how it makes our lives more efficient, so even if hesitant we choose to embrace it. It is quite possible that we live in a Technopoly, as Postman suggests, since "we tend to believe that only through the autonomy of techniques (and machinery) can we achieve our goals" (p.142). Younger generations feel dependent on the internet because it seems as though without such a valuable tool efficiency would be impossible and therefore goals would be impossible to achieve.
One of my friends, a 24-year-old woman, uses the internet for nearly everything. She is an online student, pursuing her Master's degree. She also uses the internet for doing research, checking the weather report and the news, paying bills, budgeting, shopping, selling things, and of course, as most of our generation does, for social networking. She sees the internet as a critical component of her life, because she's never really known life without it. She doesn't have much to say about how the internet has changed her life, considering she's pretty much grown up using it, but she is aware of how most of the things she does online are things that her parents had to do by other means until recently.
My dad, who's 55-years-old, primarily uses the internet for business purposes. He is a real estate broker so he makes fliers, updates and checks the MLS, and sends and receives a ton of emails. He recently joined Facebook, but only for the purposes of seeing pictures that I post. Rarely does my dad look to the internet to see the latest world news or weather reports. He pretty much uses the internet because the social institutions in which he lives his life require him to. He thinks the internet is a great tool for gathering information, such as found on the MLS website, but for personal communication with he still prefers a simple phone call.
My 82-year-old grandma only uses the internet for keeping in touch with younger generations in our family who all seem to have more time to send emails and post digital photos online than to pick up the phone. She doesn't initiate any online communication. She anxiously awaits emails and pictures from her children and grandchildren, responding with a simple "Thanks" email when she gets them. My grandma wishes she didn't have to mess with the internet, though she loves not having to wait to receive photos in the mail.
This week I have gained great insight into how cultural traditions have changed across generations. Tradition used to be to go to many different places to get things done, enjoying those things as they were what living was all about. Now, tradition is to get as much as possible done in one "place", on the internet, so that once it is all done life can really be lived. These changes in tradition reflect a change in cultural values as our culture has increasingly valued efficiency. They also reflect a change in our cultural beliefs about life. Also, tradition used to be to meet up with friends in a physical place to chat face-to-face. Now, tradition is to asynchronously communicate online via Facebook or other social networks. These changes also reflect a change in cultural values, as we used to value having a few close friends and now we value having many acquaintances around the world. They also reflect a change in cultural norms, as online communication is now an acceptable form of communication whereas it didn't used to be so highly esteemed.
Increased internet use across generations also shows how information has become "more broadly valued," as Wood and Smith suggest (p.148). The internet allows us to have instant access to all types of information, which each generation values more than the previous generation did. Wood and Smith also say that "technology is not a tool imposed on us, but one we willingly accept and use" (p.150). Although technology is often seemingly imposed on us as our social institutions adopt its use and seem to give us no option but to use it ourselves, we do willingly accept it and use it. We see how it makes our lives more efficient, so even if hesitant we choose to embrace it. It is quite possible that we live in a Technopoly, as Postman suggests, since "we tend to believe that only through the autonomy of techniques (and machinery) can we achieve our goals" (p.142). Younger generations feel dependent on the internet because it seems as though without such a valuable tool efficiency would be impossible and therefore goals would be impossible to achieve.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Online Communities
I really wasn't very excited when I discovered that I was going to have to join an internet community other than Facebook because I am not into meeting new people online. I was nervous about the increased amount of unwanted emails I thought I might find in my inbox. Since it is a requirement for this class, I went for it anyway, despite my thoughts about internet communities. I joined iVillage, an online community for women to talk about anything from parenting and pregnancy to home and garden to health and diet.
I started off on the pregnancy discussion boards in iVillage because my husband and I are ready to start having children. Within hours of posting my "I'm new" introduction on the discussion board, I already knew I was accepted into the community. I received replies from women welcoming me into the community and offering me assistance in figuring out how to take advantage of all iVillage has to offer. I didn't really expect anyone to want to build relationship with me after reading such vague information about me and my desire to start a family, but women were already asking me to keep them updated on our family-starting journey.
