It is not an everyday practice of most individuals to immerse themselves in the catalog of symbols that constitutes their being, or to even think about the impacts of their culture and how it shapes their mere existence through this set of symbols. Some may attribute this to our face paced lifestyles and our preoccupation with never-ending responsibilities, but this lack of awareness for what makes us who we are has been present in societies for hundreds of years. And rightfully so! Having the ability to pull back from one's self, and essentially one's own existence, requires a state of mind that must be cultivated differently for each individual. What makes sense to one person does not always resonate with another, which demonstrates that we all have our own individual culture as a subset of the larger culture we are a part of. Every variable that constitutes our culture(s) produces a function that allows us to operate in the context of our own lives. Therefore, it is safe to say that the structure of our culture(s) determines the functions that carry us through our lives.
The idea of structure and function can be seen throughout nature and in numerous disciplines. The human body exemplifies this concept in the purest form. When we look at the intricate processes that take place in order to keep our bodies functioning there is no doubt that it could not be possible without the specific structures that make up the systems carrying out these processes. The same is true of culture. Like a HUGE organism, culture is comprised of hundreds of thousands of structures that work in unison, as well as opposition, to produce functions that carryout in our every day lives. The work of Elizabeth Eisenstein addresses this as a problem in the sense that it is often overlooked, which can be detrimental when trying to assess the impact of cultural change.
In Eisenstein's most famous work, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change and the Structure of Communications Revolutions, we are brought to the roots of fundamental change via a handy little contraption known as the printing press; brought into use in Germany by Johannes Gutenberg in approximately 1439. This was the first movable type printing device in Western Europe and was responsible for the wide spread dissemination of knowledge. During the Renaissance period knowledge spread across greater distances because of the "fixity" print gave it, making it easier to share work on a standardized basis. As Eisenstein puts it, "print institutionalized this classical revival, fixing it and making it a Europe-wide phenomenon."
Being able to fix knowledge allows for all types of advancements. The structural features of oral communication which serve to obscure the details of tradition are diminished by writing and utterly effaced by print (Leed 1982). By having standardized text to refer to, scientists, historians and the like were able to add to the database of intellectual findings in a manner that contributed to the preexisting works as opposed to merely replicating it. For one of the first times in European history there was a concrete method to "distinguish between the reproduction of their culture and those alterations of the basic motifs and schemata which constitute a personal addition, an "original" contribution to that culture." (Leed 1982)
Where though, does this leave us in terms of identity. In a review of the literature there is little to be found regarding how individual's felt about having their identity associated with their contributions. It is easy to assume a few things: 1) people will be proud of their contribution, feeling as though they must be correct in their findings, and hope to be noted in print so they may be recognized even after their departure 2) people will take a more humble stance and want their ideas to prosper, not their identity, and therefore want to suppress their identity all together 3) being unsure of their works or possibly afraid of being persecuted for their findings/beliefs, people will want to remain anonymous for the sake of their dignity. In either scenario the importance of identity is not mentioned here (i.e. within the review of Eisenstein's work), and it is worth further research to find the links between the era of "fixity" and identity in relation to the specific ideas Eisenstein presents in her work.
As I continue through various literary sources, though, there is more talk about a concern for identity in general during the Renaissance era. Anonymity: The Literary History of a Word, written by Anne Ferry, gives us insight into how identity was approached over a vast time period (i.e. 16th century - 20th century) and their is time spent discussing the cultural "why's" that lead to the variance we see throughout history. In the late 16th century the word anonymous is brought into English from Greek indicating that the idea was in existence and being employed to some extent regardless of whether or not the actual word "anonymous" was being attached to it.
It is well known that in this period it was thought of as improper for "gentlemen and persons of rank to appear in print as poets..." and because these individuals were forced to employ anonymity for sake of their dignity, "...others who wanted to display their wit as a way of advancing themselves in courtly circles were driven to publish verse unsigned but under fancy disguises that could be seen through." (Ferry 2003) Politics is another instance where embracing anonymity could prove beneficial. But as we move into the late 17th century we start to see the word being employed as a means of "fashion, publishing tactics, or private caution." The use of the adjective "anonymous" does not abruptly change, rather it transforms slowly in relation to the cultural changes that are taking place.
