Into the Blogosphere
Laura Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff, and Jessica Reyman
University of Minnesota
Into the Blogosphere, a collaborative article, is quite literaly that, a plundge into the world of blogging and the "blogosphere." Blogs, originally "weblogs" (a name coined by blogging pioneer Jorn Barger about his online journal Robot Wisdom), are many things. Blogs are a versatile venue for commentary and discussion between bloggers (those who interact with blogs and regularly post on one or many) and blogs are beholden to the whims and fancies of the bloggers. Blogs are rarely defined by the content as Gurak supposes and blogs are limited only by the direction of those participating. This logically leads one to assume that blogs can be anything, but only regarding content is this true.
Initially in Gurak's article there is a comment about blogger "enthusiasts" and there foward thought that all voices can be heard on the blogosphere. That there is no limit to the voices that may be represented on the interenet, to this point I must amend. While it is true that the possibility of voices is there, the liklihood and power is questionable at best. Those without knowledge of or access to the internet are not likely candidates for bloggers, that is, those without means or the capacity to use the interenet will remain voiceless on the interent. While voices can be heard, whether they will or not is more pertinent to the conversation. Gurak acknowledges this criticism, but I believe that it bares repeting to establish that what we are talking about is not an "egalitarian" venue for communication, but an educated group of only eleven percent (at best) of those online (2004).
Another component to this article that was interesting to me was, "the new cultural practices of online communication," that Gurak asserts is the social ramifications of blogging. Gurak understands, as others, that the blogosphere both is and represents a paradigm shift in the way that people discuss and argue, or simply rhetoric. The idea stands as an important one and Gurak offers some examples of this sharing, combining, and collecting of "ownership, authorship, and legitimacy," at the end of the article when many individuals respond, much as they would on a blog. And indeed this article operates as a blog where others can comment on either the article or other comments made, which acts both as an effective demonstration and in itself lends to the articles meaning.
My final, possibly most "important" thought on this article would be in regards to "the value of blogging in composition pedagogy." The idea of "facilitating a more collaborative environment and supportive sense of community," is an interesting one. It reminded me of something-- Our class, blackboard discussions, a novel idea. But I would go beyond what Charles Lowe and Terra Williams assert and suggest that these environs allow for our writing to be displayed, openly refuted by tangible people that have counter arguments, differeing opinions. Our academic discourse or discourse in general are constantly tested from multiple angles and allows an author to manage discursive thought more readily.
Into the Blogosphere is really the realization of discourse in high-speed.
3 comments:
I completely agree with your point on potential to being read and being read. It isn't as if every single weblog that gets updated has Google syndication. It's nice to think that my weblog voice will be heard, but it's also nice to think my presidential vote made a difference. To jump to the egalitarian conclusion is a micronisation of our country's idea of free press, which is only realized by a select few blogs. Although the medium is dynamic, it is not wholly representative of any other form of mass communication, particularly because of the feedback model it creates with its comment and rating systems.
Blogs are literature because they "call...attention both to what is read and they way in which we read." So, stop signs are also literary by this definition. I thought that was interesting, but the quote was taken out of the context of the article so perhaps Himmer better defines this sentence in the work itself. I find that too broad a definition of literary, and am reluctant to outrightly call blogging as a whole literary.
I was interested in Habermasian spheres and did a little poking around. Came across a Wiki article with an interesting statement about Habermasian theory: "The public sphere was guided by a norm of rational argumentation and critical discussion in which the strength of one's argument was more important than one's identity." I find this extremely noteworthy considering the nature of blogs (which in my experience are often everything but rational). I've been mostly turned off by blogs because most of the ones I've seen were nothing more than curious prattle (to me) and disjointed rantings by people who seem terribly misinformed on the subjects they so violently discuss. For me, authority and identity in blogs is absolutely secondary to argumentation, but I wonder how this fits into discussions of democracy and social heirarchy. Is it important for the sake of social dialogue to have blogs which are meaningless to anyone but the author? Is it a democratic necessity to have people with no grasp of politics and the government system presenting information to the public with authority equal to an informed source?
I would need to further research Habermasian models and the blogosphere to decide, but I think it is of significance and I can understand why, although I find blogging in general to be kind of mundane (for lack of a better word), it certainly presents large social consequence.
The Habermasian notion of the public sphere, to the limited extent that I can understand it (now that's a hard read) provides an interesting anchor in the discussion of what constitutes the public sphere and/or publicity. The wikipedia entry on the public sphere contains an interesting set of links to various opinions on the subject.
To me, the basic question is how does knowledge circulate within the public sphere (what, specifically, is the public sphere is another question): is there a set, hierarchical model of information distribution, and when new modes of information distribution emerge, are they incorporated into the existing model?
OR: When new models of information distribution emerge, is this structure of the public sphere fundamentally changed?
I certainly don't know. I lean toward the Habermasian take on things, which claims (if I understand it) that the p.s. is endlessly accommodating and can absorb/co-opt emergent forms of communication.
"The Blogs of War," though, and other articles, suggests (to me) otherwise. The mass-media distribution of non mass-mediated material (material that hasn't been processed by a news agency) seems to be a fundamental change in the p.s.
On the other hand, as James points out, only relatively few voices are heard, and even some of those voices (male) are privileged. So in this way, it seems the p.s. is fundamentally the same.
The Gurak article, though, seems to represent a radical departure from traditional publishing. On the one hand, the articles appear to be written in the exact same manner as print journal articles, and they probably went through the same peer-review process. On the other hand, the distribution is completely free, and readers are invited to respond to the articles in such a way that other readers will see those responses. That's not how it happens in print journals, when responses can be months or years in the making. The digital format doesn't prevent the long view, but it facilitates the short view (which I for one appreciate. I normally get all heated up about an article as I'm reading it, and have a lot to say. Of course, I'd probably force myself to wait before posting in order to minimize embarrassing rants).
Post a Comment