I notice that the iVillage boards are filled with encouragement. Agreements are celebrated! Disagreements are expressed in respectful ways. A lot of the time they are not really resolved, but rather accepted as differences of opinion. Sometimes women change their minds about issues such as abortion after reading other women's opinions, but even when they don't they are still accepted and respected in the community. There is a lot of empathy in the iVillage community for women going through hard times. I am amazed at how vulnerable other women are within this online community.
Since joining iVillage my perceptions of online communities have changed. I used to believe that face-to-face interactions are required to constitute a real community. Now I see how "virtual communities [...] allow people to transcend geographic boundaries and unite with others who share their common interests" (W&S, p.124). Our culture values inclusion and online communities "provide individuals with a means for acquiring that feeling of inclusion" (W&S, p.124). I still have concerns about online communities though. I think that it is fine for people to seek the company of like-minded people in online communities, but only so long as they are also actively involved in real world communities. Even when people agree or diagree online, it is difficult to tell if disagreements are ever really resolved or if agreements are genuine since people can type a completely different message than they truly feel. I don't see how anyone could connect only with people online and live a fulfilling life. A world void of nonverbal communication would be tragic I think.
I think that many individuals choose to join online communities because they offer more efficient means of interaction, and we all know efficiency is highly valued in our culture. People know that they can connect with others who are similar to them without having to set up a meeting time and place; they can do it on their own time in the comfort of their homes. The asynchronous nature of it all is very appealing in our individualistic culture where people are highly concerned with being able to communicate at a time and place that works best for them. I think that the popularity of online communication raises a question of whether efficiency is more important in our culture than nonverbal communication. Would we rather be able to interact online (which I think keeps us at a much more surface level of communication) or would we rather be able to use and to read all of the nonverbal cues that make interactions much more rich and meaningful? Are we so concerned with efficiency and with achieving our personal goals that we place authentic relationships with others on the backburner?
I started off on the pregnancy discussion boards in iVillage because my husband and I are ready to start having children. Within hours of posting my "I'm new" introduction on the discussion board, I already knew I was accepted into the community. I received replies from women welcoming me into the community and offering me assistance in figuring out how to take advantage of all iVillage has to offer. I didn't really expect anyone to want to build relationship with me after reading such vague information about me and my desire to start a family, but women were already asking me to keep them updated on our family-starting journey.
I notice that the iVillage boards are filled with encouragement. Agreements are celebrated! Disagreements are expressed in respectful ways. A lot of the time they are not really resolved, but rather accepted as differences of opinion. Sometimes women change their minds about issues such as abortion after reading other women's opinions, but even when they don't they are still accepted and respected in the community. There is a lot of empathy in the iVillage community for women going through hard times. I am amazed at how vulnerable other women are within this online community.
Since joining iVillage my perceptions of online communities have changed. I used to believe that face-to-face interactions are required to constitute a real community. Now I see how "virtual communities [...] allow people to transcend geographic boundaries and unite with others who share their common interests" (W&S, p.124). Our culture values inclusion and online communities "provide individuals with a means for acquiring that feeling of inclusion" (W&S, p.124). I still have concerns about online communities though. I think that it is fine for people to seek the company of like-minded people in online communities, but only so long as they are also actively involved in real world communities. Even when people agree or diagree online, it is difficult to tell if disagreements are ever really resolved or if agreements are genuine since people can type a completely different message than they truly feel. I don't see how anyone could connect only with people online and live a fulfilling life. A world void of nonverbal communication would be tragic I think.
I think that many individuals choose to join online communities because they offer more efficient means of interaction, and we all know efficiency is highly valued in our culture. People know that they can connect with others who are similar to them without having to set up a meeting time and place; they can do it on their own time in the comfort of their homes. The asynchronous nature of it all is very appealing in our individualistic culture where people are highly concerned with being able to communicate at a time and place that works best for them. I think that the popularity of online communication raises a question of whether efficiency is more important in our culture than nonverbal communication. Would we rather be able to interact online (which I think keeps us at a much more surface level of communication) or would we rather be able to use and to read all of the nonverbal cues that make interactions much more rich and meaningful? Are we so concerned with efficiency and with achieving our personal goals that we place authentic relationships with others on the backburner?
