merrillmastersenglish

[merrillmastersenglish]

The Urge to Destroy

The protests in Minneapolis in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd by officer Derrick Shouvin quickly devolved into buildings being burnt to the ground. While artists took to the streets with paint cans clutched in hands, some of the most memorable work that the country could have imagined in the midst of the dual trauma of a pandemic and yet another police brutality incident was created and illuminated by the soft glow of a police precint ablaze. Commentators decrying the violence dominated Fox news  and other right wing channels-- while activists took the mic on other platforms and reminded us that violence is language of the unheard. Art was intertwined in the pain and trauma of the situation-- calling for onlookers to take action and create a lasting change. 

Violence and art can go hand in hand-- but any time that it does critics have often declared it radical and extreme. Perhaps they are right, but in writing it off in this manner, those critics are missing a point that artivist Banksy attempted to make amidst a video he posted to YouTube following the shredding of his painting on an auction-house floor: “the urge to destroy is also a creative one.” Collective identity theory would agree with Banksy’s assertion because according to this theory, “social movement is the key effect of rhetoric” (136 The Rhetoric of Social Movements). Social movement does not inherently mean peaceful movement. It does not mean that everyone will hold hands and skip down the street--what Banksy meant by attaching the sentiment that destruction was creative was simply that sometimes to seek change-- a place, idea, or system needs to simply be destroyed and started again from scratch. Sometimes the best rhetoric seeks to tear the walls down entirely.

Artivists often attempt this type of barrier shred through the creation of a culture jam-- that is-- a deliberate attempt by the artist to create a situation which causes the audience of the piece to pause and consider the implications of the piece. As a result of their unabashed trashing of the norms, these artivists are often referred to by words with negative connotations: radical, revolutionary, arsonist, criminal, etc-- but all of these socially created concepts merely scratch the surface of an artivistic expression.  The intent is not to destroy-- the intent is to cause pause in pursuit of change-- though sometimes that pause is only created through destruction. 

Street artivist Banksy put this thought into action with the creation of his “Girl with Balloon,” a simple picture of a girl reaching for a red balloon which was just out of reach. The painting was the first piece sold at auction which was painted by the controversial yet popular street artist, but the joy of such a monumental moment was quickly replaced by shock and horror as mere moments after the gavel fell closing the auction at 1.4 million dollars, the painting began to shred through the bottom of the frame. Auction attendees were aghast at the sight of the painting’s shredded pieces protruding from the bottom of the embellished golden frame; gasps, photos, and feverish conversation wrapt the auction-house floor as art aficionados witnessed Banksy’s carefully thought out long-game art piece. The shock didn’t stop there though, the artist himself took to Instagram and posted simply... “Going, going, gone...” atop an image of the painting. Banksy is known for his creative modes of expression, but this was entirely different because never before had a painting or piece of art self destructed. Shortly after the shredding, Banksy posted a video of himself adding a shredder to the picture frame. His video ended by simply saying “in case it was ever put up for auction.” Banksy added simply: “the urge to destroy is also a creative one” as a final thought.

Banksy recognized that as an art based rhetor, in order to make a point that audiences would hear about his topic, he had to culture jam them, the moment called for him to cause pause in order to create meaningful conversation. And it worked—articles, posts on social media, videos, commentary—it dominated the conversations worldwide and caused people to start wondering about why he would do this. He didn’t even have to explain because the audience interpretation of the why seemed to drive the conversation. (Insert idea about circulation in rhetoric here).

Rhetorician Kenneth Burke would argue that Banksy created a common ground through his stunt—bringing people to a space where they could all discuss—without pretension or qualification—the impact of selling art. He further left the audience with a morsel to chew on by simply stating that destruction can also be artistic, a notion which challenged art aficionados’ idea that art must fit within a certain structure. 

To create a culture jam though-- is to use the language of a ‘man’ (sic. group) to create a pause for them. Banksy did just that--through his creation of a piece of “fine art,” and he has continues to do things like this today. In fact, every Banksy piece is a testament to Burke’s identification theory because while Banksy started out as a street artist in his hometown of Bristol, he did so by using a form of art that people in fine art circles regarded as menacing-- but by employing artistic elements he sought to create messages across the country (and later world) to challenge the beliefs of people. It is this combination of the idea of fine art and the idea of vandalism which allowed Banksy to create pieces which caused pause. Had Burke lived through the age of Banksy, he would likely regard him as a very effective rhetor. Burke’s identification theory “presumes that ‘you persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his’” (15 contemporary rhetorical theory). 

Banksy’s art was effective not only because it created common ground though—Rhetorician John Dewey would quip that what Banksy did is take the mere idea of art and art collection—and challenge it directly by causing people to experience it in a new way—because Dewey maintained that art itself is an experience—it’s not meant to simply hang on walls and be held by few people—it’s meant to be lived. Dewey’s idea of art as an experience goes farther though-- noting that the experience itself comes from emotion. Dewey doesn’t believe that art’s intention is simply to hang on walls though-- but to open windows into other worlds through which humanity can grow and change-- and he notes that “essentially the ability to learn from experience; the power to retain from one experience something which is of avail in coping with the difficulties of a later situation” (DE: 49). Dewey’s whole idea of art being an experienc to create growth and change aligns with the work of Banksy because it is forward thinking, it creates a space which challenges the throughts and ideals of others, and it does so in an effort to create meaningful and lasting change. Banksy wants his audience to experience his work and interact with it, which is evidenced in the fact that he created a piece of artwork which seemed stationary, but became interactive the moment the gavel fell-- and it drew it’s audience in to create a shared experience which caused them and those on the outside to question the norms they were enforcing through their participation in this artistic buy.

And when you couple the ideas of Burke and Dewey with the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs-you can see just why it was so effective. Banksy challenged people in a way that didn’t cause any harm to their hierarchy of needs--and therefore they were able to discuss and learn. The

On the opposite end of the spectrum though, artists whose works were illuminated with the amber glow of burning buildings during the George Floyd protests may have had great insights and things to say, but they were coupled with divisiveness in that they associated themselves with destruction that challenged the safety of people. Habermas’s criterion of communicative action explains this separation between these two street arts best when he notes that communication is how a society evolves, but that communication is also a performative action which highlights how the social world operates. The world-- may not agree, and Habermas makes this plain when he notes that “it is not only a process of reaching understanding...actors are at the same time taking part in interactions through which they develop, confirm, and renew their memberships in social groups and their own identities” (uregina.ca). Therefore-- artivism has the power to create a space where people can listen, but certain conditions must be met in order for a communicative act to happen in which the audience of said art can truly grapple with the messaging that the artivist wants them to. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

“This is America”

Starting thoughts:

Juxtaposition is also highly dominant in the song “This is America” by Childish Gambino when he starts with beats that make the audience bob their heads in unison while he says “we just wanna party” and then sharply shifts to criticism of police-- immediately calling out the double standards that people of color experience in America. In putting these contradictory things next to each other---the call to party and celebrate in the same song as the statement that black men have been “kenneled in the backyard” is a jarring coupling. Beyond the lyrical offerings though-- perhaps the most jarring part of the song “This is America” was actually it’s lyrical pairing with the music video acting. Gospel singers creating this beautiful song one minute-- and being gunned down the next. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

Intro?

