Monthly Archives: November 2013

Facebook is Changing Our Identity!?

Posted on by
Reply

In this illuminating video, Is Facebook Changing Our Identity?, created by PBS and hosted Mike Rugnetta, Mike speaks about memory, witnessing, identity, and how these things are affected by Facebook. As he describes in the video, Facebook allows us to post pictures and status updates therefore saving memories. With the new timeline feature, one could literally scroll quickly through the memories of their life. Obviously that may not be entirely possible. But imagine if people born today started posting to Facebook (whether it be a photo, status, or post on someone’s wall) of every major event in their lives! Each birthday, vacation, delicious dinner, concerts, good grade, job, etc. One could conceivably go on Facebook and scroll through a visual and extremely organized depiction of their whole life! However, notice how these examples are all good and happy events. An important part of Facebook is your friends, the people who you expect to see all these posts. Very rarely to people make posts about a bad day they had, that they lost their camera, went to hospital, have depression, failed a class, or broke up with a partner. People typically do not want all 500 of their Facebook friends to know this. While these things can vary on the effect they will have on your life, it has no significance to whether or not you will post about it on Facebook. Of course people occasionally do this but only in a fraction amount compared to happy statuses and pictures of their cats.

We form our identity through our memory. What we have experienced and more importantly what we remember shapes who we are and how we represent that. So what would happen if we selectively remembered? What if we only remembered the most happy and good parts of our lives? Would we still be the same person? Would we identify the same way? Facebook essentially does this selective remembering. Looking through our Facebook timeline, we remember all the good parts of our lives. Not only do we see specific things, but we see them in way better clarity and accuracy than our own memories could give us. So as we continually post to Facebook and look at our timelines, are we forming our identity around what Facebook shows us? Around specific memories of our lives? I’m not too sure. Maybe PBS does have a point, but for now I think our identity is safe from the reign of Facebook. I believe that Facebook is only a complimentary force in creating our identity rather than a controlling one.

Does Globalization Help Connect People to Each other?

Posted on by
Reply

In this video, Globalization II – Good or Bad?: Crash Course World History #42, the awesome John Green discusses the benefits and disadvantages of globalization in our world today. He talks about increased individualism, the global economy, the disparity between rich and poor, imagining the future, and violence amongst other things. In the video, John Green speaks about many topics we have discussed this term in all of our CAP classes within the globalization framework.

One of the things I found most interesting was his ideas on individualism. He mentioned that when asked to imagine the future, we actually only imagine our own future. He said that in the recent past, humans have begun to increasingly celebrate individualism, especially in the wake of the failure of Marxist collectivism ideas. He also mentions how technology has increased individualism. We are beginning to spend an increasingly large amount of time at our individual screens rather than with our families and friends. The interesting things as that most of the things people do on the Internet are intended to or somewhat fulfill the desire to connect with other people. Obviously I can’t speak for everyone; I know that many people may only use the computer for work, school, etc. I also spend a significant amount of screen time writing for class on word, doing research on the Internet, or just looking up definitions, etc. None of these things make me feel directly connected to other people. However, I spend a ridiculously large amount of time on social media, an unhealthy amount of time. If I look at the most popular social websites, I notice that they are all essentially about taking a glimpse into other peoples lives and then commenting on it. They are all about sharing and reacting to peoples lives, all about sharing human experience. Yet, they are dragging us away from actual human connection. The more time I spend watching YouTube videos, the less time I spend talking to my friends who are literally only a few doors down the hall. Though, in saying this I think that it only holds true if you spend a large amount of time online. If you are able to manage your time well, I do not think that spending some time on YouTube or Facebook is going to have a negative impact on your life.

John Green also spoke about whether or not a global economy will reduce violence. Some people argue that this economic interdependency will prevent war. However, John Green points out that there is still tons of ethnic and nationalistic violence, for example in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. In our Poli Sci class we had a large discussion about when, why, and how violence should or should not be used. However, I think the discussion really boils down to whether or not the end justifies the means? Violence can be used to improve the well being of a large group of people. For example, violence was used in some cases to help get women the vote. It might also be used to sacrifice the lives of some people in order to save a larger number of other people. Or it may just be used purely for the purpose of harm. Globalization really does affect violence in all these situations. Due to globalization more people are aware of violence occurring around the globe and can take action to help end it. Again, this is an issue relating to people connecting with other people.

So, I wonder, does globalization help or hurt people in connecting people to others?

