doctoral candidate in rhetoric and scientific and technical communication
cultural & textual studies
why tweeting works
04 years ago
I just came across an article in the New York Times via Michael Faris‘ blog. The article is discussing the use of 
Twitter (and less prominently, Tumblr — one account I actually don’t have, mostly because I have this blog). In the article, the reporter discusses some of the dramatic uses of Twitter: one man threatened suicide and his subscribers called for help; prominent web 2.0 entrepreneurs have fights with their partners and subscribers give advice.
What the article misses is the connectivity. It’s not all about the drama or the minutiae of life. It’s about connecting with others who have similar interests or who share information that others may be interested in. Take, for instance, my interest in photography. I post links to my photographs. Other people started subscribing to me. I came to find out that many of them are in Flickr. Even better, some of them are from my hometown. Others are in the same field that I’m in and have given me some wonderful feedback on rhetoricians, theory, and have been cheering me on as I finish up my thesis. Still others have introduced me to new things in other areas of interest: I saw the progression of PodcampAZ; I have talked with GrammarGirl; I stay informed on technology, other students, other photographers, and more. None of this would happen if I didn’t use Twitter because I wouldn’t ever have gotten to know these people otherwise.
Shelley Powers, who never seems to have positive things to say about this connectivity, but who makes a living off of it, states,
“He has a bummer day, talks about it on Twitter, it’s on Digg and then MetaFilter,” she said in an interview. She calls the entire experience “artificial intimacy” and wonders if people were “concerned about it, or were they titillated.”
People in the social networking world, she said, are in a quest for constant communication. “It began with blogging, then blogging with comments, then instant messaging,” she said. “It keeps getting a higher and higher level of interconnectivity, and it becomes almost addicting.”
And why wouldn’t interconnectivity become addicting? We are social animals. We have a need to connect to one another. Even as a self-avowed hermit, I like to be connected, to feel like I have a place within the social structure of mankind (albeit a removed place, but a place nevertheless).
In a time when people are feeling removed from everything, these tools allow us to feel like we’re a part of something bigger. They allow us to learn and grow and be a part of something larger than us: the world.
I’m in…
04 years ago
Ok. I’m in. I know I’m a day late in making these larger posts, but I’m going to make an attempt to post a blog post every day — every single day — during November. And I’m not
talking about my Twitter tweets, either (although I really think they should count because you get to see the things I’m doing, thinking, or working on). Ahem.
I know that this is not appealing to everyone. However, when I get as busy as I’ve been (consider this: I work full-time at my regular job, I’m teaching a class, I’m finishing my thesis (60+ pages with a lot of research), I’m studying for the GRE, I’m applying to doctoral programs, I’m refinancing my house, I’m researching buying a new car (because mine is 11 years old and I’m going to need a newer one to get me through the next 5 years that I’m in grad school), I still post a photo a day, and I’m trying to spend as much time as possible with family before I move away), it isn’t always the first thing on my mind to post a new full-fledged blog entry. I’ve tried to keep everyone up-to-date by posting tweets.
I’ve heard some complaints about that, though. I’m sorry. I know that you’re a loyal audience and I’ve tried to do my best by you. So this month is for you. Really.
I have to say, though, that the posts will probably be about a lot of my research. And what, you may ask, am I researching? My area of study is looking at how women create identity in online social communities — both visual and linguistic rhetorical identities. I look at how they (the three particular women I’ve been following) have used images to define who they are, how they use words to define who they are, and how they juxtaposition the two — and what can come of that. I look at the issues of objectification of women and how we can often put ourselves in the role of objectifying ourselves in order to fit in, to meet audience expectations, and to be noticed.
Bored yet? This is just the beginning of the ride. It may be bumpy but you may have fun, too. Yahoo!
ambiguous sexism
04 years ago
I love typography. There is something about the ways that letters and words fit together to make a beautiful design within themselves. Leading, kerning, serif or sans-serif — they are all elements that I love to play with and to use to make something original and appealing.