[merrillmastersenglish]

Billie Holiday and artivism

One April night in 1939, an audience sat silently waiting for the cabaret singer before them to finish her set when the club lights went black leaving only one solo spotlight which shone down on the singer illuminating her alone-- as though she were a piece of china in a curio cabinet. Couples out for a night on the town waited for her to start singing, but when the words began to tumble out of her mouth-- no one spoke a word. The music began with a haunting trumpet whine, followed by a melodic piano tune that seemed to usher in what seemed as though it would be a sad song-- bluesy even-- and then the singer began to tell a truthful tale of southern lynchings of black citizens. Her words juxtaposed the horrific scene of a hanging body swinging in the breeze, eyes bulging and crows pecking on it with the romanticized idea of the “gallant south,” and the audience sat in stunned silence as the poetry flowed flawlessly from her mouth. She ended with the single line “here is a strange and bitter crop,” and exited the stage-- leaving the audience mouth agape and speechless-- alone, and without encore to process what they had just heard. 

Before the term “culture jamming” existed the practice was utilized to create societal change, and Billie Holiday’s performance of the song “Strange Fruit” is a perfect example of what ‘culture jamming’ looks like in application. Culture Jamming is the shock that an artist does to create a pause in society-- really-- a way to get people talking about a poignant issue that is important to said artist. To imagine how this scene played it is paramount to being at the first recitation of it by Ms. Holiday at a racially integrated club in New York City-- while singing with a band who could likely sing in clubs across the country while simultaneously being banned from patronizing the same establishment. Polite conversations were had about race in America, but white people were sheilded from the horror that black Americans experienced in some places simply because of their melanin-- because it was taboo to discuss such things in polite society. Holiday’s performance shook the audience out of this trance and sat them squarely in the mindset of black americans-- imploring them to consider the odd pairing of refusing to talk about truths that existed while simultaneously walking by lynchings and seeing them in pictures. 

What most people don’t know about Holiday’s performance though is that the song which created cultural ripples which persist today-- was written by a Jewish, New York school teacher named Abel Meeropol. In fact, lost in the civil rights era activism is the fact that Jewish Americans were central to the progressive changes that happened at the start of the civil rights era. The teacher turned artivist saw a picture posted in a magazine of a 1930 double lynching which so disturbed him that he was inspired “to compose ‘Strange Fruit’ as a poem” which was “published in 1937 in both The New York Teacher and the Marxist journal The New Masses under Meeropol’s nom de plume Lewis Allen” (Shmoop). Even today-- more than 80 years after it’s original performance-- “Strange Fruit” is still a highly controversial song. However, that controversial factor also means that it was highly impactful. 

One of the most impactful factors was the audience which was chosen to hear the original piece. The club where the song was first sung was known to be very politically forward in their pursuits. This was evident in the fact that it was not only an integrated club, but all of the best seats were given to balck patrons. Beyond that-- this song was presented by a soulful black singer who gave it a tone and cadence that she was known for-- she presented it in a haunting way-- transforming the lyrics which were not written by a black composer, but by a middle man-- who had the confidence and ability to criticize white society without fear of retribution. And yet-- even thought she didn’t write the song-- Holiday definitely took a risk in presenting it to the audience. She stood in front of a mixed audience and discussed taboo things while having two truths exist simultaneously: she was there to entertain them; she was there to call them out on their silence and inaction.

[merrillmastersenglish]

Pytor Pavlensky

The more I talk about Pytor Pavlensky, the more fascinating he becomes to me. Perhaps it is simply because of the shocking nature of his artwork—that I’m drawn in I mean. The chaotic nature of his art is exhilarating, but dangerous. It’s the juxtaposition of it all that makes him fascinating.

Pavlensky is the quintessential artivist. He seeks to reach people, to convince them of their folly, through shock and awe. Pavlensky is hardly the first artist to do this: Johnathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” sought to raise awareness of the poverty problems in Ireland as well as the famine that was rocking the country. In this piece, swift attempts to convince audiences that the solution to all of these problems is that we should allow breeders (women who are homeless and who keep having children) to continue having children, the government should provide food and shelter for the mother until the child is a year old, and then they should sell them to the public as food…because there’s nothing as tasty as a baby of about 1 year old. Swift sought to shock people out of their passivity.

Likewise, Pavlensky’s self adherence of his scrotum to the red square was an attempt to shake the people of Russia out of their passivity. His act was meant to scream—why are you allowing the government to continue restricting your freedoms? And not ironically—bailing his scrotum to the pavement in this case, got Pavlensky arrested as well.

It seems, in looking at other artivists that are active and celebrated—that the reasoning for many of the pieces is a call to action—a decree that the passivity of people is harmful. The artists see the urgency of the moment, but feel the audience doesn’t, so they create an exigency through shock. Their work demands people to talk, and to consider if the time is indeed…now.

[merrillmastersenglish]

One stereotype defines people and characters with disabilities entirely through their disability, both in their own thoughts and in their role in a literary plot. Another stereotype defines the disabled, dehumanizingly, as nonsexual. Yet another stereotype reduces people and characters with disabilities to the inspiration they provide others simply by living their daily lives, as if nondisabled people did not also design the world around them to fit their own circumstances.

Robert Dale Parker

[merrillmastersenglish]

Disability and LOVE in ‘reality’ tv

For many people love is the most important thing in their lives. It is one of the oldest motivations of characters as well-- from Romeo and Juliet to Simon and the Homosapien Agenda-- love is everywhere in literature and popular culture. Society seems to be surprised though when disabled people want love too. This shock manifests in shows that center around the disabled person's quest for love-- as though their love stories cannot possibly exist naturally, without prompting. Netflix's program "Love on the Spectrum" is one such rendition of displaying "love" for disabled adults. Likewise, our neighbors across the pond have a similarly popular show about love for the disabled population entitled "The Undatables." These shows, while attempting to dismantle stereotypes, actually further them, and in essence, they continue to subjugate disabled people to the fringes of society. 

