SIgn, Sign, Everywhere a Sign

So, my obsession with metadata continues. Pragmatisism has only added fuel to the fire. Pragatasits work well with data. Because when you begin collecting data over large periods you begin to see how that data is connected: metadata is then representation of those connectors. Discourse theory is fits perfectly into this model since it is obessesed with public action. My defintion of discourse works like this:





Now, let's look at this from Asen and Brower's perspective on Counterpublics: "one may locate the "couuter" of counterpublics in the identity of the persons who articulate oppositional discourse" (Asen and Bower, 8). They articulate the position of Fraiser and Felski that the counter public has somehow been restricted in access to power and therefore access to certain symbols, thus directly affecting their ability to communicate thier needs and accomplish there goals. This is where I take this conversation fully into discourse theory. It seems that the counterpublic is raging against the public and needs the public to move before the counter public can feel comfortable. I don't think is always the relationship, but we're just gonna run with this example. It seems then that the public would absolutely need access to certain symbols, which I will refer to as genres, in order to move the public becuase the public only react to certain genres. However, the counter public is restricted in thier access to certain genres so they have to use other seen as counterintuitive to the god of the public. Thus, let's redraw the picture:

Just a Few Questions

For the readings this week I found myself asking a lot of questions. Which then encouraged me to submit my response today (Sunday) rather than on Monday so ya'll could maybe think about the questions if you felt so inclined. Also I would like more time to think about the questions and perhaps read the articles further and perhaps gain some more insight. Here goes on the questions:

In Reconfigurations of the Public Sphere it states, "Technologies bring together dispersed persons and extend the reach of the public even further" Does this extend the reach of community as well? If so, what are the implications of that?

I realize that this is a question that is asked quite often now because of the extensive use of social networks, but I feel that it is still very important.

Another question, I felt that Reconfigurations of the Public Sphere used "public" as synonymous with "community". Was this the case or was I imagining it? EXAMPLE: "Many publics arise as well from the demands made by long-suppressed and marginalized groups for the rights and responsibilities of political membership, collective sovereignty, or both."

In A Discourse Theory of Citizenship Asen states that "Citizenship on the decline---in voting, campaign volunteering, letter writing, attendance at public meetings, etc." My question is: does this equal a decline in community? And What about this past election when more youth voted than ever before?

Also while reading this particular piece I was beginning to wonder what "community" looks like in other, non-democratic countries?

If, as Asen states, citizenship=performance not possession. I theorize that, if this is true, then citizenship isn't a right, it is not something you are born into--it is something you earn.

Bruno Latour

Bruno Latour

So what the heck is community, anyway?

So, I'm kind of wondering how in the world to map the definition of community. I started this map and wondered what you all might have to say about it. I'd love to explore this...

Technology and Democracy

"'Invent the printing press and democracy is inevitable.' Add to this: Invent the railway, the telegraph, mass manufacture and concentration of population in urban centers, and some form of democratic government, is, humanly speaking, inevitable" (Dewey 110).

Add to that: TV, cell phones, texting, Facebook, MySpace, blogging, and Twitter.

I think democracy has increased even more with the development of social networking sites and other forms of communication. If Dewey thought information traveled quickly through the telegraph, I'm sure he would probably pass out after seeing how viral all those texts about donating to Haiti became in a short amount of time. News travels faster now, and people have more and quicker access to information.

"Our modern state-unity is due to the consequences of technology employed so as to facilitate the rapid and easy circulation of opinions and information, and so as to generate constant and intricate interaction far beyond the limits of face-to-face communities" (Dewey 114).

We are unified with people all across the world because of Facebook, etc. This forms new communities, and the chance for the opinions of others.

Thinking of this makes me wonder what would've happened had Sarah Palin had been running on the ticket with John McCain before SNL. I think Tina Fey and the SNL team played a large role in sinking Sarah Palin. Those videos were shared after broadcast on Facebook and blogs across the country. Sure, her faux pas would have been printed in national newspapers, but many people wouldn't have had access to that information for days or weeks afterwards.