Coming into the 19th century we see poetry becoming a form of personal expression as opposed to a "skillfully made object fashion according to formal conventions." The led to the birth of the actual noun "anonymity" from it's parent adjective "anonymous" born a couple hundred years earlier. The need for protection takes a different form here, as authors are concerned about how people will view the personal inner workings of the mind. This continues on throughout the 19th century in the midst of a growing concern for poetry as a form of personal expression & a desire of some for a "return to the literary past", that E.M. Forster describes as a time when "writers and readers...did not make a cult of expression as we do today. Surely they were right, and modern critics go too far in their insistence on personality."
What strikes me as even more interesting is the ping-pong effect that is beginning to take place. Amongst the shifts in perception of what poetry should be used for there is also a shift in how anonymity is used within poetry. As we approach the mid-1900's there is an ever growing feel for anonymity for what Ferry calls a cultural motif. Henry Seidel Canby addresses it in "Anon is Dead" written in 1926. He talks about how city life sets the stage for the desire to "escape from the deadly anonymity of modern life," generating the "passion for nonanonymity" in the "general man who feel shis personality sinking lower and lower into the whirl of indistinguishable atoms to be lost in a mass civilization." So here we have people wanting to move out of the idea of anonymity based on what is happening culturally. Essentially this brings us back to where I ended with Eisenstein's work.
All the talk of anonymity based on Ferry's article refers to poetry in particular. I am interested to know where people in the Renaissance era stood in terms of identity and publishing academic works. During this time period we have theologians and scientists adding to the commonwealth of knowledge in the most influential of ways and it would be fascinating to determine how anonymity was viewed in light of these subjects outside of the literary arts. I realize that my review of the literature is minuscule in comparison to what is available, so this is definitely accounted for as I write this, and it does not mean my search is over...it has only just begun!
Because printed media is so appropriate for the use of anonymity I would also like to look into different cases where anonymity is used. Aside from the poetic approach that Ferry embraces I have found some literature that may direct me towards the use of anonymity in religious works, which would take us back before the Renaissance (woohoo!) as well as the use of anonymity by Plato found in Platonic Anonymity by Ludwig Edelstein, which would also take us back farther. Other, more recent, literary works that address the different uses of anonymity include memoirs of Holocaust survivors (e.g. The Psychological Impact of War Trauma on Civilians: An International Perspective by Stanley Krippner and Teresa M. McIntyr), Curiosities of Criticism by Henry J. Jennings (1881) and The Writer: A Monthly Magazine for Literary Workers, referenced in the previous blog post.
In addition to looking at how and why people have used anonymity in past literary works and delving deeper into the cultural shifts that cause the ping-pong effect regarding the use of anonymity, I am interested in finding a common thread that runs through history right up to the point where my fellow ethnographers take over...the digital age. This will be exciting to meet up with them and, through their work, follow the thread that has run throughout history.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
building blocks of a literature review:
Due to the historical approach I am taking for this project I have pulled from multiple sources throughout time, focusing on works that are pre-1950's. As I delve deeper into my research I find that bouncing back and forth between more recent literature and those previously mentioned, is quite helpful in providing direction and focus. By starting in the present and working my way back I am able to identify certain literary aspects that may not be as apparent otherwise. For example, once I learned more about media ecology I have found indirect reference to the power of the medium that might have been overlooked without this background knowledge. Below I have included brief reflections on what I believe to be pertinent information regarding our project, particularly for my section on the historical background of anonymity.
What I have come to realize is that the whole idea of being anonymous relies on intricacies we attribute to presuppositions on the subject. In this day and age the opportunities for anonymity are endless because of a convenient little thing we like to call the internet. Prior to the internet, though, anonymity is largely recognized as a tool used by writers of novels, poems and the like. This is exactly where we get stuck. Unless pondering the idea of what it means to be anonymous, it is not common practice to abstract the definition to determine where else the word might apply. This is of particular interest to me but it is important that I start with the largest application of the word in context and tease out the details from there. This is where Anne Ferry lends a helping hand with her article Anonymity: The Literary History of a Word.
