Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Final Assignment
Well here it is, the final assignment. It is the creation of a website that includes video and audio files as well as graphics and text. Since I already have this blog site which includes only one graphic element (a picture) and text, I wondered how I could include video w/audio files to at least complete the assignment. No, this is not Dreamweaver but is that really the point? Perhaps the point is to just try something that you've never done before. Let's hope so. So here it is, the video I've chosen is at the bottom of this site. As an avid environmentalist, I believe that an active effort to recycle can come in very handy in almost any situation. Enjoy
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Paradox, the Surprise, and the Wonder.
Recently I read Neil Postman’s 1993 book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. In it Postman talks about the perils associated with the use of new technology and its unseen or unimagined consequences. From writing and print to the introduction and use of the computer, Postman points out the subtle ways in which new technologies designed to be of benefit to humanity have in fact detracted from the true discovery of it and have done little to advance culture, instead enslaving culture through the incessant quest for the latest gadget advertised to “simplify” or otherwise improve our lives.
Postman cites technology historian Lewis Mumford’s writings on the mechanical clock, which was invented by the Benedictine monks to call them to worship, to illustrate his point. Mumford writes, “The Mechanical clock made possible the idea of regular production, regular working hours and a standardized product.” Postman takes this point further by writing “without the clock, capitalism would have been quite impossible. The paradox, the surprise, and the wonder are that the clock was invented by men who wanted to devote themselves more rigorously to God; it ended as the technology of greatest use to men who wished to devote themselves to the accumulation of money.” (1993, p. 15)
Today in the latest edition of the magazine Business 2.0 an article titled Rethinking the Time Clock described the efforts being made by the retail chain Best Buys to move away from specified time scheduling and toward allowing employees to manage their own time based on what needs to be done based on their work assignments. Under a program called Rowe (results only work environment) employees arrange their own work schedule and are evaluated on the completion of tasks rather than time spent doing them. I wonder what the Benedictine monks would think about this concept or what Postman would have to say about this idea. Have we become so dependent upon our technology that we can no longer function properly without it? Is there no allowance for free will or the amazing ability for humans to manage themselves?
Jody Thompson, co-founder of CultureRx, a consulting firm promoting the use of Rowe, says, “Scheduling is an industrial-age mentality. Today’s workers are more capable of managing their time.” Also quoted in the article is Phyllis Moen, a sociology professor from the University of Minnesota who conducted a study of the Rowe project. Moen states, “It’s not about being free to come and go, but being free to come and go based on getting the work done, so covering the show floor will necessitate coordinating with others. It’s a revolutionary idea.” (2007, p. 24) Coordinating with others is a revolutionary idea? What about the early hunters and gatherers, wasn't there some coordination in that?
Is this a revolutionary idea or is it just another in a long line of recruiting and retention strategies? Perhaps now that Best Buys has obtained the resources of The Geek Squad to maintain all of the consumer electronics that they sell, they need a more reliable sales force to move their products out the door and into the home. They have to accommodate younger workers who have a greater desire for “creativity, social connectivity, fun, freedom, speed, and diversity in their workplaces.” (Tapscott & Williams, 2007. p. 248) Or is this just another form of “branding” which captures the unsuspecting public and gets them to commit to what they think is an exceptional level of customer service but subtly snares them in a web of consumerism. Todd Gitlin holds that added to celebrity “testimonials, symbols and logos, the typographies and labels, the long playing theme ads and public relations campaigns that establish ‘corporate identity,’ radiates a feeling about a company’s style, offering a ‘unique selling proposition’ that links a company to a mood and a social type.” (2002, p. 69)
This selling of a workplace atmosphere has become more than just a recruiting tool; it is fast becoming the standard by which a company creates competitive advantage in the global economy. Co-ordination, collaboration, whatever the new buzz word might be, communication is now critical to success in the workplace. No longer can one stand at an assembly line for 30 years without interacting with anything but the machine in front of them. From Best Buy to IBM, companies are looking for ways to re-engage the worker and re-energize the workplace. (Tapscott & Williams, 2007. p. 239 -277) Innovation is more than technology or the unintended drawbacks or rewards of technology filled machines. It is also about the human spirit, imagination, creativity, interaction and yes, fun. Tapscott writes, “Technology can open doors, but it can’t make people walk through them.” (p. 277) Ultimately people make both a choice and a difference. Perhaps it is here that we realize even more the importance of discovery and the paradox, the surprise and the wonder of new methods of communication.