Friday, July 16, 2010
"Snail Mail" versus Email
The letter writing exercise was very fun for me! There were a couple of people who I've been meaning to thank for their contributions to my life, but my busy schedule always seems to be getting in the way of me doing so. I chose to write one letter to a very close friend of mine who lives 7 hours from me...one I haven't seen more than once a year for the past 3 years but knows me well. I chose to write the other letter to a past co-worker who I worked with up until 4 months ago.
I wrote long-hand to my past co-worker because I knew that she could use some encouragement. Getting a letter in the mail always makes me feel especially valued because of the extra time and energy (though seemingly insignificant if it weren't for email) it takes for someone to send a letter. I wanted her to feel especailly valued. The fact that I think of a letter as taking extra time and energy reflects our culture's concern with efficiency. Normally we prefer writing emails to sending letter because it is quicker and easier. The technology that made email possible increased our concern with efficiency, and now we no longer think that sending a letter is very efficient, whereas in the past it was viewed as much more efficient than other options. We didn't always refer to letters sent through USPS as snail mail. Only after technology was made available to us that made possible more efficient communication via email did we begin to value efficiency more and begin to think of USPS as inefficient "snail mail."
I wrote an email to my close friend who happens to be getting married in less than a month. Her life is very busy and full of excitement right now. She has many people who are encouraging her, still I wanted to tell her how great I think she is, and I knew that an email would suit what I wanted to say to her just perfectly. She already knows how important she is to me, so I didn't feel the need to write long-hand just to communicate how much I value her.
In the long-hand letter I wrote to my past co-worker I used language like I would use in a thank you card to anyone who doesn't know me well. I was careful not to write anything that might be interpreted wrong, especially since non-verbal communication was absent. Although we worked side by side for almost 3 years, she doesn't necessarily know how much I value her. I thought that a letter written with clear language would be better than email for showing her how valuable she is to me.
The email I wrote to my close friend was much less formal, not only in form, but in content. I wrote to her in a numbered list because it suited her personality well. We have plenty of inside jokes that I included in the list. It went something like this.....
1) You look stunning in your engagement photos!
2) I get to see you in just a couple of weeks!
3) I still haven't met your fiance.
4) I am super excited to finally meet him!
5) You are still the igliest person I know.
Etc....You get the point. The email was very informal, yet I'm sure it got my point across perfectly!
Accessibility, control, and excitement may make internet communication attractive as the ACE model suggests (W&S, p.104), but I think that sending a letter in the mail, though an outgoing USPS mailbos was not as easily accessible as my computer and I felt less in control of when the letter would get to my friend, was more exciting than sending an email. If not for the accessibility and control that the internet provides, I might just send letters through good old fashioned snail mail all the time. I think that since the internet became available to us, our culture has come to value accessibility and control more and more which is why people become addicted to the internet. They become so concerned with accessbility and control (cultural values) that they become dependent on the internet for various things. It is culturally unacceptable within most social institutions not to respond promptly (and by promptly I mean pretty much immediately) to messages we receive, so it is a cultural norm to use email for communication since it allows us to do so.
Postman writes in chapter 5 about how we look to the internet to solve our problems. I think that when it comes to relational problems, face-to-face communication is best for resolving them, but letters sent through mail are more effective than emails. Relational problems are more likely to be amplified over the internet than they are to be resolved.
Surprisingly I got a response (via the phone) from my past co-worker immediately after she received my letter in the mail (just 2 days after I sent it), but I haven't heard from my close friend whom I emailed. I think that my past co-worker's response confirms the value of sending a letter in the mail versus sending an email. She called me to thank me because my letter meant more to her than the vast amount of emails she receives. My close friend's lack of response confirms how busy she is, but I think it also confirms how our culture thinks of online communication. We value being able to communicate on our own time when we feel like it. I know that my friend will respond when she has the time and the desire to communicate. I know her well enough not to be offended it it takes her a while.