As the mother of two children who are on the autism spectrum (asd), I was initially very excited to see the show "Love on the Spectrum" pop up in my suggestions on Netflix. I'm not going to lie, I binge watched the entire first season as soon as it came out. I was giddy at the prospect that my child could find love someday-- after all, all a mother wants for their children is for them to be happy-- and societal norms force us to believe that happiness is entirely dependent upon 'love.'  Movies, television, songs, and other artistic expressions center around devastation after love loss and elation at new love. We have shows that prod us to believe that love can be found instantaneously, and others that masquerade physical attraction as love. What these things are lacking though-- is diversity of people in abilities and minds. 

Pause.

It's important to note the very real struggles that parents have, not to celebrate them as some sort of hero, or to say that all disabilities are the same, but to recognize the motivations for feelings like I am expressing. I get it, when you don't experience the challenges day in and out like parents like myself do, it is hard to imagine the elation that I describe and you could easily sit in judgement. I fully recognize that my excitement as a parent for the dating show of people who have ASD could perpetuate the stereotypes that I am speaking to; I am very aware of this juxtaposition I find myself in. But you see, I am the mother of an "aspie" (person with aspberger's syndrome)-- and when my son was little, he never said he loved me. I used to cry about it, uncontrollably-- and then feel REALLY guilty that I felt that way. I thought-- maybe he doesn't love me, a doubt which often consumed those precious moments which were quiet. When he did start saying 'I love you' it was parroting. In the ASD community this is known as echolalia.  Echolalia is essentially when a person repeats something that they hear-- so mother says 'i love you' and child says 'i love you,' but no emotion is noticeable when the words are presented. At times my son is violent. There have been moments where I have had to restrain him-- for his safety and my own. My daughter is also autistic. While she presents differently, both she and my son have difficulty making friends. They each have roughly three friends, of those friends only one friend is close enough to consider a best friend. My son can't have sleepovers because the transitions and the routines are so different that they make him anxious. His anxiety comes out as anger, anger that parents of neurotypical children don't understand. For these reasons and more, I have spent many nights staring at the ceiling of my bedroom, wondering if my children will find happiness, and I have grieved the loss of the 'idea' of being a parent of a neurotypical child, not because I don't love my children, but because I struggle and I know someday they will too-- this is just not what I was told being a parent would be like. If I were to analyze these shows from a reader response lens it would be easy, my reaction to them is elation initially. Why? I believe I covered this in great detail above. My life experiences have caused me to be a cynic at the thought of my own children finding love.  But this is not a reader response type of analysis, because as an academic I can also see very problematic issues with the shows themselves.  

The very first issue is the language that is used in some of the shows. Often they set the participants apart by using words that seem to conflate able bodied/neurotypical mindedness as norm. This is blatantly clear in the title of the UK show "The Undatables," and disabled people have taken up pen (or keyboard) to challenge this very wording. Just because someone has a disability does not mean that they are not datable. Frankly, the only people who are "undatable" are those who literally cannot move or consent to date. 

Secondly, shows like "Too Hot to Handle," "Love Island," "The Bachelor"/ "The Bachelorette," are populated only with neurotypical/able-bodied people. In my reality tv viewing history I can only recall seeing one person on a show that sometimes results in finding love (Big Brother) who was neurodiverse-- but even then-- other contestants singled him out and had comments to say about his Autism. The lack of diversity in mind and body on these shows perpetuates the stereotype of a "normal" type of body, which is absurd because realistically (and according to Robert Parker's book) able-bodied people are only temporarily able-bodied. 

There are some things that these shows are doing right though-- and one that is present in both is an explanatory piece in each episode. Both shows work to incorporate information about the person's disability and what it means for their struggle to find a partner. This is a real thing.  Likewise though, able-bodied people also struggle with dating. Wouldn't it be more realistic to show people in their real state?  Wouldn't it be beneficial to breaking barriers-- for us to display disabled people intermingling in the dating pool of able-bodied people?  I mean, certainly there are able-bodied people who have fallen in love with disabled people and visa-versa. Is reality TV actually trying to tell us that disabled people can date only people who are the same or similar to them?

In the end, while there are a few things right with love shows about disabled love, what I'm saying is-- if we are serious about changing the dangerous stereotypes of the disabled community-- we should start at the heart. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

Doja Cat’s “Best Friend” Video from a feminist lens

Lyrics are rife with references to the way that women should or shouldn’t act, but even more pervasive in the music industry is the imagery representing women. In many cases, women are presented as having thick thighs and booty while also having a small stomach and large breasts. Hence, according to musicians and producers, the “ideal” woman meets these unrealistic dimensions not because she values herself, but because she seeks to please a man. This imagery is not abandoned but rather is challenged with Doja Cat’s new video “Best Friend,” which reclaims the sexuality of women and presents it as wholly for the woman herself and as a function of who she is as a person rather than what her role is prescribed to be in society. 

 From June Cleaver to the hyper-sexualized woman in little to no clothing, women are typically depicted in a binary that seems to benefit everyone but the woman herself; this depiction explains why early feminist critics like Toril Moi note that a focus of feminist criticism needs to be placed on imagery itself. These images are so prevalent in fact that according to an article by Unicef authors they can result in serious problems for women and girls-- noting that “when women and girls are repeatedly objectified and their bodies hyper-sexualized, the media contributes to harmful gender stereotypes that often trivialize violence against girls” (Swift & Gould). Not only does it trivialize violence though-- it also affects the self esteem of women so much that in the US 81% of 10 year olds are afraid of being fat (Swift & Gould). This number is staggering in comparison with other countries-- which suggests that the problem, while not entirely localized, is entirely changeable. 

In order to challenge the issues that exist as a result of imagery in media, it is paramount to begin by analyzing the most prevalent media that younger women take in: music. Authors Apuke and Jigem  do just this in their review of current studies about the music industry and they note that one study by Dauphinais (2015) found that in “nearly any genre of music there are numerous music videos with barely clad women marching around with no function other than to offer eye candy or to please a man” (161). Repeated exposure to this same message perpetuates stereotypes and unrealistic images of women thereby  continually disenfranchising them from being autonomous beings in society. Beyond the damage it does to women, it also makes clear to boys that their worth is tied to dominance and procession of a woman. 