Half a Million Secrets

Posted on by
Reply

I saw this TED Talk video, Half a Million Secrets, in which the creator of Post Secret explains the website, tells a few stories about particular secrets, and explains why he initially started the project. He says that he believes the reason he started the project was because he subconsciously wanted to let go of his secrets through crowdsourcing. This got me thinking about why would people want to tell their story in an anonymous fashion. There are so many websites where people can write anything they want anonymously and it can be seen my many people. However, websites like Post Secret and Six Word Memoir (SWM) are particularly interesting because they are made entirely for the purpose of telling a story about yourself, and many people hearing it, without anyone knowing it was you. I’m assuming that people like to do this because it helps them get something off their chest without facing any severe, face-to-face repercussions.

When we were initially studying these two websites I thought about Six Word Memoir as something that was more artistic or clever. I thought that Post Secret was more popular due to the anonymous and voyeuristic aspect. I viewed these two websites as having very different purposes. The first was more about posting and being creative. It appeared to me that most of the site visitors were part of the Six Word Memoir community and therefore also made posts themselves. On the other hand, I saw Post Secret as having more viewers who did not send post cards but regularly visited for the interesting, voyeuristic aspects.

However, now I have realized (something that should have been blatantly obvious to me in the first place) that both websites are actually about telling an intricate and fascinating story with only a few words. It only occurred to me after studying these websites that people are probably actually interested in Post Secret not only for the scandalous or surprising aspects of it. I think that people really like visiting the website because you get to read many stories but very quickly. You can read 10 words on one post card and it reveals a huge story that makes you curious and makes you use your imagination. I think both these websites are mostly appealing because you get to use your imagination and read a long story in such a short time due to it being told in such few words.

A Western Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

I found this video, BNV 2013 Finals Round #2 – Albuquerque, to be very interesting for a variety of reasons. I obviously liked it because it was well written, preformed, and topical. But more importantly, it made me think about a concept that has continually been a part of our study in life narratives. This concept being the ‘Western perspective’. The video’s statements about privilege reminded me of aspects of reading foreign life narrative from a western perspective. One of these aspects is ignorance. Until this term, I had not previously realized how authors have to write their story while also giving the reader background information, context, and knowledge about the subject due to their ignorance. Also interesting, how this isn’t done so that the story makes more sense. Depending on the audience, the author may not have to include this background information at all because he or she knows that the reader is already aware of it. However, for a western audience, the author must fill this knowledge gap before they can begin to tell the story they initially intended to. The way this was done in Persepolis, using the child’s perspective, was very interesting and clever. As the young character learns about the world, so does the reader. I thought this was a very smart way to integrate the background knowledge into the story without it seeming out of place.

Additionally, I thought it was very interesting how life narratives are marketed for a western audience. In regards to “What Is The What”, many people in class spoke about how they disliked the cover because the boy appeared to be very anonymous and unidentifiable. Furthermore, the quote on the front of the book is more about the quality of the writing than the story itself. Many of my peers pointed out that someone would have no idea what the book is about unless they read the back and even then the summery is fairly vague. In some ways, this also brings up questions I asked in my last blog post, on whether the modifying of traumatic life narratives is acceptable because it helps to reach a larger audience or whether it is harmful because it doesn’t tell the true story to the best of its ability.

Lastly, I found it interesting to read the comments on the video. Mostly, it is people arguing. While I obviously do not except the comments to be filled with scholarly discussion, I was a little bit surprised with the response. I expected at least some people to write comments about how it was well preformed and captured a large issue very well. I thought this because that is what the people who shared this video with me were saying. However, the comments are mostly filled with presumably white people defending themselves in a sarcastic manner. There are a few comments restating what the video was saying, and a small amount of just blatant racism, sexism, and homophobia. The latter form can generally be found on any YouTube video regardless of its contents. To me these comments only seemed to further enforce the existence ignorance in a western perspective.

I wonder what can be done to better educate the privileged, western audience? Are authors already doing it very well by integrating it smoothly into their writing? Is there a better method? Moreover, are people marketing these life narratives in way that is beneficial or detrimental?