Ferry provides an amazing amount of linguistic history starting with the adjective anonymos as it first entered the English language from Greek. Giving us a clear time line of its whereabouts, we are able to trace its journey through the centuries and following along closely with what is happening culturally as well. I can't help but call this article one of my favorites due to Ferry's thoroughness. From the beginning she discusses what it means for the adjective to undergo lexicalization resulting in the noun anonymity. Here she discusses the cultural implications of vocabulary construction of this sort and develops a platform for the rest of the article to take off from. This idea that nouns are formed from parent adjectives represents something new that "has come into existence which did not exist before" (Ferry 2002) is intriguing and exemplifies the direction I would like to take with my research; specifically regarding what Ferry refers to as the "pressures in the culture that produces and is produced by them".
In order to determine what these cultural pressures are, Ferry takes us through time following the great poets (and sometimes authors of other sorts) in order to see where culture begins to shift and give rise to the need for the noun anonymity. I cannot stop thinking about what it actually means to be anonymous, though, and I am having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that without text, whether it be manuscript or print, it is difficult to achieve anonymity...assuming it is even something to be achieved. Determining the use for the adjective anonymous prior to manuscript is a daunting task, which is why we begin precisely there, with manuscripts.
Although, the actual adjective didn't exist yet there is evidence of its concept amongst authors. This puts us at about mid-16th century where it was not acceptable for "gentlemen or people of rank" to appear as poets. The cultural pressures leading to the concept of being anonymous are more apparent here than they are as we move forward in time and they continue on this way until the mid-17th century. By this time being anonymous carried with it "significantly charged" assumptions for similar reasons regarding persons of rank to publish poems. This is straightforward and I'm glad we have a clean cut place to move out from as we continue on our journey towards the noun anonymity.
The end of the 17th century is when we see many poets publishing works at one time or another using some form of anonymity; whether it be initials, pseudonyms, or just plain nothing following a piece of their writing(s). It is in the 18th and 19th centuries we begin to see anonymous taking on a different role. Ferry mentions that "it is tempting to attribute their unacknowledged appearances more to fashion, publishing tactics, or private caution than to the conventions then being largely emptied of their meanings by the pressures of many social changes." This part grabs my attention because we are starting to explore the roots of cultural change and how it manifests in language.
As we move into these two centuries we have to consider two main possibilities for the fate of anonymity. Some poets are adamant about poems being "skillfully made objects fashioned according to formal conventions, rather than as a personal expression of its author"
(Ferry 2002). This continues to be a theme that pervades the literature regarding the state of being anonymous. E.M. Forster sheds light on this in a 1925 publication entitled "Anonyimty: An Enquiry". Here he poses an argument for return to literary traditions when "writer and readers...did not make a cult of expression as we do today. Surely they were right, and modern critics go too far in their insistence on personality." Here anonymity becomes " almost an antonym for personality" (Ferry 2002). Concerns about reputation are still at hand, though, and this is a great example of how the cultural dynamics increase over time. We no longer have one or two variables changing at once but rather an amalgam of options that are possible, which can make deciphering meaning and origin much more difficult.
Giving endless examples of poets and samples of their works allows the reader to grasp the many facets Ferry is trying to cover. It seems to be that the concept and need for anonymity ping pongs back and forth as we move through time. In the early 20th century we start to see that anonymously published writings are much less than the previous centuries. Henry Seidel Canby addresses this in his 1926 article, "Anon is Dead" where he attributes it to industrialization and the idea that the "general man who feels his personality sinking lower and lower into the whirl of indistinguishable atoms to be lost in a mass civilization," longs for a "vicarious experience" that can be found in the writings of "rich glaring personalities". Not only this but the authors themselves feel a need for recognition as they experience a longing to "escape from the daily anonymity of modern life". This cultural motif proves relevant and makes sense of why authors would want to discard the cloak but anonymity begins to take on a new form as well, reiterating what was proposed in the early/mid-19th century by William Blake and William Wordsworth.
Both poets write of the days of "city life", London in particular, in the same sense that Canby referenced the "indistinguishable atoms to be lost in a mass civilization" nearly 100 years later. What is interesting here in not that Blake and Wordsworth necessarily used anonymity themselves but how, as Ferry puts it, "pressed toward the institution of anonymity in the cultural sense that Canby used it for automatically." These authors recognized something that later was assumed; "using 'anonymity' in this proposition, where it has nothing whatever to do with a piece of writing lacking the author's name, shows that his generalization though heated, are not personal discoveries, but packaged phrases that by the 1920's expressed assumptions so deeply and commonly held they could be accepted without being questioned" (Ferry 2002). It is particularly interesting for my research to examine how this idea of anonymity as a "cultural motif" existed long before the noun to describe it. Not only that, but I want to know what allowed writers like Henry Seidel Canby to take the parent adjective anonymous and extract it from its original attachment to written work and use it as a noun to describe a "cultural phenomenon".