The narrative that Doja Cat and Saweetie offer in the music video for “Best Friend” is much different than most music videos-- opening with a man attempting to approach them and act “woke” about misogyny. They knowingly look at each other upon his announcement that they are more than just sexual beings and think “he is in no way an ally to the feminist cause.”  Instead of being beholden to the man, they show the sleaziness of him sexualizing women who clearly don’t want to be bothered; women who would much rather shoo him away so they can continue to sunbathe. In fact, any time a man makes an appearance in the video-- the imagery around his presence is that he is not needed. The duo are also shown having a slumber party dressed in lingerie-- with not one single man in sight. 

There are some interesting takeaways from the video in regard to feminist criticism: while there are two women and they are presented in a sexually provocative way, they are not presented in this manner to please a man; the function of the women in the video is to celebrate the sisterhood (harkening back to first wave feminism); and the women are presented as both sexy and smart-- challenging traditional representations and showing that women can be both. Lyrically there is more to unpack in the song as well, but this response focuses solely on the images-- and in those images-- there is a liberation of the woman from the chains of subordination to a man. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

Discussion Post 4

Prompt: 

The last half of Chun's Updating to Remain the Same applies some of her theories to practical issues.  Three specific topics she discusses are the "leakiness" of Internet friends, the "outing" of people on YouTube (Amanda Todd and Jonah Mowry), and cell phone addiction.  Chun explores whether these real-life digital spaces and devices are making us dependent upon digital media and, perhaps, helping us to escape and/or reject physical reality.  Is the truth digital?  Are we so far down the digital highway that there is no going back to old versions of truth, or can anything (or should anything) be done to re-instate traditional, empirical truth in our lives?  Write an original post where you agree/disagree with/negotiate Chun's ideas.

In her book Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media, author and researcher Wendy Hui Kyong Chun’s argument about the habitual nature of media centers around the question “Why have networks become the concept to explain everything new about our current era” and in doing so-- she lay bare the framework for the analysis of networks, networking, and connectedness in the 21st century. Chun ends this exploration with a call for “us” to create spaces in public “domains” where we can loiter-- creating our own privacy within the public sphere. What Chun fails to conceptualize is that we may already be too far gone for this to happen, and (especially in a post Trump era) we may be too divided to come to any sort of consensus that would or could result in real change. Our country is plagued by racism, sexism, and classism-- and new media actively reinforces these tropes. There is no incentive for them to not be reinforced-- and as Chun herself notes-- even if there were an incentive, many times the solution to the problems are more restrictive than the problems themselves. In order to be able to embrace spaces that are public in which we can “loiter” there has to be unwritten rules that are embraced by a majority share of the population-- a doctrine which exists to define norms, and a system to reinforce those norms.  Absent of these things, it is impossible to imagine a world which embraces previous “truths”-- but it is equally problematic to assert that there is a truth that existed previously that is better than where we are now. When combining these two things together it is clear that there is no easy button to the problems that are created at the hands of new media, but in order to even begin approaching this problem we must embrace one central truth: to create a space of absolute truth, we must ourselves become absolutely truthful, and to do this we must analyze the current shortcomings of new media (really, media in general), define systemic problems that plague our society, and create intersections so that we can foster growth, acceptance, and change.

Centering on new media skips past the problems created by “old” media-- and absolves them of their sins. In reality, new media may be the go to of our current generation, but old media such as newspapers, radio, and television are the paver stones that laid way for new media practices and in many ways continue to drive the policies implemented by new media companies. This is truer now more than ever-- when the United States just went through a political administration that was so problematic that they alienated not only a large portion of the population but also the reporters who covered it. While one of the biggest worldwide pandemics in modern history played out in real time-- a tug of war in way of words created confusion among the masses and caused a large swath of the population to question where to even turn for facts. Many people glued themselves to political coverage during the Trump administration if for no other reason than to watch the train wreck in real time-- and now that there is comfort in the practical decision making of our current administration-- people have turned away from the media, and caused Trump to be right about at least one thing: the president whose life echoed the lyrics of ‘without me’ by Eminem did cause news ratings to plummet (Farhi). Beyond the current generation and our crises though, older versions of media perpetuated the crisis of drugs, “reverse discrimination,” promiscuity of women, cyberporn, entitlement culture, cancel culture, and more. Media -- new or old-- thrives on crisis.  In fact, a famous saying in the news industry is “if it bleeds it leads” which is just another indicator of the insipid hold that crisis has on the lives of citizens.  Further though, when crisis is not dominating, the need for crisis is so strong within the citizens of this country that they create their own crisis via sharing personal information in any type of tell all format that they can imagine. From biographies, autobiographies, blogs, vlogs, and other venues-- people are willing to share almost anything-- and others (even if they are not as brazen) are willing to listen-- and in fact are quite rapt by the stories of crisis that play out before them. If there is one thing that can prove this is it the dominance of crime shows and ultra dramatic stories on channels like Lifetime. 

None of this is to say there is no change happening in the media industry-- in fact, that is far from the truth. Media, like any industry, is constantly evolving and changing, but the pace at which they evolve is problematic. Like new media, earlier media forms are not incentivized to change, and often find themselves on the tail end of a change curve-- often waiting to change until things are too distasteful to society to continue. A great example of this practice would be the use of mug shots in stories. A close personal source revealed to me that large media conglomerates are just now talking about discontinuing the use of mug shots and perp walks in stories.   The reasoning they are using is that they rarely follow up on stories, and the prevalence of new media means that a mug shot used for a story can haunt a person for years. One recent incident would be George Floyd-- who while a victim of police brutality-- took center stage through mug shots plastered across media platforms. The net result was an uproar over the use of a victim’s previous mug shot. People decried the practice and lobbied hard to change it because doing such a thing would unduly prejudice a potential jury in favor of a plaintiff due to the “history” (or assumed history as it is) of a victim. Media acts as though they are on the cutting edge-- choosing to acknowledge this problem now as though it is new, but let’s be real-- this has been happening for years. The media’s role in engrained bias is obvious, but they are often unwilling to examine their problematic practices until they absolutely have to. 