REFERENCES
Gitlin, T. (2002). Media unlimited: How the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms our lives. New York: Holt & Company
Hamner, S. (2007, March). What’s next: Rethinking the time clock. Business 2.0, 8, p. 24
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2007) Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin Group
Postman cites technology historian Lewis Mumford’s writings on the mechanical clock, which was invented by the Benedictine monks to call them to worship, to illustrate his point. Mumford writes, “The Mechanical clock made possible the idea of regular production, regular working hours and a standardized product.” Postman takes this point further by writing “without the clock, capitalism would have been quite impossible. The paradox, the surprise, and the wonder are that the clock was invented by men who wanted to devote themselves more rigorously to God; it ended as the technology of greatest use to men who wished to devote themselves to the accumulation of money.” (1993, p. 15)
Today in the latest edition of the magazine Business 2.0 an article titled Rethinking the Time Clock described the efforts being made by the retail chain Best Buys to move away from specified time scheduling and toward allowing employees to manage their own time based on what needs to be done based on their work assignments. Under a program called Rowe (results only work environment) employees arrange their own work schedule and are evaluated on the completion of tasks rather than time spent doing them. I wonder what the Benedictine monks would think about this concept or what Postman would have to say about this idea. Have we become so dependent upon our technology that we can no longer function properly without it? Is there no allowance for free will or the amazing ability for humans to manage themselves?
Jody Thompson, co-founder of CultureRx, a consulting firm promoting the use of Rowe, says, “Scheduling is an industrial-age mentality. Today’s workers are more capable of managing their time.” Also quoted in the article is Phyllis Moen, a sociology professor from the University of Minnesota who conducted a study of the Rowe project. Moen states, “It’s not about being free to come and go, but being free to come and go based on getting the work done, so covering the show floor will necessitate coordinating with others. It’s a revolutionary idea.” (2007, p. 24) Coordinating with others is a revolutionary idea? What about the early hunters and gatherers, wasn't there some coordination in that?
Is this a revolutionary idea or is it just another in a long line of recruiting and retention strategies? Perhaps now that Best Buys has obtained the resources of The Geek Squad to maintain all of the consumer electronics that they sell, they need a more reliable sales force to move their products out the door and into the home. They have to accommodate younger workers who have a greater desire for “creativity, social connectivity, fun, freedom, speed, and diversity in their workplaces.” (Tapscott & Williams, 2007. p. 248) Or is this just another form of “branding” which captures the unsuspecting public and gets them to commit to what they think is an exceptional level of customer service but subtly snares them in a web of consumerism. Todd Gitlin holds that added to celebrity “testimonials, symbols and logos, the typographies and labels, the long playing theme ads and public relations campaigns that establish ‘corporate identity,’ radiates a feeling about a company’s style, offering a ‘unique selling proposition’ that links a company to a mood and a social type.” (2002, p. 69)
This selling of a workplace atmosphere has become more than just a recruiting tool; it is fast becoming the standard by which a company creates competitive advantage in the global economy. Co-ordination, collaboration, whatever the new buzz word might be, communication is now critical to success in the workplace. No longer can one stand at an assembly line for 30 years without interacting with anything but the machine in front of them. From Best Buy to IBM, companies are looking for ways to re-engage the worker and re-energize the workplace. (Tapscott & Williams, 2007. p. 239 -277) Innovation is more than technology or the unintended drawbacks or rewards of technology filled machines. It is also about the human spirit, imagination, creativity, interaction and yes, fun. Tapscott writes, “Technology can open doors, but it can’t make people walk through them.” (p. 277) Ultimately people make both a choice and a difference. Perhaps it is here that we realize even more the importance of discovery and the paradox, the surprise and the wonder of new methods of communication.