I wrote long-hand to my past co-worker because I knew that she could use some encouragement. Getting a letter in the mail always makes me feel especially valued because of the extra time and energy (though seemingly insignificant if it weren't for email) it takes for someone to send a letter. I wanted her to feel especailly valued. The fact that I think of a letter as taking extra time and energy reflects our culture's concern with efficiency. Normally we prefer writing emails to sending letter because it is quicker and easier. The technology that made email possible increased our concern with efficiency, and now we no longer think that sending a letter is very efficient, whereas in the past it was viewed as much more efficient than other options. We didn't always refer to letters sent through USPS as snail mail. Only after technology was made available to us that made possible more efficient communication via email did we begin to value efficiency more and begin to think of USPS as inefficient "snail mail."
I wrote an email to my close friend who happens to be getting married in less than a month. Her life is very busy and full of excitement right now. She has many people who are encouraging her, still I wanted to tell her how great I think she is, and I knew that an email would suit what I wanted to say to her just perfectly. She already knows how important she is to me, so I didn't feel the need to write long-hand just to communicate how much I value her.
In the long-hand letter I wrote to my past co-worker I used language like I would use in a thank you card to anyone who doesn't know me well. I was careful not to write anything that might be interpreted wrong, especially since non-verbal communication was absent. Although we worked side by side for almost 3 years, she doesn't necessarily know how much I value her. I thought that a letter written with clear language would be better than email for showing her how valuable she is to me.
The email I wrote to my close friend was much less formal, not only in form, but in content. I wrote to her in a numbered list because it suited her personality well. We have plenty of inside jokes that I included in the list. It went something like this.....
1) You look stunning in your engagement photos!
2) I get to see you in just a couple of weeks!
3) I still haven't met your fiance.
4) I am super excited to finally meet him!
5) You are still the igliest person I know.
Etc....You get the point. The email was very informal, yet I'm sure it got my point across perfectly!
Accessibility, control, and excitement may make internet communication attractive as the ACE model suggests (W&S, p.104), but I think that sending a letter in the mail, though an outgoing USPS mailbos was not as easily accessible as my computer and I felt less in control of when the letter would get to my friend, was more exciting than sending an email. If not for the accessibility and control that the internet provides, I might just send letters through good old fashioned snail mail all the time. I think that since the internet became available to us, our culture has come to value accessibility and control more and more which is why people become addicted to the internet. They become so concerned with accessbility and control (cultural values) that they become dependent on the internet for various things. It is culturally unacceptable within most social institutions not to respond promptly (and by promptly I mean pretty much immediately) to messages we receive, so it is a cultural norm to use email for communication since it allows us to do so.
Postman writes in chapter 5 about how we look to the internet to solve our problems. I think that when it comes to relational problems, face-to-face communication is best for resolving them, but letters sent through mail are more effective than emails. Relational problems are more likely to be amplified over the internet than they are to be resolved.
Surprisingly I got a response (via the phone) from my past co-worker immediately after she received my letter in the mail (just 2 days after I sent it), but I haven't heard from my close friend whom I emailed. I think that my past co-worker's response confirms the value of sending a letter in the mail versus sending an email. She called me to thank me because my letter meant more to her than the vast amount of emails she receives. My close friend's lack of response confirms how busy she is, but I think it also confirms how our culture thinks of online communication. We value being able to communicate on our own time when we feel like it. I know that my friend will respond when she has the time and the desire to communicate. I know her well enough not to be offended it it takes her a while.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Facebook gives its users the opportunity to construct their identities in any of three distinct phases: anonymity, pseudonimity, or identity. My Facebook identity is readily apparent; it is not anonymous (W&S, p.63). My Facebook friends are able to attribute statements and actions to my name, but they are also able to know more about who I really am beyond the comments I make online so my identity is not pseudononymous (W&S, p.64). I reveal pieces of my true identity on facebook through self-presentation, giving my Facebook friends the image of myself that I want them to perceive (W&S, p.52). All of my Facebook friends are people I know, or am at least acquainted with. They all know, at least in part, what I am like in real life. Since I do not use Facebook to meet new people, it would be silly for me to try and distort my identity even if I wanted to. Although I don't distort my identity online, I do choose to reveal only the parts of my identity that I want others to perceive. I only post flattering pictures of myself and I only update my status when I have something I am proud of going on in my life...I admit it.