The late arrival of systemic change in the media industry plays an enormous role in the perpetuation of systemic problems such as racism, classism, and sexism because the policies of these media conglomerates perpetuate these systems through the reinforcement of stereotypes, continuation of dangerous tropes, and an overzealous embracing of the shock factor that goes hand in hand with doing these things. The moral outrage that happens when a black cop kills a white woman is much greater than when a white man rapes an unconscious woman in a park. None of this is to say that one crime is worse than the other (comparison is a slippery slope, right?), but the mere fact that the punishment and word choices publicized about these things are so starkly different is problematic in its own right. In fact, until just this year MPR reported that Mohammed Noor was "the only law enforcement officer ever convicted of murder in Minnesota for an on-duty incident" (Romo). Noor, who was convicted of 3rd degree murder, was ultimately sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison. On the other hand, in another incident involving a white woman-- Stanford student Brock Turner-- facing a 14 year prison sentence-- was sentenced to a mere 6 months in jail by a California judge because the judge feared that a longer sentence may have “a ‘severe impact’ Turner” (Baker). These cases probably seem as though they are worlds apart, but they are not -- because they lie at the intersection of stereotypes about women. One case contained a white woman who was scared in an alley-- in her pajamas-- and that poor woman was just looking for big strong men to save her.  The other woman was a slut who attended a party and got too drunk; she was probably asking for it. BuzzFeed started it’s story about the letter that Turner’s victim wrote by introducing a line of questioning: 

-- which while sad, aptly describes the stereotypes that women face when attempting to find justice for themselves in the world. Stereotypes that Chun describes in detail when discussing the case of the Steubenville rape and subsequent trial of hometown heroes of the football caliber. Chun aptly notes in her analysis that “rape is also difficult to prosecute because conviction usually and unfairly relies on the perceived virtue of the victim: the victim must be impeccable and must be able to describe traumatic events coherently-- a nearly impossible task given the effects of post traumatic stress disorder” (98). 

Of course this is just one simple example of how the media (including Web 2.0) perpetuates myths about marginalized groups, but it would take volumes upon volumes to discuss the innumerable examples in which this happens. These things do need to be discussed and addressed to move on, but we also need to create spaces where intersectionality can exist so that people can learn from each others’ varied experiences and lenses. Rhetorician Kenneth Burke centered on this idea of intersectionality when he talked about finding common ground to relate to each other. One of the serious limitations of new media is the ability to silence those who have differing opinions and move away from them. By doing this we relegate people into groups, and create systems of oppression by building our own defined groups of hate and love. Chun discusses these communities in her book when she references Saidiya Hartman’s ideas of shame-- noting that Hartman claims that “slut shaming can be seen as an attempt to create community-- decent community-- by attempting to make certain women objects of shared shame” (157). She furthers this point by citing Sara Ahmed and noting that she argues that “hatred generates community-- more properly, communities (of the hated and the loved)-- by aligning the particular with the general: I hate you because (you are a slut, etc). Hatred as an ‘investment’ projects all that is undesirable onto another, while concealing any traces of that projection so that the other comes to appear as a being with a life of its own” (157). In arguing about the divisiveness of communities, these two women also open an opportunity of convergence-- creating communities of intersectionality.  Many times we find ourselves divided along political or religious lines, but in intersectionality we can discover that while we may have different beliefs we are also more alike than we think we are. Burke’s ideas are central here-- we must find common ground in order to create safe spaces to loiter online. 

Of course, all of these things are very utopian.  Perhaps I am a cynic, but being a child of the foster care system, having children with special needs, and teaching students of varied ethnicities tells me that it is often easier to state that something WOULD work than it is to put it into practice. Paolo Frarie argues in the book Pedagogy of the Oppressed that the oppressor will work to continue oppression because he knows full well that it is not in his best interest to end said oppression (34). I want to believe that we can change, but change would take radical ideas to work-- and radical ideas would take cooperation of people across the political spectrum.  We will not to that space if we cannot confront reality and find intersectionality though. Is it possible to find change and to create safe spaces to loiter in new media? Perhaps-- but it is just as possible that oppressors in new media could simply find new ways to assert their oppression onto the oppressed so as to not lose their power. 

Citations:

Baker, Katie J.M. “Here's The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker.” BuzzFeed News, BuzzFeed News, 17 Mar. 2021, www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra.

Blake, Aaron. “Analysis | The Vexing 'Lab Leak' Theory on China and the Coronavirus.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 May 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/24/fix-china-lab-leak-0524/.

Farhi, Paul. “Trump Predicted News Ratings Would 'Tank If I'm Not There.' He Wasn't Wrong.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 23 Mar. 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/media-trump-bump-slump/2021/03/22/5f13549a-85d1-11eb-bfdf-4d36dab83a6d_story.html.

Freiere, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Education, 1972.

Kyong, Chun Wendy Hui. Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media. The MIT Press, 2017.

Romo, Vanessa. “Ex-Minneapolis Officer Sentenced To 12 1/2 Years In Death Of Unarmed 911 Caller.” NPR, NPR, 7 June 2019, www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730691678/ex-minneapolis-officer-sentenced-to-12-1-2-years-in-death-of-unarmed-911-caller.

[merrillmastersenglish]

Discussion Post 3:

Prompt:

In graduate school, we are more self-conscious scholars.  We begin to question what our field consists of, or we uncover problems and suggest solutions or new directions.  The first half of Wendy Hui Kyong Chun's Updating to Remain the Same focuses on abstract media theories.  Yet, one of her more compelling ideas is that most of us are driven to keep up with our technology because of the following formula: Habit + Crisis = Update.  Because of this model, Chun elaborates, "Just when we are finally accustomed to something, it changes" (69).

Write an original post of 1-2 paragraphs where you discuss how you, your job, and/or your family and friends negotiate this formula in your everyday lives.

In part 1 of her book Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media, author and researcher Wendy Hui Kyong Chun spends a plethora of time and pages describing the role that habit plays into change. Chun argues that habit is defined in several ways-- some of which are a bit contradictory:

1. Habit is a form of dependency (4)

2. Habit is culture become second nature (5)

3. Habit enables stability (6)

4. Habit prevents class warfare (7)

5. Habit keeps us all within bounds of ordinance (7)

6. Habits can bind us (8)

7. Habits can awaken us (8)

8. Habits are acquired (8)

9. Habits cause skill formation (9)

10. Habits are projected links based on frequent and potential repetition (53)

11. Information is habit (53)

12. Habit is the key to determining probablity (54)

13. Habit can falsify experience. (55)

14. Habit enables radical change (89)

Because of the sheer amount of “habits are” that Chun provides to the reader, it would be impossible for habits not to impact a person in their daily lives. In fact, habits are everywhere and everything. Habits are the repetitions that we go through every day-- going to work at the same time, eating supper at the same time, posting discussion responses-- even the lack of a habit can be a habit. For example-- I may not have a great habit of reading or writing over a long period of time, but when I have deadlines it is my habit to procrastinate until just before the deadline. My students, my children, my husband-- many of us share this same “skill”-- you know, since habits create skill. On second thought, I’m just going to start referring to procrastination as my greatest skills. :)

The second part of the equation that Chun proposes is crisis. Crisis, according to Chun is a habit change. Crisis is not really that much of a crisis in the United States though-- because as Chun asserts, “neoliberalism thrives on crises: it makes crises ordinary” (3). Crisis may seem pressing when we recognize it, but we often live in a perpetual state of crisis-- some of the crises that exist in our lives may be present but not realized. Crisis then, like habit, can be a natural state that we all live in. 