As modernist like T.S. Eliot came on the scene there was appreciation for anonymity's link with "city life" and Eliot pulled from the works of James Thomson and John Davidson as he looked for needed material. During the modernist period Eliot produced poems that mirrored his "impersonal theory of poetry" set forth in his most famous essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent"; which can be summarized in the stanza "progress of an artist is...a continual extinction of personality". This was far from what Wordsworth dubbed poetry to be, "emotion recollected in tranquility", and made this known by never mentioning Wordsworth even though he used this exact quote. Eliot was adamant about bringing back anonymity as it was once prevalently used in literary works and showed this through his modernist works.
It is obvious to see how this article is my new best friend. It is presenting the ground work for what I am trying to describe through my video project. There is much information to be assimilated from the article itself as well as numerous paths to take that are introduced here and discussed in other literature. As I continue with my research I will reference this article for what it offers both as concrete evidence and as spring boards for cultural inquiry relating to anonymity.
Ferry, Anne. (2002). "Anonymity": The Literary History of a Word. New Literary History, 33(2), 193-214. Retrieved from The Johns Hopkins University Press via JSTOR.
In terms of anonymity there is much ground to explore. The word, as we have seen from above, can be employed in various fashions both literally and figuratively. Because of this the word pops up in part of many literary works regarding one topic or another. The following are snippets of where and how the term shows up.
Curiosities of Criticism
Henry J. Jennings (1881)
Maintaining its connection to description of literary works anonymity appears here but not in terms of the author themselves, rather in terms of those who criticize the works of these authors. The argument is that anonymous criticism is somewhat unfair because the author feels that a critics identity carries with it their biases and grounds for criticism. As with criticism of any type this is a valid point. What one person loves another may despise and it is important to know the identity of the critic if one is to have an understanding of the background from which they are operating.
In rebuttal the author states, "Entire responsibility for whatever is written is assumed by the editor or conductors of the paper in which the criticism appears." Therefore it is not solely on the critic for what is said about the work; there are other monitoring forces that would, ideally, not allow unjust criticisms to be published about the work itself. At the same time, though, the author states that "the idea that critics themselves are afraid of putting their names to their work is simply absurd" and must be "conscious of their inability to deal with the subject entrusted to them."
What I found most interesting is the idea that is encapsulated by the anonymous system. By even having to write about the "curiosities of criticism", particularly anonymity in our case, the importance of individual opinion is magnified. Here we move into cultural phenomenon once again and many questions can be drawn from this aspect in and of itself. Why do some people prefer to criticize anonymously? What difference does it make when one criticizes anonymously? How does it deter/benefit the outcome of what is being criticized? With so much emphasis placed on anonymity in terms of written works it is refreshing to approach it from a different perspective, that of the critic and not the author themselves.
The Writer: A Monthly Magazine for Literary Workers
Volume XIII January-December 1900
William H. Hills, Editor
Following with the theme of anonymity as it relates to written work The Writer takes the perspective of the publisher themselves. Discussing why anonymous works can be controversial for the newspapers and presses that choose to release them we begin to see implication of anonymity outside of the author. By publishing anonymous works the publisher is taking responsibility for what is being published. This brings into question whether or not human beings have a natural tendency to relate objects to one another. Is there some intrinsic need that drives us to make a connection between a written work and its author? Do we feel some sort of relief when the author is known? What information is it providing us when we do know the author and how does that change the interpretation of the message?
Back to the idea of a publisher taking responsibility for the written work and possibly jeopardizing their reputation, we have a view that opposes the one mentioned above in Curiosities of Criticism. The author here states that in order to compile written works, in our case a newspaper, of any value criticism has to be frank. He argues that, "Anonymity in criticism does not imply cheapness of enmity. Anonymity encourages frankness. In the case of an ordinary book review anonymity may raise the standard of criticism...because he, the editor must bare the responsibility alone."
So here we have a similar perspective as mention above, yet it contributes differently to the body of literature on the subject. Not only does it take an opposing view from other literature I have found, it also provides aspects not yet considered in other literature I have read. Again, I am overwhelmed with the many aspects of anonymity, but only in the most positive ways. It is encouraging when I am able to find works that both support and oppose each other so that I can remove some of my own biases regarding the subject.