Even when I do try and mold others' perceptions of myself, the cues-filtered-out approach to communication (W&S, p.79) I take part in on Facebook sometimes gives others a "wrong" perception of me. Without nonverbal cues, what I communicate is taken the wrong way at times. Fortunately, I have emoticons to help me communicate more clearly. I am a huge fan of emoticons. They help me avoid offending people all the time. Adding a smile :-) to the end of a wall post communicates that I am happy to say what I am saying and adding a wink ;-) to the end of a wall post indicates my sarcasm.
I don't use Facebook for meeting new people because I am content with the number of people I know and prefer meeting new people face-to-face, but also because I am aware of how many people distort their identites online. Facebook allows people to present themselves however they'd like. If a 54-year-old sex predator wants to present himself as an 18-year-old quarterback, he can most likley get away with it. Our culture values the efficiency of meeting new people online, but I think it can be very dangerous. Sure, for those looking for romance, Facebook gives them many more options all in one place than they'll ever find in the real world, but is it worth the risk? It is acceptable to form romantic relationships online in our culture; this is a relatively new cultural norm. I think it has a lot to do with our cultural belief that people should be tursted until proven untrustworthy. I am not saying that it is bad to trust people, I just think the belief has let too many untrustworthy people get away with potentially avoidable crimes.
I feel that my desire to use Facebook to keep in touch on a surface level with many people reflects the individualistic culture we live in. I am concerned with keeping in touch with some of my Facebook friends simply because of how it makes me look when I know what is going on in the lives of other well-liked people. I send Facebook messages instead of making phone calls, not for the good of others, but for my own benefit; it saves me time and energy. In America, we are often most concerned with whatever allows us to best pursue our own selfish goals. If communicating via Facebook might improve our reputations or save us time, even at the expense of not brightening up someone else's day with a phone call or a face-to-face conversation, then we are usually all for it. Facebook is a great communication tool, but we must not be tricked into believing it can replace face-to-face communication.
Even when I do try and mold others' perceptions of myself, the cues-filtered-out approach to communication (W&S, p.79) I take part in on Facebook sometimes gives others a "wrong" perception of me. Without nonverbal cues, what I communicate is taken the wrong way at times. Fortunately, I have emoticons to help me communicate more clearly. I am a huge fan of emoticons. They help me avoid offending people all the time. Adding a smile :-) to the end of a wall post communicates that I am happy to say what I am saying and adding a wink ;-) to the end of a wall post indicates my sarcasm.
I don't use Facebook for meeting new people because I am content with the number of people I know and prefer meeting new people face-to-face, but also because I am aware of how many people distort their identites online. Facebook allows people to present themselves however they'd like. If a 54-year-old sex predator wants to present himself as an 18-year-old quarterback, he can most likley get away with it. Our culture values the efficiency of meeting new people online, but I think it can be very dangerous. Sure, for those looking for romance, Facebook gives them many more options all in one place than they'll ever find in the real world, but is it worth the risk? It is acceptable to form romantic relationships online in our culture; this is a relatively new cultural norm. I think it has a lot to do with our cultural belief that people should be tursted until proven untrustworthy. I am not saying that it is bad to trust people, I just think the belief has let too many untrustworthy people get away with potentially avoidable crimes.