When we do realize the crisis though, the knowledge of its existence should realistically challenge the habits that support the crisis’s continued existence. The problem with this theory though is that we live in a networked society, and networks work to stabilize a series of crises, and according to Chun-- create bubbles in time (27). Networks of people or ideas actively resist change, and in doing so-- create a sustained period of crises in the lives of people. 

I found myself thinking back to the “Trump Era” a lot while reading this first part because I felt like we were constantly in a state of crisis.  On the other hand, republicans that I know thought the opposite true-- that Trump was a solution to the crisis that exists in our society. The two networks of people (democrats and republicans) played a tug of war that seemed to last forever (and in fact-- that still persists). The result was that many progressives lived in a state of perpetual protest-- fighting for change and equality that they saw being stifled by the administration-- while republicans fought for the continuation of policies because they saw them as a return to practices that they saw as being the founding principals of this country. Political issues are one of the easiest places to notice both habit, crisis and change in action. For example: Habit: cops have engrained bias towards POC and therefore use excessive force more often.  Crisis: video footage by civilians brings this issue to light by highlighting the prevalence of this bias in action. Change: Policy introduction, police prosecution, and attitude change because of the visibility of evidence contrary to popular thought create new systems or propositions. Some could argue that the videotaping of police in general is a quantifiable change that can be observed as a result of the continued brutality.

When I think about the changes that are most close to me though-- and the perpetuation of systems that claim to address the crisis but ultimately work to continue it-- I think of education in general. In education radical teachers are ones who buck against the system and who don’t conform to the norms that are in place. Radical teachers are often stymied by the system because they bounce from school to school due to the administrations’ sheer avoidance of change and their active repelling of it. Radical thinking is not condoned by the network of professionals in the education field, and as a result-- over time-- habit drives these teachers into submission. UNLESS there is a crisis to prompt change. A great example of this lies in the documentary  Precious Knowledge which follows teachers in the Tucson Unified School District who teach a curriculum around Chicano and Chicana history.  This program was designed to empower students to learn through a different lens-- and the aim was ultimately to increase graduation numbers and to empower students to be active participants in their society and lives. It was a radical idea though because it challenged the norm of whitewashed history in classrooms. As a result, people who were in the more republican/white network were uncomfortable with this challenge, and pushed back against it. Change may have been impossible if those teachers and students simply accepted the decisions passed down by the TUSD school board, but they did not. Instead, they actively worked to network and create a message that countered the dominant narrative, by providing information to the masses about their program. The result?  Change. TUSD cut the program, but teachers running the program along with students who had benefitted from it took the issue to a higher court. Ultimately the court ruled in their favor-- finding that the state and superintendent of school districts violated the equal protection clause because the removal of the classes were based solely on racial animus (Wikipedia). 

Habit + Crisis = Change also personally relates to me because of the non-stop battle I have fought with the school district my son attends in this year. My son, Azure, is a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and Anxiety. Azure is high functioning, but has always been a level 3 special education student until last year-- when his progress was so significant that he skipped a grade AND was moved to a level 2 special education. On March 13, 2020 we moved from Saint Paul, MN to Brooklyn Center, MN and as a result-- Azure had to change schools. March 13 was also the exact same time that ALL schools in the state of Minnesota closed their doors “out of an abundance of caution” because of COVID. Now, I’m not sure if it was because of the hustle bustle of COVID or because of the incompetence of the officials working in the school, but somehow-- Azure’s incoming IEP noted that he would be a “level 1″ student. This means that whereas Azure was a student who previously received 60% of his education in the special education room, he would now receive only 10% of his time in the special education classroom. In addition to this all, Azure went through a variety of changes that were a direct result of COVID-- including several model shifts. This spot on his IEP was small, and as a parent I had placed (probably too much) trust into the school professionals and assumed that the service levels my son would receive would be comparable to what he was receiving at his previous school-- it wasn’t. Azure experienced near constant dysregulation when placed back in the classroom full-time. He was often being sent home, or I was being called to come get him early. All of these things came to a head when the principal decided that Azure was to be suspended for throwing a pencil case. So, I get it-- not the best action-- but it was a direct result of dysregulation that happened because the staff at the school were changing his routine without giving him advanced warning. In a phone call from the principal he noted that he didn’t understand why I was saying that Azure was a level 2 SPED because he was listed as a level 1. My eyes were open-- we had a crisis-- Azure was dysregulating at school and as a result I kicked into action. I demanded all IEP drafts, PWNs and any other documentation that the school had. I demanded that the school move Azure-- they refused. I filed a complaint with the state of Minnesota DOE, and wrote a long email citing case law about education. When challenged enough, the network of educators resisting change-- backed down. They did not back down from my MDE complaint though-- in fact, they pushed back.  In the end, I am going to win this fight. The MDE investigator has noted to me that these changes that the school district made were inappropriate. They are going to be required to “reimburse” Azure the 10500 service minutes that they shorted him during the school year. They are going to be required to provide services that he needs. Change is going to happen. 

The problem with change on this scale is that it is personal and I can’t guarantee that it is systemic. I need the systemic change because as an educator I see a problem with my field that NEEDS to change so that neurodiverse students can survive and thrive in public education institutions. I will be using this experience to drive my research for the consultation and working to find the systemic change I desire as a result. It is the habit of school districts to ignore or try to minimize the money they spend on special education students. It is the habit of school districts to focus their teaching on neurotypical students.  Crisis is happening across the spectrum of education, and it has and will continue to result in change when people network and push back. 

I don’t see a place or space where this theory doesn’t hold truth. Innovation and change is always the result of something going wrong. If we don’t find fault in something, what is the motivation to change it?  