The Psychological Impact of War Trauma on Civilians: An International Perspective
Stanley Krippner, Teresa M. McIntyre (2003)
The life of Holocaust survivors places a whole other spin on the concept of anonymity. Robert Antelme and Viktor Frankl were Holocaust survivors who wrote memoirs of their experiences. Their stories from the concentration camps give us a definition of anonymity that was partially demonstrated by William Wordsworth and William Blake in their poems of "city life" with a sinister twist. An excerpt from Antelme's memoir (1992) reads:
Our face had, for us, finally become absent from our life. For even in our relations with other prisoners our life remained burdened by this absence; our life had almost become that absence. Of the same striped outfits, of the same shaved heads, of our progressive emaciation, of the rhythm of our lifer here, for each of us what finally appeared generally amounted to a collective, anonymous face.
Frankl (1984) reflects on what it means to publish something anonymously and shares his reasoning of why he didn't choose to do so with his memoir:
I had intended to write this book anonymously, using my prison number only. But when the manuscript was completed, I saw that as an anonymous publication it would lose half its value, and that I must have the courage to state my convictions openly.
What this brings to my research, besides how anonymity is used in context, is yet for me to put my finger on. Obviously in this situation we are dealing with a finite culture that, thankfully, no longer exists to this extent. I feel that there is something here within the cultural phenomenon that can be linked to the other cultural motifs that encompass anonymity. Possibly looking at the common threads that run through such cultural situations (e.g. large masses of people, monotony, lack of individuality, etc.) could be telling. Combining all the snippets I find from books of this sort will begin to form an amalgam of amazing breadth that I am more than excited to piece together to form the beginning of our digital ethnography.
What I have come to realize is that the whole idea of being anonymous relies on intricacies we attribute to presuppositions on the subject. In this day and age the opportunities for anonymity are endless because of a convenient little thing we like to call the internet. Prior to the internet, though, anonymity is largely recognized as a tool used by writers of novels, poems and the like. This is exactly where we get stuck. Unless pondering the idea of what it means to be anonymous, it is not common practice to abstract the definition to determine where else the word might apply. This is of particular interest to me but it is important that I start with the largest application of the word in context and tease out the details from there. This is where Anne Ferry lends a helping hand with her article Anonymity: The Literary History of a Word.
Ferry provides an amazing amount of linguistic history starting with the adjective anonymos as it first entered the English language from Greek. Giving us a clear time line of its whereabouts, we are able to trace its journey through the centuries and following along closely with what is happening culturally as well. I can't help but call this article one of my favorites due to Ferry's thoroughness. From the beginning she discusses what it means for the adjective to undergo lexicalization resulting in the noun anonymity. Here she discusses the cultural implications of vocabulary construction of this sort and develops a platform for the rest of the article to take off from. This idea that nouns are formed from parent adjectives represents something new that "has come into existence which did not exist before" (Ferry 2002) is intriguing and exemplifies the direction I would like to take with my research; specifically regarding what Ferry refers to as the "pressures in the culture that produces and is produced by them".
In order to determine what these cultural pressures are, Ferry takes us through time following the great poets (and sometimes authors of other sorts) in order to see where culture begins to shift and give rise to the need for the noun anonymity. I cannot stop thinking about what it actually means to be anonymous, though, and I am having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that without text, whether it be manuscript or print, it is difficult to achieve anonymity...assuming it is even something to be achieved. Determining the use for the adjective anonymous prior to manuscript is a daunting task, which is why we begin precisely there, with manuscripts.
Although, the actual adjective didn't exist yet there is evidence of its concept amongst authors. This puts us at about mid-16th century where it was not acceptable for "gentlemen or people of rank" to appear as poets. The cultural pressures leading to the concept of being anonymous are more apparent here than they are as we move forward in time and they continue on this way until the mid-17th century. By this time being anonymous carried with it "significantly charged" assumptions for similar reasons regarding persons of rank to publish poems. This is straightforward and I'm glad we have a clean cut place to move out from as we continue on our journey towards the noun anonymity.