I feel that my desire to use Facebook to keep in touch on a surface level with many people reflects the individualistic culture we live in. I am concerned with keeping in touch with some of my Facebook friends simply because of how it makes me look when I know what is going on in the lives of other well-liked people. I send Facebook messages instead of making phone calls, not for the good of others, but for my own benefit; it saves me time and energy. In America, we are often most concerned with whatever allows us to best pursue our own selfish goals. If communicating via Facebook might improve our reputations or save us time, even at the expense of not brightening up someone else's day with a phone call or a face-to-face conversation, then we are usually all for it. Facebook is a great communication tool, but we must not be tricked into believing it can replace face-to-face communication.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Brad Paisley's....So Much Cooler Online
The main character in the music video was a completely different guy online than he was in reality. He pretended to be someone he was not because he valued an unrealistic image of beauty that he'd adopted from our culture. Our culture clearly values beauty (the Hollywood kind we see all over the media). We value perfection. Offline the main character was a middle-aged man who would be deemed geeky in our culture. He was bald with glasses, a sci-fi fanatic, living with his senior parents. Online he was a Hollywood personality, perfect in nearly every way by our culture's standards. He had good looks ("6'5" and six-pack abs"), all the women he could possibly want, money, a sweet Hollywood career, nice cars, etc. The women he was chatting with online were also pretending to be something they were not. They pretended to be our culture's version of perfect (something like a Victoria's Secret model). In reality, they were not all made up; they didn't look anything like the airbrushed images of women we see in magazines.
Based on what I observed, I would conclude that these people were not satisfied with who they really were because they were comparing themselves with some glamorized images seen in the media. They were unhappy because they were basing their judgements of themselves on something other than reality. Online, they figured nobody could see who they really were. They could invent an online personality that made them look as glamorous as the Hollywood stars they saw in the media. They could actually "be" who they "wanted" to be and "live" the lives they "wanted" to live. I would go even one step further to say that they felt like they were only acceptable as long as they matched our culture's definition of beautiful. It is a cultural norm to look perfect; it is unacceptable not to aspire to be beautiful (at least that's what we feel like when we are surrounded with all these images of "perfection").
I would say the music video shows technological determinism is clearly at work in our society. The way people think is altered because of technology. Our replacing nature with technology has caused people to be involved in fewer face-to-face interactions with other real people. Now technology feeds them images of "perfect" people and, as they "interact" more with these "perfect" people through different media, the way they think of themselves changes. I don't think that TV, the Internet, magazines, or other media sources were necessarily created to make everyone feel like they should fit a certain mold, but they've done it nonetheless. They've fundamentally changed the way we live, and also the way we think.
The synchronous communication the characters in the music video experienced online gave them an illusion of reality, but the truth is that, even though their "interactions" were taking place in real time and they may have been communicating real emotions, every ineraction was based on lies. They interacted in a fantasy world made possible by technology.
In the past, everything in our culture has decisively "given way" to the development of new technologies. We've been living in a technocracy for some time. I think the music video shows that we, in the US, are now living in a technopoly. We've moved beyond having control over tools. World views based in religion, art, politics, and family still hold some influence, but are under the shadow of technology. Our world views are based on what we see on TV, on the Internet, or in magazines. We shape our thinking around whatever the media feeds us. Now, not everyone in the US is completely at the mercy of technology, but those who are not have to make a conscious decision not to be.
The music video was humorous yet sad. I wish our thinking were not altered by technology sometimes. I think a lot of people would be a whole lot happier if they'd stop comparing themselves to the airbrushed images that bombard them from so many different technologies. Too bad our culture values such an unrealistic image of beauty. Too bad we think it is unacceptable not to aspire to be "beautiful." While I do think we have some control over whether or not technology changes our thinking, the more exposure we get to certain ideas through technology, the more likley our thinking will be altered by those ideas.