My final thought about the first part of this book is this: Chun suggests that we do not “defer a future for another future” because it is problematic and “it is itself a haunting” (91) which harkens back to the words of my favorite poet-- Langston Hughes in one of his most seminole works: Dream Deferred:

“What happens to a dream deferred?       Does it dry up

     like a raisin in the sun?      Or fester like a sore—      And then run?      Does it stink like rotten meat?      Or crust and sugar over—      like a syrupy sweet?      Maybe it just sags      like a heavy load.      Or does it explode?”

What I am saying is-- we can’t ignore the crises because they are a deferment of the dreams we have of our future, and we don’t know what the consequences of ignoring those things would be -- but we also do know what the consequences currently are so to ignore is to remain stuck and to continue to perpetuate problems. Crisis may be uncomfortable, but it is also completely necessary for change. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

It’s Complicated Review

In her book “It’s Complicated,” Danah Boyd discusses the intricacies of online relationships, content, sharing, and information streams. While discussing these things, she cites psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience and notes that flow is a state that people reach when they are “in the zone” or completely focused on what they are doing; they are immersed totally (80). Boyd’s tone in her book when speaking of flow is negative. It is surrounded by words like “addiction” and “compulsion” --yet, if you read an earlier paper written by Boyd the tone around the word “flow” is entirely different. Boyd’s earlier paper, “Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information though Social Media” published in EDUCAUSE Review summarizes Csikszentmihalyi’s work by noting that  he argues “that people are happiest when they can reach a state of "flow." He talks about performers and athletes at the height of their profession and the experience they feel as time passes by and everything clicks. People reach a state where attention appears focused and, simultaneously, not in need of focus. The world is aligned and everything just feels right,” a tone which is entirely different than the definitions that she provides her book.  She goes on in her paper to note that being in flow is to be “peripherally aware of information as it flows by, grabbing it at the right moment when it is most relevant, valuable, entertaining, or insightful”-- which again, vastly differs from the context that she puts the term in in her book.  

What Boyd neglects to make clear in her book is that teens are NOT addicted to technology, they are simply in the flow, that is-- they are peripherally aware of information that their peers are providing them, trends that are popular, movements that they support, and content that they are interested in. She touches on this when she says that teens are addicted to each other, but I don’t think that she went far enough to satisfy the metaphor that she used in her paper. 

Of course that leaves me to ponder what flow is exactly, and I think that I am firmly with Boyd in her 2010 paper-- flow is information that is going by us-- that we have the opportunity to seize as is necessary-- and that can cause us to be much more in tune with things-- hyper focused even. Boyd goes into detail on this hyperfocus in both her book and the paper when she notes that this state of flow is something that people seek to find, especially when they are passionate about a topic, content area, or skill; to be deeply engaged in something is to be in the flow (80). Boyd expounds further by noting that deep engagement itself isn’t the problem-- it’s engagement to the exclusion of, and this is where she full circles back to the addiction analogy, and then spends pages upon pages going down this rabbit hole-- at one point noting that “there are teens who do struggle significantly with impulse control” (83), but misses the fact that ALL teens struggle with this because the brain’s prefrontal cortex (where impulse control happens) is not fully developed until the age of 25. Beyond human anatomy and neuroscience though-- teens are also navigating who they are as people. Countless educational psychologists have made this study their life’s work-- from Piaget, Vygotsky, Erikson, and more-- the study of navigating the social construct in teenage years has been studied relentlessly. Boyd doesn’t mention any of this though-- and in skipping over it, she negates a HUGE reason that teens are online-- they are trying to fit in. This desire and need is no different then when I begged my mom for name brand jeans because I didn’t want to look like a loser, or when countless teens have whined that something is no fair because their friend’s parent lets them do it. Teen technology use is less about addiction and more about the simple and basic human need for connection and to fit in. 

I did find myself pondering things that I have said to my own children and students though as Boyd was discussing literacy.  We assume that students and kids are digitally literate because we grew up learning these things in the moment, but they are not learning in the same way or for the same reason that we did. I think a lot of this is actually the premise of the next book we will be reading (as I have started already) and I say that because of the discussion in that book about the constant updates that happen in digital technology. In my generation-- technology was rapidly changing, but also changing in HUGE ways. In this current generation students definitely have updates and things changing, but there is a constant-- technology itself is not new. If I asked my students or children to look up information in an encyclopedia, to use the Dewey decimal system, or to define what Netscape navigator was-- they likely wouldn’t be able to do any of those things. My generation can talk about floppy disks that were actually floppy, floppy disks that were hard, killing your friends while venturing the Oregon Trail by subjecting them to diphtheria, chatting on the internet with total strangers, creating blogs or profiles on Myspace or Facebook-- and everything in between. Of course on top of all of that-- Boyd discusses the limited freedom that children have today in comparison with previous generations, and the fact that childhood itself has changed for these kiddos (84-87). We talked about these changes a bit last week when we discussed publics-- but it’s deeper than that because teens are sheltered in a major way because of fear culture. That fear culture then creeps into the minds of parents in regard to teen technology usage as well. It is a cyclical cycle that never ends. 

Reading through this book and Boyd’s thinking has caused me to stop and ponder. I am often frustrated with my students and my own children in regards to their lack of digital skills. A common refrain in my home is, “you literally have the entire world at your fingertips” as our daughters whine across the living room “whhhhhaaat is the weather gunna be like this weeeeeeekkkkk?” (and other such annoying, whiny refrains). My husband and I couldn’t fathom why they couldn’t think of looking things up on Google. I  have the same conversation at school with co-workers. In the English classroom the struggle is REAL in trying to teach kids about plagiarism and citing sources-- there have been many days where I have wanted to rip my own hair out and scream at the sky. I have not stopped to ponder before that perhaps the problem was not them, but the fact that I was expecting them to know something that I was not explicitly teaching even though I myself was explicitly taught. I’m not sure how to end this posting. Maybe that is the point.  Maybe I have always been expecting endings when in fact I am very near the beginning or middle. Maybe all of us need to pause and take inventory of what the current generation knows, and how we can help them bridge the gap between them and us. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

I was graded on a discussion post today. I had read the syllabus and all prefaced material for the course. I had read the directions. I completely followed directions. I got 84%. I was shocked. Why? There was no information on the grade, no context—I was upset. Later that day the prof emailed and stated that we could view the rubric. Wait, what?

As a neurotypical woman, I was confused. Imagine how a neurodiverse student would feel.