I was quite excited to find an introductory video via viz. that explains typography in an easy and straightforward way. Except…
Well, you watch it and see if you catch it before reading any further.
Did you see it? When the video defines who uses typography, it showed only men’s images when saying typographers, graphic artists, and art directors.
It’s a little thing, right? But it isn’t. It’s this type of inconspicuous sexism that can be the most damaging. When we see those images, we think, subconsciously, that only men will be in those positions. That’s simply not true. In my department, our lead graphic designer is a woman. A woman who oversees a staff of nearly a dozen people. Within her staff, many of the student workers who are majoring in graphic design are women. The student graphic designer who did the graphics for the class I’m teaching is a woman.
I’m not going out of my way to find sexism in the things I research. When it is there, though, I’m going to point it out.
Subtle things like these types of images are the things that I look at when I’m researching rhetorical placement of images. What kinds of messages are they giving out? What colors, fonts, images, and sounds (if any) are being used? How do these affect an audience and, what kind of an audience are they trying to reach?
It may seem innocuous. It can be just the opposite, though.
constructing identity
04 years ago
My world these days is full of thinking about how we create identity in online communities (specifically women). We create multiple identities (as we do in our offline lives — mother, student, employee, etc) and sometimes those identities are fractured or are portraying us in ways that are not as flattering as we would like.
This video shows some of the issues I’ve been thinking about. How far do we go to project ourselves in certain ways or how much attention are we paying to how we do project ourselves?
I’ve been wondering what kinds of responsibilities we have to ourselves, to other women, and to the girls coming behind us to create identities that avoid sexist stereotypes, contribute to stronger female images, and that build up women instead of tearing them down.
There is so much out there already tearing us down. Why do we persist in doing it to ourselves as well?
who are you?
04 years ago
This morning on NPR I heard a segment on creating avatars in virtual worlds. I’ve had a lot of interest in this because 1) my field of study is understanding how we create identity – particularly online; 2) my friend, erin, has really dived in to second life and I’m curious about her choices of avatars; and 3) I’m interested in why people would want to be someone other than they really are.
Erin recently had a post about creating a Simpsons avatar for herself and that comparison to her Second Life avatar. Since she did it, I just had to create my own Simpsons avatar on the Simpsons movie website.
As I was going through, creating this virtual “me,” I was really focused on making it as close to me as possible (I mean, as close as you can with Matt Groening‘s rendering). I could have made my avatar anything: a boy with blue hair, a little girl, an old man with a mustache. I chose “me,” though. Just as I do on this website, depicting “me” with my real name and real situations, I chose an avatar that was as close to me as possible. I didn’t feel a need to be anyone but me.
Why would we choose to be someone else? The segment on NPR had some great insight into this (and I really want to dive into the book). I can understand if you have cerebral palsy and want to project yourself sans wheelchair, breathing apparatus, etc. I get that. I also understand wanting to have some authority in online role-playing because women are rarely (even in real-life online situations) given any authoritative roles or the respect that goes with that.
I don’t, however, understand wanting to be someone other than me as I am. Am I comfortable in my skin and like who I am? Pretty much. I’ve worked really hard to get where I am and am working hard to get where I want to go. I like me, overall. I’m not such a bad person. Am I stunningly beautiful? No. I’m your girl-next-door. I’m ok with that, too. In fact, I like it. I love my freckles (and would have given my avatar freckles, if I could have), my strawberry-blond hair, and even my need for glasses due to an astigmatism. I’m not skinny. I’m not perfect — but I’m me. And I’m ok with that.
I don’t feel the need to be anything other than that even in the virtual world. But I recognize that for many, this is an escape, an enabling tool to allow them to get to new places. I also realize that for some, it is like being an actor. You get to put on a persona for a certain amount of time and get to act out in different ways. I am probably not creative enough for that. I find it time-consuming enough to be me. I’d have a difficult time portraying myself as another for too long (and I think, for me, five minutes would be too long). But I can understand the draw.