REFERENCES
Gitlin, T. (2002). Media unlimited: How the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms our lives. New York: Holt & Company
Hamner, S. (2007, March). What’s next: Rethinking the time clock. Business 2.0, 8, p. 24
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2007) Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin Group
Friday, February 9, 2007
Orality and Fact
This reflection essay explores two topics, orality (what is said, heard, and orally repeated) and fact. I once thought that a rare phenomenon occurred only in my small home town of Newport. I had noticed that when someone said something with authority, people would often repeat whatever was said until enough people were saying it and it was simply accepted as fact. I referred to this as Newport “truths.” What I once thought was only typical of my small town environment, I have come to recognize now in Fox news and news talk show programming.
Fox Broadcasting uses catch phrases and slogans that allow the listener to assume that these phrases are said with some authority. For instance, the slogan which heralds in Fox News coverage is entitled “Fair and Balanced.” After watching only a few of these news broadcasts or listening to the commentary made by the anchors on other Fox news talk shows, it is clear that this organization has a definite conservative edge. Balance is not part of this equation and fairness might depend on whether or not one agrees with their blatant conservative political leanings or not. (Rendall & Hollar, 2004) Fox has gained more and more listeners and has established its authority simply by implying that they know something that others do not. They offer this authority by saying, “People we’ve talked to,” or “Some people say…” to infer that if they don’t know themselves, they know people who are authorities and they are connected to them. (Greenwald, 2004) People with conservative political views serve on the Fox Board of Directors, act as news expert consultants, provide financially support for their stations through advertising revenues, and secure funding for political action groups and targeted campaigns. Conservative talk radio hosts have quoted Fox News anchors and other Fox talk show expert consultants as stating a particular position which gives legitimacy to their own position and subsequent actions. Something is said with authority, repeated by someone quoting this authority and when repeated enough times by enough people, whatever was said, becomes the “truth” and people then perceive it as “fact.”
Fox is typical of the ideology that supports the notion that “the masses” are not capable of governing and therefore must be told what to think and how to conduct their lives. Noam Chomsky, in the documentary film entitled Manufacturing Consent, (Achbar & Wintonick) talks about what Walter Lippmann described in his book Public Opinion as “the manufacture of consent.” Lippman wrote that the manufacture of consent was “a technique of control” that is useful and necessary because the “common interests (those issues that affect all people in a democracy) very largely elude the public.” So these common interests must be “managed only by a specialized class.” This, in Chomsky’s view, is the opposite of the standard view of democracy and he enlists, as support for this view, the words of moralist Reinholt Niebuhr to complete the picture of how people can be taken in by a well established “myth” and believe that they have power when it has been taken from them. Neibuhr posited that “rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. This naïve faith requires “necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications.” These are provided by the “myth maker to keep the ordinary person on course.” (Achbar&Wintonick, Chapter/Scene 5) These tactics seem to be used daily across all Fox news and informational programming. For a more in depth look at how Fox manipulates information and the power Fox has over its audience I would refer the reader to the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdock’s War on Journalism.
The point I want to make here is that while we are bombarded each day with a great deal of information, we are still a society that has been, as part of its culture and its history, influenced by great political speeches and other oral commentary. Words matter. How they are delivered matters. We recall that which is memorable and said with authority or with a catchy turn of a phrase. (Ong, 1988) An example of this might be, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” from the O.J. Simpson trial or one of Fox News favorites regarding 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry, “he’s a flip-flopper.” When these types of words and phrases are uttered with authority, repeated often, heard from several different sources if only in passing throughout the day while busily working in the kitchen making dinner for the family or while driving home listening to talk radio, we pick up on them and they have an impact on our perceptions. We repeat them to our family and friends without questioning their validity or accuracy. We get busy and we think it does not matter; after all we don’t run the country or say what gets on the news. We leave that up to people in authority. We continue to prove those who underestimate us as being right. We do give up power but that does not mean that we can not regain that power. More and more of us are finding alternatives to Fox and other main stream media. Rigorous public discourse continues on the Internet and a variety of political or news blogs that welcome public commentary. People are thinking and regardless of what Fox would have us believe, we still retain the ability to question authority and stand on the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This foundational document does not begin, “according to sources close to Fox” or “some people say”, it starts with the words, “We, the people.”