Based on what I observed, I would conclude that these people were not satisfied with who they really were because they were comparing themselves with some glamorized images seen in the media. They were unhappy because they were basing their judgements of themselves on something other than reality. Online, they figured nobody could see who they really were. They could invent an online personality that made them look as glamorous as the Hollywood stars they saw in the media. They could actually "be" who they "wanted" to be and "live" the lives they "wanted" to live. I would go even one step further to say that they felt like they were only acceptable as long as they matched our culture's definition of beautiful. It is a cultural norm to look perfect; it is unacceptable not to aspire to be beautiful (at least that's what we feel like when we are surrounded with all these images of "perfection").
I would say the music video shows technological determinism is clearly at work in our society. The way people think is altered because of technology. Our replacing nature with technology has caused people to be involved in fewer face-to-face interactions with other real people. Now technology feeds them images of "perfect" people and, as they "interact" more with these "perfect" people through different media, the way they think of themselves changes. I don't think that TV, the Internet, magazines, or other media sources were necessarily created to make everyone feel like they should fit a certain mold, but they've done it nonetheless. They've fundamentally changed the way we live, and also the way we think.
The synchronous communication the characters in the music video experienced online gave them an illusion of reality, but the truth is that, even though their "interactions" were taking place in real time and they may have been communicating real emotions, every ineraction was based on lies. They interacted in a fantasy world made possible by technology.
In the past, everything in our culture has decisively "given way" to the development of new technologies. We've been living in a technocracy for some time. I think the music video shows that we, in the US, are now living in a technopoly. We've moved beyond having control over tools. World views based in religion, art, politics, and family still hold some influence, but are under the shadow of technology. Our world views are based on what we see on TV, on the Internet, or in magazines. We shape our thinking around whatever the media feeds us. Now, not everyone in the US is completely at the mercy of technology, but those who are not have to make a conscious decision not to be.
The music video was humorous yet sad. I wish our thinking were not altered by technology sometimes. I think a lot of people would be a whole lot happier if they'd stop comparing themselves to the airbrushed images that bombard them from so many different technologies. Too bad our culture values such an unrealistic image of beauty. Too bad we think it is unacceptable not to aspire to be "beautiful." While I do think we have some control over whether or not technology changes our thinking, the more exposure we get to certain ideas through technology, the more likley our thinking will be altered by those ideas.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Abstinence
Abstaining from the internet for 24 hours was a lot more difficult than I expected it to be. I didn't realize how much I rely on the internet as a line of communication with others or as a mode of staying organized and gathering information. It blew me away how often I wanted to communicate with someone on the internet or gather information on the internet. The internet is so much a part of my daily life that I don't ever even think about how to do certain things without it. Just as Wood and Smith suggested, it has changed the way I think (p.8).
Immediately when I woke up I wanted to check the weather forecast for the day, as it is part of my daily routine. Usually I would find that information in my favorites on the internet, but I had to come up with an alternative way of gathering it. I decided to call my husband and ask him if he had seen the forecast. Not having the impersonal internet to provide me with information gave me an extra opportunity to talk with my husband.
Next, I wanted to check the balance on our bank account (something I do every morning). I know I should probably keep a written record of all our spending. Sometimes I do, but I tend to miss things...a lot of things. I don't miss things because I can't remember to write them down. I miss them because I know that I have instant access to online banking, and our exact balance, at all times. When I realized that I couldn't check our bank account, I simply decided to wait until my 24 hours of abstinence were up to do so. I decided to wait to pay our bills too, since I pay all of them online.
After I had a conversation with my husband and forfeited my opportunity to check our bank account, I wanted to SEE what was going on in the lives of my friends and family around the world. I couldn't do that either. At least I couldn't check up on all of them. I also needed to discuss some upcoming plans with a couple of people, and I wanted to send out one message to all of them on facebook, but I had to call them individually instead.
I can definately see how the internet has changed the way I think and the way I live my life every day, just as Postman, Wood and Smith discussed. It has changed what I think about (Postman, p. 20). Instead of thinking about how a close circle of friends are doing, I think about how hundreds of friends are doing because the internet has made it possible for me to keep (loosely) in touch with more people. The internet has also changed the symbols I think with (Postman, p. 20). Instead of thinking about words exchanged in face-to-face interactions I've had with people, I think of the pictures people have posted on facebook recently. The internet has even changed the nature of community (Postman, p. 20). It has become the place I often go to find a sense of community (Wood & Smith, p. 21).