[merrillmastersenglish]

Discussion 1: ENGL 598

Prompt: danah boyd argues that today's teenagers have less public spaces to congregate than previous generations and that they want a space that isn't constantly scrutinized by adults and peers (43). You will see an image posted of someone using 3 screens at once. Do you accept boyd's claim that social media has created a "youth-centric public space that is often otherwise inaccessible" to teens?  Why or why not?

Response:

I am the mother of three children: Acacia (16), Shelby (nearly 15), and Azure (10). Two of my children have autism and would prefer to stay inside and work on preferred activities, but my oldest daughter Acacia cannot be tied down.  She never could, really.  When she was seven years old we lived in Warren, MN and she was all about riding bike. The wind in her hair, the freedom she got-- she wanted it all. Warren is a small town, roughly 1600 people, so I would let her ride. I thought back to my time as a child and how I would spend hours riding here and there, and I couldn’t say no. We moved several times while Acacia was growing-- from landing in Casa Grande, AZ to setting some roots for three years in Saint Paul-- she continued to ride her bike around these places. 

Acacia will often tell me things when we are driving around the twin cities today-- like-- “that was my favorite place to ride bike” or “I LOVED that bridge, I think it’s beautiful” or-- “you should see the graffiti in downtown Minneapolis.” Other parents of children her age have scoffed at the extreme freedom I have given Acacia to explore her world, but I believe firmly that we lack local geography, and we root ourselves when we explore that geography. Acacia’s life in that regard mirrors my own from growing up in the 80′s and 90′s, but it is also the exception not the rule. I know this to be true for many reasons: 1. I am a teacher and hear from my students often that they are not allowed to go very many places, 2. Acacia’s friend’s parents have made comments about letting her go out and explore like “but, it’s so violent there-- why would you do that?”, and 3. my own siblings and my husband’s family members are all much more .... helicopter in nature when it comes to their children. 

I also know that when I was a child, the world was mine. There were no spaces which were “kid free” in my town. We could go where we wanted with no rules. As a child in Minnesota I could even go into the bar as long as it was before 10pm. But a mere ten minutes from my home today, Mall of America has adopted a youth policy that notes that people under 16 were not allowed to be in their building from 3-close without someone over 21 years of age. 

I also know that my son, who struggles with social interactions because of his autism--- thrives online, where he doesn’t have to read cues or decipher unwritten norms. 

So yes, I do agree with Danah Boyd that kids today do need digital spaces to hang out with their friends. Parents hover, rules prevent them from socializing, and now more than ever-- with the pandemic and distance learning-- without a space online to socialize, I’m not sure they would be able to comfortable get that interaction in a way that was unsupervised. And much to the chagrin of parents-- they need it as much as we did when we were younger. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

Notes on “It’s Complicated”

[It’s Complicated] by Danah Boyd

[Notes about the reading by Allisen Merrill]

[Preface]

Mike: Youtube creator who was excited to post and get people to watch his videos. Asked her to talk to his mom to make her aware that he was not doing anything bad on the internet. This book is that—an attempt to explain the networked lives of teens.  2005-2015 observed teens online and in real life, across social dynamics, and hung out with them. 166 formal, semi structured interviews. Helped to design social media tools.  

Policy conversations and social conversations around the use of technology to create a network of their own. Draw on voices of teens throughout the book—introduces adults, pulls in media as well to create a rounded picture. Kids want to be understood.  

[Introduction]

Stan: stop looking for differences between then and now—not many things have changed. Changed the font and background, but not the whole being of things. Highschool is the same today as it was....

Kids not really watching the game—talking to each other in the stands. Networks are visible in real life. Upper classmen closest to field, freshman in back. Students milling about not in stands were POC. Artistic attire of those who were not black. White students often more expensive technology than students of color. Phones not really used as “phones” in this observation. Parents were actually more intently looking at devices than students were. Parents not sharing devices or taking pictures. Unlike people of our generation—teens today use technology TO connect with their peers and community—while adults who were into tech before were using tech to ESCAPE their community. Social network sites are “the cool place” to hang out.  

[chapter1]

Most of book focuses on social media/ communication tools. Chatrooms, bulletin boards used to connect with strangers in early adoption. Email and messenger used to connect with people known. 2003 shift because of blogging and social network sites. Blogging earlier was used to connect with people who were known. Friendster matchmaking service. In community early adopters were not “cool”-- in early 2000’s this changed because of myspace and other blogging sites. Participating in social media became normative. Zanga, my journal, and other sites were normal. Engagement with social media is part of everyday life.  

Publics—groups of people. Can intersect or intertwine. (audience is an interconnection) Publics provide a space and a community for people to communicate and gather. Networked publics are built on social media technologies. They allow people to gather and connect... and goof around.  

Publics allow for affordances in creating spaces that allow for easy communication. Affordances may not be “new,” but their affordances allow for different types of communication.  

Persistence

Durability of online expressions and content

Visibility

Potential audience who can bear witness.  

Spreadability

How easily the message is transmitted from one person to another

Searchability

How content can be found online

What people put up online are widely accessible because sharing is the default. Users must take active steps to limit. Opposite from IRL.  

What is new is the way in which social media alters and amplifies the messages that people post.  

Stalking

Drama

Attention seeking.  

Impression created is that they are radically different than ours were, but they aren’t. Teens more comfortable with and accepting of social media than adults. Teen focus= what it is to be in public. Adults focus= what it is to be networked.  

Women moving legs up and down were feared with sewing machine because it was thought that they would change women’s sexuality.  

Utopian and dystopian thinking about technology.  

Utopian: technology will solve all problems

Rhetoric assumes that when technology is broadly adopted, it will transform society.  

Focus  

Dystopian: technology is the cause of all problems.  

Focus on all of the terrible things that will happen because of the adoption of new technologies.  

Sexual predators

Addicted to technology

Both focus on technological determinism.  

Reality though is nuanced and messy. Living in a networked world is complicated and messy.  

[merrillmastersenglish]

This Sway is dedicated to the analysis of how medium (or mode of communicating with an audience) creates messages that are similar or different from the author’s original intent. In this project I was hoping to analyze how we change text over time. I was inspired to do this project because of the work I was doing with my students on mythology and Hadestown. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

 This is a project I worked on as a capstone of my Digital writing and publishing class. In this capstone project I worked to criticize the powerpoint platform while also offering new suggestions on how to make it better. 

[merrillmastersenglish]

This is a project I have been working on for Evolution of Writing. It is a capstone for this course, and while it is still a work in progress, I am hoping to finish and explain how comics have shifted in society over time and how they can continue to shift in the future.