If the 2006 mid-term elections are any example, the people are becoming wise to the tactics used by Fox and other main-stream media and are exercising their authority at the voting booth. People moved away from the conservative agenda espoused by Fox by electing Democrats to office, taking control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. They certainly were not told to do this by Fox, but with their votes, they repeatedly defeated Fox supported candidates across the country, now that is a “truth” that I hope is repeated in 2008 with one addition, the White House. I plan to keep repeating this with authority, perhaps many others will join me and we can eventually make this a fact. Power to the people once again!
REFERENCES
Achbar, M. & Wintonick, P. (Directors). (1993). Manufacturing consent [Motion Picture] Canada: Zeigeist Video
Greenwald, R. (Director). (2004). Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism [Motion Picture] New York: The Disinformation Company
Ong, W. (1988). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen
Rendall, S. & Hollar, J. (July/August 2004). Still failing the “Fair and Balanced” Test. Retrieved from the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting website located at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187
Fox Broadcasting uses catch phrases and slogans that allow the listener to assume that these phrases are said with some authority. For instance, the slogan which heralds in Fox News coverage is entitled “Fair and Balanced.” After watching only a few of these news broadcasts or listening to the commentary made by the anchors on other Fox news talk shows, it is clear that this organization has a definite conservative edge. Balance is not part of this equation and fairness might depend on whether or not one agrees with their blatant conservative political leanings or not. (Rendall & Hollar, 2004) Fox has gained more and more listeners and has established its authority simply by implying that they know something that others do not. They offer this authority by saying, “People we’ve talked to,” or “Some people say…” to infer that if they don’t know themselves, they know people who are authorities and they are connected to them. (Greenwald, 2004) People with conservative political views serve on the Fox Board of Directors, act as news expert consultants, provide financially support for their stations through advertising revenues, and secure funding for political action groups and targeted campaigns. Conservative talk radio hosts have quoted Fox News anchors and other Fox talk show expert consultants as stating a particular position which gives legitimacy to their own position and subsequent actions. Something is said with authority, repeated by someone quoting this authority and when repeated enough times by enough people, whatever was said, becomes the “truth” and people then perceive it as “fact.”
Fox is typical of the ideology that supports the notion that “the masses” are not capable of governing and therefore must be told what to think and how to conduct their lives. Noam Chomsky, in the documentary film entitled Manufacturing Consent, (Achbar & Wintonick) talks about what Walter Lippmann described in his book Public Opinion as “the manufacture of consent.” Lippman wrote that the manufacture of consent was “a technique of control” that is useful and necessary because the “common interests (those issues that affect all people in a democracy) very largely elude the public.” So these common interests must be “managed only by a specialized class.” This, in Chomsky’s view, is the opposite of the standard view of democracy and he enlists, as support for this view, the words of moralist Reinholt Niebuhr to complete the picture of how people can be taken in by a well established “myth” and believe that they have power when it has been taken from them. Neibuhr posited that “rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. This naïve faith requires “necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications.” These are provided by the “myth maker to keep the ordinary person on course.” (Achbar&Wintonick, Chapter/Scene 5) These tactics seem to be used daily across all Fox news and informational programming. For a more in depth look at how Fox manipulates information and the power Fox has over its audience I would refer the reader to the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdock’s War on Journalism.