The end of the 17th century is when we see many poets publishing works at one time or another using some form of anonymity; whether it be initials, pseudonyms, or just plain nothing following a piece of their writing(s). It is in the 18th and 19th centuries we begin to see anonymous taking on a different role. Ferry mentions that "it is tempting to attribute their unacknowledged appearances more to fashion, publishing tactics, or private caution than to the conventions then being largely emptied of their meanings by the pressures of many social changes." This part grabs my attention because we are starting to explore the roots of cultural change and how it manifests in language.
As we move into these two centuries we have to consider two main possibilities for the fate of anonymity. Some poets are adamant about poems being "skillfully made objects fashioned according to formal conventions, rather than as a personal expression of its author"
(Ferry 2002). This continues to be a theme that pervades the literature regarding the state of being anonymous. E.M. Forster sheds light on this in a 1925 publication entitled "Anonyimty: An Enquiry". Here he poses an argument for return to literary traditions when "writer and readers...did not make a cult of expression as we do today. Surely they were right, and modern critics go too far in their insistence on personality." Here anonymity becomes " almost an antonym for personality" (Ferry 2002). Concerns about reputation are still at hand, though, and this is a great example of how the cultural dynamics increase over time. We no longer have one or two variables changing at once but rather an amalgam of options that are possible, which can make deciphering meaning and origin much more difficult.
Giving endless examples of poets and samples of their works allows the reader to grasp the many facets Ferry is trying to cover. It seems to be that the concept and need for anonymity ping pongs back and forth as we move through time. In the early 20th century we start to see that anonymously published writings are much less than the previous centuries. Henry Seidel Canby addresses this in his 1926 article, "Anon is Dead" where he attributes it to industrialization and the idea that the "general man who feels his personality sinking lower and lower into the whirl of indistinguishable atoms to be lost in a mass civilization," longs for a "vicarious experience" that can be found in the writings of "rich glaring personalities". Not only this but the authors themselves feel a need for recognition as they experience a longing to "escape from the daily anonymity of modern life". This cultural motif proves relevant and makes sense of why authors would want to discard the cloak but anonymity begins to take on a new form as well, reiterating what was proposed in the early/mid-19th century by William Blake and William Wordsworth.
Both poets write of the days of "city life", London in particular, in the same sense that Canby referenced the "indistinguishable atoms to be lost in a mass civilization" nearly 100 years later. What is interesting here in not that Blake and Wordsworth necessarily used anonymity themselves but how, as Ferry puts it, "pressed toward the institution of anonymity in the cultural sense that Canby used it for automatically." These authors recognized something that later was assumed; "using 'anonymity' in this proposition, where it has nothing whatever to do with a piece of writing lacking the author's name, shows that his generalization though heated, are not personal discoveries, but packaged phrases that by the 1920's expressed assumptions so deeply and commonly held they could be accepted without being questioned" (Ferry 2002). It is particularly interesting for my research to examine how this idea of anonymity as a "cultural motif" existed long before the noun to describe it. Not only that, but I want to know what allowed writers like Henry Seidel Canby to take the parent adjective anonymous and extract it from its original attachment to written work and use it as a noun to describe a "cultural phenomenon".
As modernist like T.S. Eliot came on the scene there was appreciation for anonymity's link with "city life" and Eliot pulled from the works of James Thomson and John Davidson as he looked for needed material. During the modernist period Eliot produced poems that mirrored his "impersonal theory of poetry" set forth in his most famous essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent"; which can be summarized in the stanza "progress of an artist is...a continual extinction of personality". This was far from what Wordsworth dubbed poetry to be, "emotion recollected in tranquility", and made this known by never mentioning Wordsworth even though he used this exact quote. Eliot was adamant about bringing back anonymity as it was once prevalently used in literary works and showed this through his modernist works.
It is obvious to see how this article is my new best friend. It is presenting the ground work for what I am trying to describe through my video project. There is much information to be assimilated from the article itself as well as numerous paths to take that are introduced here and discussed in other literature. As I continue with my research I will reference this article for what it offers both as concrete evidence and as spring boards for cultural inquiry relating to anonymity.
Ferry, Anne. (2002). "Anonymity": The Literary History of a Word. New Literary History, 33(2), 193-214. Retrieved from The Johns Hopkins University Press via JSTOR.
In terms of anonymity there is much ground to explore. The word, as we have seen from above, can be employed in various fashions both literally and figuratively. Because of this the word pops up in part of many literary works regarding one topic or another. The following are snippets of where and how the term shows up.