Without the internet I couldn't communicate with as many people in a day. I couldn't instantly send messages to mass amounts of people in a couple of minutes. Instead, I had to individually call each person I wanted to talk to and have a more personal conversation. I enjoyed being able to hear people's immediate responses because it gave me a much clearer idea of how they truly felt, but I didn't enjoy the inefficiency of it all.
The internet has most definitely made efficiency more possible in my life, so now I value efficiency more than ever. I value the efficiency of finding the weather forecast, my bank account balance, and updates on friends and family across the world all in one place. I value not having to take the time to go to multiple sources for each thing. I can get a lot more accomplished in a day when the internet can provide all of my communication and information needs; however, there is something to be said for the more personal interactions that must take place in the absence of the internet. Life without the internet may not allow for us to accomplish as many things in a day, but I think it forces us to have more real life interactions. I value, and even rely on, the efficiency the internet offers for gathering information, but when it comes down to it, communicating with friends and family face-to-face or even over the phone, though less efficient, is much more fulfilling than communicating with them online.
Immediately when I woke up I wanted to check the weather forecast for the day, as it is part of my daily routine. Usually I would find that information in my favorites on the internet, but I had to come up with an alternative way of gathering it. I decided to call my husband and ask him if he had seen the forecast. Not having the impersonal internet to provide me with information gave me an extra opportunity to talk with my husband.
Next, I wanted to check the balance on our bank account (something I do every morning). I know I should probably keep a written record of all our spending. Sometimes I do, but I tend to miss things...a lot of things. I don't miss things because I can't remember to write them down. I miss them because I know that I have instant access to online banking, and our exact balance, at all times. When I realized that I couldn't check our bank account, I simply decided to wait until my 24 hours of abstinence were up to do so. I decided to wait to pay our bills too, since I pay all of them online.
After I had a conversation with my husband and forfeited my opportunity to check our bank account, I wanted to SEE what was going on in the lives of my friends and family around the world. I couldn't do that either. At least I couldn't check up on all of them. I also needed to discuss some upcoming plans with a couple of people, and I wanted to send out one message to all of them on facebook, but I had to call them individually instead.
I can definately see how the internet has changed the way I think and the way I live my life every day, just as Postman, Wood and Smith discussed. It has changed what I think about (Postman, p. 20). Instead of thinking about how a close circle of friends are doing, I think about how hundreds of friends are doing because the internet has made it possible for me to keep (loosely) in touch with more people. The internet has also changed the symbols I think with (Postman, p. 20). Instead of thinking about words exchanged in face-to-face interactions I've had with people, I think of the pictures people have posted on facebook recently. The internet has even changed the nature of community (Postman, p. 20). It has become the place I often go to find a sense of community (Wood & Smith, p. 21).
Without the internet I couldn't communicate with as many people in a day. I couldn't instantly send messages to mass amounts of people in a couple of minutes. Instead, I had to individually call each person I wanted to talk to and have a more personal conversation. I enjoyed being able to hear people's immediate responses because it gave me a much clearer idea of how they truly felt, but I didn't enjoy the inefficiency of it all.
The internet has most definitely made efficiency more possible in my life, so now I value efficiency more than ever. I value the efficiency of finding the weather forecast, my bank account balance, and updates on friends and family across the world all in one place. I value not having to take the time to go to multiple sources for each thing. I can get a lot more accomplished in a day when the internet can provide all of my communication and information needs; however, there is something to be said for the more personal interactions that must take place in the absence of the internet. Life without the internet may not allow for us to accomplish as many things in a day, but I think it forces us to have more real life interactions. I value, and even rely on, the efficiency the internet offers for gathering information, but when it comes down to it, communicating with friends and family face-to-face or even over the phone, though less efficient, is much more fulfilling than communicating with them online.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)