The point I want to make here is that while we are bombarded each day with a great deal of information, we are still a society that has been, as part of its culture and its history, influenced by great political speeches and other oral commentary. Words matter. How they are delivered matters. We recall that which is memorable and said with authority or with a catchy turn of a phrase. (Ong, 1988) An example of this might be, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” from the O.J. Simpson trial or one of Fox News favorites regarding 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry, “he’s a flip-flopper.” When these types of words and phrases are uttered with authority, repeated often, heard from several different sources if only in passing throughout the day while busily working in the kitchen making dinner for the family or while driving home listening to talk radio, we pick up on them and they have an impact on our perceptions. We repeat them to our family and friends without questioning their validity or accuracy. We get busy and we think it does not matter; after all we don’t run the country or say what gets on the news. We leave that up to people in authority. We continue to prove those who underestimate us as being right. We do give up power but that does not mean that we can not regain that power. More and more of us are finding alternatives to Fox and other main stream media. Rigorous public discourse continues on the Internet and a variety of political or news blogs that welcome public commentary. People are thinking and regardless of what Fox would have us believe, we still retain the ability to question authority and stand on the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This foundational document does not begin, “according to sources close to Fox” or “some people say”, it starts with the words, “We, the people.”
If the 2006 mid-term elections are any example, the people are becoming wise to the tactics used by Fox and other main-stream media and are exercising their authority at the voting booth. People moved away from the conservative agenda espoused by Fox by electing Democrats to office, taking control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. They certainly were not told to do this by Fox, but with their votes, they repeatedly defeated Fox supported candidates across the country, now that is a “truth” that I hope is repeated in 2008 with one addition, the White House. I plan to keep repeating this with authority, perhaps many others will join me and we can eventually make this a fact. Power to the people once again!
REFERENCES
Achbar, M. & Wintonick, P. (Directors). (1993). Manufacturing consent [Motion Picture] Canada: Zeigeist Video
Greenwald, R. (Director). (2004). Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism [Motion Picture] New York: The Disinformation Company
Ong, W. (1988). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen
Rendall, S. & Hollar, J. (July/August 2004). Still failing the “Fair and Balanced” Test. Retrieved from the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting website located at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187
Friday, January 26, 2007
The Conversation Begins
I had several assumptions before I began this journey, the first was that I knew where it was leading me and the second was that I already knew quite a bit about the topic. Within the first two weeks, I am realizing just how wrong I was in making these assumptions and how far this journey may take me.
Last semester I spent a great deal of time talking about talking, dialogue, and the art of conversation. I began reading and thinking about the work of foundational theorists like Mikhail Bakhtin who asserted that the only way a person might know of themselves is through a conversation with another person and that the “other” person provided the perspective and vantage point from with to see one’s “self” and know one’s true nature. Bakhtin went on to show the importance of “the utterance,” holding that “any utterance is a link in the chain of speech communication.” (Anderson, Baxter, Cissna, 2004, p. 134) The listener then plays a very active role in determining what is said, interpreting its meaning and then making an appropriate response. This give and take in dialogue, along with modality, and the issues to be discussed have given rise to many subsequent conversations, reports, theses, and research projects. Jurgen Habermas, German sociologist and philosopher, wrote extensively about the “ideal speech situation” and felt that people had the ability to communicate reasonably and rationally but that “power relationships” had an influence on conversations. (Habermas, 1984, 1987)
Stan Deetz, professor at the University of Colorado and another dialogic theorist, talks about how “power relationships” might be managed through facilitated conversations. Through the use of managed or facilitated dialogue, even the most derisive of topics can be discussed openly and by sharing opposing views, long held prejudices and opinions can be changed. Simply by hearing another person’s point of view and being allowed to share information through civil discourse, one begins to see the world from a different vantage point. Deetz holds that often times trying to seek “common ground” only serves the dominant culture or status quo and that native voices may not be well served but through facilitated conversations, civic dialogue brings about an active engagement and a deeper understanding of diversity which provides for the opportunity of getting beyond mere consensus or “common ground” understanding and moving to true transformation. (Anderson, Baxter, Cissna, 2004, p. 141-53)
Added to this mix of voices is now a new technology. It isn’t just about the art of conversation at this point, although that is still very important. It is whether or not computer mediated communication is enhancing this conversation or in some way harming it. It is also about whether or not this medium offers an appropriate or sufficient forum for real conversations. Again there are supported arguments on both sides of these issues. I believe that this medium does provide a proper forum and continues to enhance, albeit in ways we had probably never imagined, the conversation.