Do you use avatars? If so, who are you online versus your in-person persona? If you don’t, would you be someone else online if you did create an avatar?
do I look fat in these jeans?
04 years ago
In April, I wrote about the study of the sexual orientation of women and men. I discussed how we are bombarded with images of women in sexual poses from the moment we are born and how that may affect the way we view women sexually.
A co-worker recently sent me a video about advertising and the portrayal of women in advertising. It is 34 minutes long but I think it’s worth a half hour of our time. It will make you think.
One thing I do want you to consider while you watch this is the jokes made about men (the minute rice comment, for instance). While she does promote equality and advocates for less objectification of both sexes, there are still a few derogatory statements made about men — something that shouldn’t be a part of this kind of presentation.
Words are important. The way we use them along with images can give an entirely different meaning to the subject. Contextualization is everything.
in the now
05 years ago
Today in my autobiography class, a classmate quoted a professor from one of her other classes, a creative nonfiction course. She said that her professor said that if you are in the now of grief (or supplement this with any other strong emotion), you shouldn’t write about it. She said that this professor said that the information you write about would not be reliable, not objective enough.
I have to disagree. I’m not sure autobiography is ever objective. It is our own perspective on life. It is our own truth. Whether that truth is coming from the center of emotion or from years of distance, it is still subjective to our perspective.
If I write about my cancer now, a year and a half after my last surgery, it is clinical. It will give you a lot of information about my particular cancer and about the procedures I had to endure. It will not, however, give you as much information about how I was feeling at that time, how it was affecting me on a daily basis, and how sad and at a loss I was – feeling like piece of me were stolen from me by an invisible force. I can’t replicate those feelings. I’m not in the same place.
Each is valid. Each is worthy of the time I would put in to write it – if I know my audience well and understand what they desire when they read my writings. But that, really, is the key. I have to understand what you want to read and be willing to share that. Without our symbiosis, there is really no reason to write in a public forum.
Sometimes I like writing in the now. I’m able to shed anxiety and stress and sadness and pain by writing in the now. It gives me a safe place to purge.
Sometimes I like writing from memory. No matter how painful, the memories are still sweet. They make me who I am today. They have accumulated to create a library of stories that can be funny or sad or elaborate or sparse depending on how and how much I choose to share with you.
Sometimes I like mixing them together, weaving in and out of the now into the past and back again. They give you depth in a story. They give you relativity and understanding of how the now is affected by the then — and, perhaps, why I view the then in the ways I do.
One professor may say that I shouldn’t write in the now of heightened emotion. But I say that writing is every bit as valid as any other writing.
It’s all about perspective.
i am different
0
Rousseau, in discussing his particular confessional style of memoir writing, writes, “I am commencing an undertaking, hitherto without precendent, and which will never find an imitator…I am not made like any of those I have seen; I venture to believe that I am not made like any of those who are in existence. If I am not better, at least I am different.”
I have been blogging (or something akin to it online) for nearly 10 years. Before blogs were blogs, I was putting my thoughts on message boards and inviting comments there. I didn’t start this off as a confessional. I didn’t create it to become a subject of history or to become, like Samuel Pepys in his autobiographical style, an accumulative subject. I didn’t start a blog to write about my marginalized life. And yet, here I am – confessing, being a subject of history and an accumulative subject. I write about the ways I feel marginalized in today’s society.
I began this journey to have somewhere safe and free to write. I began this as a place to get those writing energies out, somewhere, anywhere. I write because I need to write. It fulfills me in ways that photography doesn’t. My words paint the pictures. It can be more blatant or more subtle depending on what I do with the words.
I’m working on my master’s thesis. I’m looking inward, at myself. I’m beginning to wonder if I’m self-absorbed, writing these past 10 years. I’m looking at my words, my photos, and determining what type of audience I’ve been writing for, what my voice has been, what type of identity I have created, and if I’m believable to anyone but myself.
