Okay, I mostly want to focus on the Bronwyn Williams piece, though I think this equally relevant for the Jones piece: We are clearly not the audience. It is not news to us that there is some sort of "interactivity" going on between online multi-modal writing and the "real" world. It is no surprise that people multitask while doing online or even regular homework and it is certainly not ground breaking research to study facebook and myspace pages.... Unless we are talking about perhaps those not technologically connected (at all). The thing is -- this is the world we live in. If you let your child think it is okay to talk to strangers and accept sweet treats from them in the park while you go to a nearby bar to grab a quick drink 40 years ago, you are the same parent who doesn't monitor their 12 year old girl who gets online and creates a fake profile or chats with strangers. (stranger danger)
Pop culture is commonly mistaken for "Jersey Shore" and terrible quality programming and (heaven forbid) rap music, though Pop stands for "popular"... ... so the New York Times contains pop culture, the Bible contains pop culture... ...? Not a problem. Everything that defines a certain society at a given time can be defined as pop culture. While it is interesting to study "pop" culture of the 1920's it is not necessarily (or, in my opinion) very valid to write extensively on the interfacing of today in a shocked expository.
Given, in 1999/2000 (when the Jones piece was written, if memory serves me correctly, if not -- please correct me) this could be quite relevant and perhaps shocking. Students using the computer to communicate rather than actually meeting up! But 2008, Williams is a little ahead or behind her time in writing a reflection on something that is currently happening? Not what I would call the best situated rhetorical device on her part.
All in all -- these articles/journals said what we all already know about our own world. We use it and we are familiar with it.
I agree. I did not find anything ground breaking in either of these articles. It was as if we were supposed to be surprised at how many things one can do online at once and that people can create identities online. I actually thought Williams missed a lot by not talking about the identities people create for us when they post something on our page. But yes, basically there was nothing in either of these that was really new information...maybe just information looked at a little deeper than what we normally do.
ReplyDeleteI always love your matter-of-fact posts! I just think it's kinda laughable that this technological multitasking is even noteworthy--of course everything should be studied, but we live life multitasking, so why is moving that life habit over to our use of technological advances unusual behavior? Mom's are no strangers to multi-tasking--change diapers, feed other kids, help with homework, notice the dogs are chasing the chickens and call them, answer the phone, snap at a nagging spouse--and you better believe that the nagging spouse and dog-chasing-chickens has an impact on the homework-doing! And don't get me started on the multitasking that goes on when driving, or when operating an fire engine/firefighting, or performing CPR in the back of an ambulance that is winding through the mountains. It seems to me that technology is just finally catching up with the human capacity and proclivity to multitask when needed. Huurah!!!! =)
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your assertion that the Williams article told us nothing new about our current generation that is almost totally engrossed within social networking. I did however find it fascinating that he took the high road and chose to say this generation is not being "dumbed down" by it. I do find it facinating how other aspects of our culture can and should be considered popular and there is nothing particularly wrong with that. I may continue to thumb my nose at Jersey Shore and Justin Beiber, but I will naturally think twice before thumbing my nose at fans of those aspects of today's culture.
ReplyDeleteSpencer! Well said. Given the articles we've been exposed to so far, academic articles in favor of technology are few (if any?). I suppose I did't make my transition between Williams and Jones extremely clear. Mostly what I was disappointed in is the fact that something like that can be considered an academic article.SHE has some extremely good points about pop culture and technology that I think are intended for the older academic generation and that is what her (Williams) article is good for: giving insight to people who refuse to admit that we are officially living in a new era of communication, which, I agree, is a very good thing -- I'm really excited to see where academia, especially the humanities, takes technology. I think it would be great if it were utilized more frequently. That, I guess, is why I appreciate professors like Dr. Sexson who really appreciates the many uses technology can bring to a classroom :) Thanks for bringing up the unnecessary bitterness in my post! haha I have a tendency to get really carried away lol :)
ReplyDeleteJones' article was written after 2005, believe it or not. Though I definitely was a bit annoyed by how old fashioned it sounded, I kept in mind while reading it that it is from just a few years ago. If anything, The fact that you, and many (myself included) assumed that this article was much older is a testament to the sheer speed at which CMC and digital environments change. I found this to be the most interesting part of the readings, and tried to think about what implications it may have for us as writers. Five, six years from now, who knows how outdated some of our blog posts will be, in an era that might possible be post-facebook. I guess the message is that we need to stay on our feet, embrace new technology, and strive to keep up with all the latest forms of CMC.
ReplyDelete