While reading the Porter text last night (yes, I'm late and yes, I've been sick!), a number of different statements got a rise out of me. Part of me, specifically the part that taught high school for 10 years with hundreds of students coming in and out of my room each day, had a reaction to the conversation about writing instruction still being "mainly a matter of...arrangement (syntax and diction, grammatical competency...)" and the like (175). With the focus almost always being exclusive to what we can do to bring up test scores, this was inescapable, and I time traveled back to a place I did not want to be. But that's a conversation for another day...
Reading on, I found that I had a curious reaction to the idea that "The chief advantage of a folksonomic approach is that it allows you to "see what people are thinking," to find out what people are reading, and to see what tags others use to organize content" (181). This quote was in reference to the Time magazine "You" selection for 2006's "Person of the Year," and while I get the idea, and while I understand the point, I find myself a little perplexed by it.
I cannot recall the author here, but I know there is a quote out there somewhere that suggests nothing is "original." That everything is based on something else. Movies, books, songs, fashion, etc...all of it is built from a previous iteration of sorts. It is for this reason that I sometimes feel like the word "inspiration" is troubling. Might there be a difference between true inspiration and simple adaptation/theft for "economic" purposes? I suppose maybe that has something to do with a more monetary version of economics, but there is still a "supply and demand" style event happening here (did I get enough "likes?". My question is about the nature of that "demand."
I would also argue then that the word "advantage" in the quote above might be most important to my concern here. The presentation of that folksonomic argument isn't that it is empirical or exclusive, but that it might have something to do with my ideas on inspiration versus adaptation, mindless or purposeful inclined. Maybe I'm just bothered by the word "wisdom" as it sits next to social media.
I guess I tend to be overly critical of social media in just about every aspect, even if I say that as a hypocrite who uses Twitter because he loves sports. Still though, that in and of itself is part of what confounded me. My Twitter realm is very sports specific. My timeline is legitimately 90% sports oriented. If it dabbles into politics or other topics, it does so through the lens of sports and sports media. It is here where I think the conversation matters. I'm intrigued by the "power of the collective group," but only so when that "group" is literally "collective" in some unified sense. As referenced in the text, an online support group for people who deal with a similar medical condition sounds exactly like something that I feel would indeed provide (potential) wisdom, or at least different ideas and perspective you could address with a doctor (though this class has given me some concern with that if you're a women. Not something I'd really thought of before).
What I have concern about is the "collective power" of a group of people who are not unified in any sense, and it becomes a cesspool of toxic and endlessly abrasive "debate." Now I am also sure that in this open environment some wonderful things happen, yet I feel like whenever I open myself to a more broad version of Twitter or Facebook, my reaction is one of a desperate need to run away. As Porter says, "many cooks are good for brainstorming," but that "too many cooks can spoil" things (182).
I realize I've taken some of this out of context a bit, but it really has me thinking about how people get information, and who they get it from. What is original? What are we "thinking" about that is important, based on who said it and how frequently is it said online? How many of our friends retweeted it? Did I see something on Facebook that "got me thinking," and if it did, and "I" really thinking? This discussion on original thought has me a bit bothered, I must admit. I also realize that in some sense, this is not different than other times, such as going to a public square and listening to debate, yet the simple amount of information available now seems to be able to act as an entirely different economic engine. All of it has me just a little foggy.
But it could also just be the codeine in the cough medicine. Who knows.
Troy,
ReplyDeleteI understand your concerns with originality here. While it seems like everything is based off of something else, I think our experiences with these things of the past is what is "original." Our reactions to movies, books, TV shows, etc. are unique to us, even if shared with others. We all bring such different perspectives and backgrounds to the conversation, which is what I find "original," I suppose.
However, I do see the problem when it becomes a money making thing. If I have to see one more remake of a film that has at least two already, I will absolutely scream.
Your points about a collective power on social media without any real unification are interesting, especially in the age of Trump. I find that many Trump supporters have one thing in common: they support Trump. They tend to have no idea what all of his policies are, and when one is pointed out to them that is horrible, they pretend they don't care and continue to defend him.
Social media can be difficult because there really is no moderation. You have to provide that moderation yourself, and as a society that loves excess, that can be impossible.