I think I am. I mean, this is me – the real me – here on these pages. I tell the truth as I know it. I share my world as I see it, warts and all. But is it believable? Does it resonate? Does it matter?
This is me without the filters of big publication machinery. Without an editor. Without a publisher. My autobiography. My accounting of my life – here, right in front of you. My sorrows, my joys, my fears, my triumphs. All right here. In technicolor. For the world to see immediately.
Me.
prescribed
05 years ago
During my (many) years online, I have read many blog entries, discussion posts, forum entries, and bulletin board discussions about the use of language online. I have read about the way “young people” write online and how they don’t know how to construct proper sentences. I have read about the laziness of people who use shorthand online.
I typically shake my head and chuckle at these discussions. To me, what is going on is a regurgitation of the rules that someone’s third grade teacher told them. You must follow the rules! You can’t deviate in language!
One of the (many) problems with a prescriptionist approach to language is that it doesn’t take into account that language changes – a lot. It doesn’t take into account that technology may be driving language into a whole new incarnation.
There are many who will raise the battle flag against this. It is the death of the language as we know it, they will cry. It is the beginning of the end!
It reminds me of Chicken Little.
When Shakespeare made up words to use in his plays because there weren’t any words in use to make his point the way he needed it made, do you think the people rose up and bemoaned his pioneer spirit? When the OED includes new words that are in our lexicon, are they promoting the destruction of our society as we know it?
The New Zealand’s Qualifications Authority has decided that instead of fighting the change and progression of language, they are going to accept it (but not necessarily embrace it). What they call text-speak is now going to be allowed as acceptable writing on exams.
Of course there is going to be backlash. The article quotes a blogger (and interestingly enough, I couldn’t find this Phil Stevens in a blog – but a lot of people were using this quote as if he is a definitive voice on the subject) saying that this is not a smart move (I’m taking a little latitude in paraphrasing).
I think the New Zealand’s Qualifications Authority is being responsible. They are being progressive and understand that language is not stagnant and if comprehension of the topics is being met, then the way we reflect that can be flexible.
Thanks to Kairosnews for the link.
wikis
05 years ago
They often talk about measuring the accuracy of Wiki articles as though this was a physical process in which they could use a yardstick.
I read the above statement in a classroom and thought about it. I responded:
I think that the problem with Wikipedia is that it became the “go-to” place for anyone doing research on the internet. Everyone started looking to it as an authority, a secondary resource, to the research they were doing on other things.
Instead of carrying on the traditional wiki practice which allows anyone to contribute, the admins then had to consider their audience and purpose more carefully. Who did they really want to reach and why? What was important in this community.
Instead of a worldwide community that is more democratic, they have limited it only to those who are now authorities in the field they write in. If you have a PhD behind your name, in the Wikipedia arena you are given much more credit.
While I understand the need for this, it limits Wikipedia from being a true wiki. There is limited social intereaction and it is quite elitist at this point.
Addendum:
Funny enough, I found this on the Kairosnews blog today:
The Chronical of Education posted a note today describing how Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says that he wants to get the message out to college students letting them know that they shouldn’t use Wiki either for class projects or for serious research. Speaking at a conference held at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called “The Hyperlinked Society,†Mr. Wales said that he gets a number of e-mails each week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic trouble. However, he said that he has no sympathy for their misfortune, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the [Wiki] encyclopedia.â€
Mr. Wales said that leaders of Wikipedia have considered putting together a fact sheet so that professors could pass it out in their classes to explain what Wikipedia is, and that it is not always a definitive academic resource. In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia is suitable for many uses. For example, if you are reading a novel that mentions a particular historical event, you could use Wikipedia to get a quick basic overview of that event to understand the context. But students who are actually writing a paper about that event should rely upon the authority of history books.
While it’s interesting that he is stating this, I have a feeling that it will be used by more and more college students because it is written by experts in the field (for the most part) and because it sounds authoritative.