Some say that technology is only a tool and for many people this tool has become the life blood of their ability to communicate with the outside world. It has become the only means to power, protection, or awareness. For people in war torn countries it may be the only way to get their stories out and seek assistance from a world unaware of the problems inside the country. For young girls, access to and an understanding of the Internet, computer applications, and to some extent on-line gaming, might help to equal the playing field in a male dominated workplace. People with disabilities, life threatening illnesses, living in abusive relationships, or any number of similarly harmful situations, the Internet offers informational help and assistance through access to local services to improve the quality of one’s life. (Thurlow, Lengel, Tomic. 2004) I am not forgetting the pitfalls associated with this technology or the opposing arguments made by technology skeptics. I simply believe that when people know better and have more access to information, including the furtherance of understanding through on-going dialogue, they do better. Granted, limitations to access to technology does seem to be heavily weighted toward more advanced countries, English speakers, wealthier people, but we do see the trends moving to a more diverse demographic and as more people gain access, more voices will be heard and I think this will only add to the richness and texture of the on-going conversation.
Today, as I write the first of three reflective papers, I am struck by the amount of foundational material that exists on dialogue and how much has been written about having a conversation. I am also realizing that while much has been written, this remains a fluid, dynamic area of study. From text messaging, to Web casts, the art of conversation continues to evolve; recently I participated in an interactive Web conversation with Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She took questions from the Internet audience and elaborated on her stance about the issues confronting the country. I found it interesting that she began her campaign with this expanded use of computer mediated communication, using the Web to provide the look and feel of a face-to-face conversation. It made me want to check out the other candidates (currently only Republican and Democrats) to see if they were going to utilize this technology to “have a conversation” with voters and how well these conversations resonate with the voting public. I have to ask, will the one who masters this virtual face-to-face conversation, sway enough voters to win the White House? Hillary must think so, she says, “Let the conversation begin.”
References
Anderson, R., Baxter, L.A., Cissna, K. (2004). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Clinton, H. (Host) 2007 Webcast located at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1 Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Beacon Press
Habermas, J. (1987) The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Life world and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Beacon Press
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London: Sage Publications
Last semester I spent a great deal of time talking about talking, dialogue, and the art of conversation. I began reading and thinking about the work of foundational theorists like Mikhail Bakhtin who asserted that the only way a person might know of themselves is through a conversation with another person and that the “other” person provided the perspective and vantage point from with to see one’s “self” and know one’s true nature. Bakhtin went on to show the importance of “the utterance,” holding that “any utterance is a link in the chain of speech communication.” (Anderson, Baxter, Cissna, 2004, p. 134) The listener then plays a very active role in determining what is said, interpreting its meaning and then making an appropriate response. This give and take in dialogue, along with modality, and the issues to be discussed have given rise to many subsequent conversations, reports, theses, and research projects. Jurgen Habermas, German sociologist and philosopher, wrote extensively about the “ideal speech situation” and felt that people had the ability to communicate reasonably and rationally but that “power relationships” had an influence on conversations. (Habermas, 1984, 1987)
Stan Deetz, professor at the University of Colorado and another dialogic theorist, talks about how “power relationships” might be managed through facilitated conversations. Through the use of managed or facilitated dialogue, even the most derisive of topics can be discussed openly and by sharing opposing views, long held prejudices and opinions can be changed. Simply by hearing another person’s point of view and being allowed to share information through civil discourse, one begins to see the world from a different vantage point. Deetz holds that often times trying to seek “common ground” only serves the dominant culture or status quo and that native voices may not be well served but through facilitated conversations, civic dialogue brings about an active engagement and a deeper understanding of diversity which provides for the opportunity of getting beyond mere consensus or “common ground” understanding and moving to true transformation. (Anderson, Baxter, Cissna, 2004, p. 141-53)
Added to this mix of voices is now a new technology. It isn’t just about the art of conversation at this point, although that is still very important. It is whether or not computer mediated communication is enhancing this conversation or in some way harming it. It is also about whether or not this medium offers an appropriate or sufficient forum for real conversations. Again there are supported arguments on both sides of these issues. I believe that this medium does provide a proper forum and continues to enhance, albeit in ways we had probably never imagined, the conversation.
