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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)