The Portrayal of Serious Issues in Humorous Media

Posted on by
1

In this video clip, Ellen speaks about the situation in Saudi Arabia in a humorous manner. This video clip caught my attention for a few reasons. First, at the beginning of the term, our class spoke about how one aspect of being a global citizen is to be up to date on news and spread awareness of these issues with the intention of providing help. This is something that an individual must intend to do because unless you make the initiative, the news will not come to you. As we discovered through studying the “Beware Online: ‘Filter Bubbles’”, the Internet is becoming increasingly tailored to suit it thinks an individual wants to see. I truly believe that unless you make an effort, an individual could go weeks without hearing any news, local or global. Even if they spent time going on Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc, because everything is designed to show us what we want to see, typically light-hearted entertainment, they might only hear about news through people in real life. So when I saw this clip from the Ellen show, I was slightly surprised. Initially surprised because her show is primarily comedic and she typically does not speak about serious issues unless it is a charity initiative. Secondly, I noticed that she did not speak about the issue in Saudi Arabia for very long amount of time. She took a serious issue and spoke about it with humour. On the one hand, I do not expect Ellen to speak very seriously about issues on her show or spread/discuss news. That is not the shows purpose. On the other hand, I was surprised that she would bring up an important issue and not elaborate on it.

This made me think about how light-hearted, popular media represents important, global issues and whether this is beneficial or disadvantageous for the viewers and those who are experiencing the issue at hand. I can expect that those who are watching the Ellen show are not watching to learn about the news. Nevertheless, if these types of media speak about issues, whether elaborately or not, they bring attention to the issue and spread awareness. This could be beneficial, perhaps people will watch the show and then do further investigation. Or perhaps they will share the video on social media. I do not see how this could be disadvantageous in any way. The cheery way of speaking about this may in fact bring the issue more attention because those who do not normally watch the news may be more intrigued to watch something like this. Conversely, due to these cheerful and humorous media sources speaking about serious issues in such a way, they may not accurately represent the situation. This might only distort the situation in a way that is harmful. In this case, those affected by the issue may not want any inaccurate information being spread in popular media when it could so easily be prevented. Obviously, the media continuously misrepresents issues and spreads false information however this typically occurs in a ‘telephone game’ type manner. Whereas on a popular TV show, presenting a specific and prepared segment, the way the issue is spoken about is entirely in their control.

Is slight misrepresentation or humorous interpretation damaging to the actual issue? Or is it acceptable considering that it brings further attention towards the issue? Having been informed about the issue in such a manner, are people more inclined to solve the problem and/or spread awareness? Or does it only distract from the real problem?

Debating Authenticity of Life Narrative

Posted on by
Reply

In a portion of my literature review, The child’s perspective of trauma within life narrative, I summarized a few scholar’s concepts of authenticity within this context. I had three scholars, Alexandra Lloyd, Gill Rye, and Hillary Chute discuss whether or not the child’s viewpoint can be authentic at all and what characteristics made it more or less so. The complex relationship between the adult author and the child narrator, effects of an overtly emotional narration on it’s own authenticity, and preservation of memory were all called into question.

As I was reading the articles, I never questioned the authority of these scholars to analyze the authenticity of these life narratives. Due to the author (writing trauma as seen by a child) no longer being a child, I believed it was understandable and logical to question the authenticity of the story. However, today in class (Nov.5th), Laurie made me re-think the concept of authenticity in life narrative. Who has the authority to determine what is authentic? When an author is telling someone else’s story, for example David Eggers in What is the What, there will always be issues of translation and mediation. Even if both contributors, the author and the real-life protagonist, speak the same language they may still run into problems with interpreting meaning. Mediation will naturally be an issue because life narratives are often edited in ways that will supposedly help them reach a larger audience. Even when an author is recounting their own experiences, their memory will never be 100% reliable. The authenticity of life narrative could be debated forever because there is no valid way to determine how truly authentic it is.

Are there any effective ways of measuring authenticity within life narrative? My belief is that unless someone is recounting their own experiences as they are happening and is being completely truthful, no other life narrative could be considered completely authentic. Even in that case, some aspects could be called into question. So, what is the point of debating authenticity at all? Perhaps it aids us in engaging with our critical thinking skills? On the opposite end of the spectrum, if we do not think critically about what we are reading, we are not actually doing our job as a reader. We should never take things at face value and blindly consume. Therefore, perhaps that best technique is to try to stand somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Take everything with a grain of salt, know that it may not be authentic, and consider the reasons as to why it may have purposely or accidentally been presented in that way. However do not scrutinize it to the point that you miss the bigger picture entirely. Questioning the authenticity of life narrative can have benefits for the reader but if taken too far will do more harm than good.