Some say that technology is only a tool and for many people this tool has become the life blood of their ability to communicate with the outside world. It has become the only means to power, protection, or awareness. For people in war torn countries it may be the only way to get their stories out and seek assistance from a world unaware of the problems inside the country. For young girls, access to and an understanding of the Internet, computer applications, and to some extent on-line gaming, might help to equal the playing field in a male dominated workplace. People with disabilities, life threatening illnesses, living in abusive relationships, or any number of similarly harmful situations, the Internet offers informational help and assistance through access to local services to improve the quality of one’s life. (Thurlow, Lengel, Tomic. 2004) I am not forgetting the pitfalls associated with this technology or the opposing arguments made by technology skeptics. I simply believe that when people know better and have more access to information, including the furtherance of understanding through on-going dialogue, they do better. Granted, limitations to access to technology does seem to be heavily weighted toward more advanced countries, English speakers, wealthier people, but we do see the trends moving to a more diverse demographic and as more people gain access, more voices will be heard and I think this will only add to the richness and texture of the on-going conversation.
Today, as I write the first of three reflective papers, I am struck by the amount of foundational material that exists on dialogue and how much has been written about having a conversation. I am also realizing that while much has been written, this remains a fluid, dynamic area of study. From text messaging, to Web casts, the art of conversation continues to evolve; recently I participated in an interactive Web conversation with Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She took questions from the Internet audience and elaborated on her stance about the issues confronting the country. I found it interesting that she began her campaign with this expanded use of computer mediated communication, using the Web to provide the look and feel of a face-to-face conversation. It made me want to check out the other candidates (currently only Republican and Democrats) to see if they were going to utilize this technology to “have a conversation” with voters and how well these conversations resonate with the voting public. I have to ask, will the one who masters this virtual face-to-face conversation, sway enough voters to win the White House? Hillary must think so, she says, “Let the conversation begin.”
References
Anderson, R., Baxter, L.A., Cissna, K. (2004). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Clinton, H. (Host) 2007 Webcast located at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1 Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Beacon Press
Habermas, J. (1987) The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Life world and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Beacon Press
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London: Sage Publications
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
At first glance
It seems to me that blogging, web-chats, and other Internet conversations can be almost as "subtle, false, and treacherous" as Shakespeare's Richard III. The questions I have are: in the end, unlike mad Richard, will our culture be better off for having had these conversations? Does this computer mediated communication provide us tools with which to carry on meaningful dialogue about the great issues of the day or simply to sink to our lowest cultural point and basest instincts?
William Shakespeare's Richard III
Act 1 Scene 1
London. A street. Enter Richard, Duke of Gloucester, solus
Gloucester: Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lowered upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments,
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front,
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamped, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them -
Why I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other;
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false, and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mewed up
About a prophecy which says that "G"
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul - here Clarence comes!
William Shakespeare's Richard III
Act 1 Scene 1
London. A street. Enter Richard, Duke of Gloucester, solus
Gloucester: Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lowered upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments,
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front,
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamped, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them -
Why I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other;
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false, and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mewed up
About a prophecy which says that "G"
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul - here Clarence comes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