My point in all of this is that democracy has increased because of technology - like Dewey suggested.

methodology and miscellany

Several years ago, as I was considering PhD work, I spoke with some of my professors. They told me it would be difficult. They said it would be hard to get in. They warned that funding could be hard to come by. They claimed I might not be able to find suitable employment when I was finished. No problem. I’m used to taking long shots. Interestingly, they did not tell me that the purpose of PhD work was to train me to become a researcher. Now that might have deterred me.

Fast forward to last semester. I’m in Bill H-D’s class and I’m supposed to discuss the methodological framework I’m using to approach an assignment. What? I have an English lit undergraduate degree and a master’s in writing with a concentration in rhetoric. I have no idea what the heck he was asking me to do. After many discussions with my bff Melanie, and a trip or two to the Writing Center, I kinda figured it out. Kinda.

This semester, I’m taking 877 with John Monberg, and thankfully, some things are starting to click. Like this part of Dewey’s chapter one:

“But the difference between facts which are what they are independent of human desire and endeavor and facts which are to some extent what they are because of human interest and purpose, and which alter with alteration in the latter, cannot be got rid of by any methodology. The more sincerely we appeal to facts, the greater is the importance of the distinction between facts which are conditioned by human activity. In the degree which we ignore this difference, social science becomes pseudo-science” (p 7).

Nice. So Dewey encourages us to acknowledge that the ideas and concepts we bring to the table affect how we see things. “Fact” may not, indeed be fact. It might be constructed. Interesting...and ridiculously verschränkung. And speaking of verschränkung, this whole idea seems like quantum entanglement to me…

A few other comments:

I wonder what those in disability studies would make of this quote. If we’re lucky, an up and coming name in disability studies will comment on this, as I’ve invited her to follow this blog: “For ideas belong to human beings who have bodies, and there is no separation between the structures and processes of the part of the body that entertains the ideas and the part that performs acts” (p 8).

I still don’t quite get how “the taking of causal agency instead of consequences as the heart of the problem” is “a root of shared error” ( p19-20). Can someone break that down for me? It comes up again and again… (“By thinking still in terms of causal forces, the conclusion has been drawn from this fact that the state, the public, is a fiction, a mask for private desires for power and position” p 21.) I’m not quite sure what the causal forces are…

I LOVE this quote: “The planets in a constellation would form a community if they were aware of the connections of the activities of each with those of the others and could use this knowledge to direct behavior” (25). I recently had a conversation with a friend who is an amateur astronomer about the nebulous in the Orion constellation, and now I like to think of that nebulus as a community within the Orion community. This makes me wonder about the definition of community. Dewey seems to suggest that a group of people who are “aware of the connections of the activities of each with those of the others and [can] use tat knowledge to direct behavior” is (or could be?) a community. Interesting…but that would mean that there is no real decision to become community…that proximity and awareness are the requirements. That seems too simple…

Public vs. Private Conversations

I love to listen to comedians. I happen to think that in many cases they can have some very good insight into human behavior or society as a whole. One particular skit of a comedian that I cannot recall, fits perfectly with this book and the ideas behind it. The skit talks about the comedian being out in public and seeing people on their cell phones talking very loudly (a pet peeve of his). So in this instance he stood very close to the person on the cell phone, and acted as if he was part of the conversation. Of course the man on the phone was not happy with this, so he told the comedian that he was “trying to have a private conversation.” The comedian responded with, “your private conversation is interfering with my public”.

So where does public start? Where does it end? What is public? What is Private?

I would be very interested to read about some reactions to Dewey’s work and how it can be applied now in the time of social networking where “private” conversations can be seen by anyone who has a facebook account. Is it still a private conversation if it is only understood by the person it was intended for?

Dewey states that “in a broad sense any transaction deliberately carried on between two or more persons is social in quality.” Is it also public? Perhaps the only time something private occurs is if it is in your own head, once it is shared with simply one person then it is “social in quality” and possibly “public” in nature.