Curiosities of Criticism
Henry J. Jennings (1881)
Maintaining its connection to description of literary works anonymity appears here but not in terms of the author themselves, rather in terms of those who criticize the works of these authors. The argument is that anonymous criticism is somewhat unfair because the author feels that a critics identity carries with it their biases and grounds for criticism. As with criticism of any type this is a valid point. What one person loves another may despise and it is important to know the identity of the critic if one is to have an understanding of the background from which they are operating.
In rebuttal the author states, "Entire responsibility for whatever is written is assumed by the editor or conductors of the paper in which the criticism appears." Therefore it is not solely on the critic for what is said about the work; there are other monitoring forces that would, ideally, not allow unjust criticisms to be published about the work itself. At the same time, though, the author states that "the idea that critics themselves are afraid of putting their names to their work is simply absurd" and must be "conscious of their inability to deal with the subject entrusted to them."
What I found most interesting is the idea that is encapsulated by the anonymous system. By even having to write about the "curiosities of criticism", particularly anonymity in our case, the importance of individual opinion is magnified. Here we move into cultural phenomenon once again and many questions can be drawn from this aspect in and of itself. Why do some people prefer to criticize anonymously? What difference does it make when one criticizes anonymously? How does it deter/benefit the outcome of what is being criticized? With so much emphasis placed on anonymity in terms of written works it is refreshing to approach it from a different perspective, that of the critic and not the author themselves.
The Writer: A Monthly Magazine for Literary Workers
Volume XIII January-December 1900
William H. Hills, Editor
Following with the theme of anonymity as it relates to written work The Writer takes the perspective of the publisher themselves. Discussing why anonymous works can be controversial for the newspapers and presses that choose to release them we begin to see implication of anonymity outside of the author. By publishing anonymous works the publisher is taking responsibility for what is being published. This brings into question whether or not human beings have a natural tendency to relate objects to one another. Is there some intrinsic need that drives us to make a connection between a written work and its author? Do we feel some sort of relief when the author is known? What information is it providing us when we do know the author and how does that change the interpretation of the message?
Back to the idea of a publisher taking responsibility for the written work and possibly jeopardizing their reputation, we have a view that opposes the one mentioned above in Curiosities of Criticism. The author here states that in order to compile written works, in our case a newspaper, of any value criticism has to be frank. He argues that, "Anonymity in criticism does not imply cheapness of enmity. Anonymity encourages frankness. In the case of an ordinary book review anonymity may raise the standard of criticism...because he, the editor must bare the responsibility alone."
So here we have a similar perspective as mention above, yet it contributes differently to the body of literature on the subject. Not only does it take an opposing view from other literature I have found, it also provides aspects not yet considered in other literature I have read. Again, I am overwhelmed with the many aspects of anonymity, but only in the most positive ways. It is encouraging when I am able to find works that both support and oppose each other so that I can remove some of my own biases regarding the subject.
The Psychological Impact of War Trauma on Civilians: An International Perspective
Stanley Krippner, Teresa M. McIntyre (2003)
The life of Holocaust survivors places a whole other spin on the concept of anonymity. Robert Antelme and Viktor Frankl were Holocaust survivors who wrote memoirs of their experiences. Their stories from the concentration camps give us a definition of anonymity that was partially demonstrated by William Wordsworth and William Blake in their poems of "city life" with a sinister twist. An excerpt from Antelme's memoir (1992) reads:
Our face had, for us, finally become absent from our life. For even in our relations with other prisoners our life remained burdened by this absence; our life had almost become that absence. Of the same striped outfits, of the same shaved heads, of our progressive emaciation, of the rhythm of our lifer here, for each of us what finally appeared generally amounted to a collective, anonymous face.
Frankl (1984) reflects on what it means to publish something anonymously and shares his reasoning of why he didn't choose to do so with his memoir:
I had intended to write this book anonymously, using my prison number only. But when the manuscript was completed, I saw that as an anonymous publication it would lose half its value, and that I must have the courage to state my convictions openly.
What this brings to my research, besides how anonymity is used in context, is yet for me to put my finger on. Obviously in this situation we are dealing with a finite culture that, thankfully, no longer exists to this extent. I feel that there is something here within the cultural phenomenon that can be linked to the other cultural motifs that encompass anonymity. Possibly looking at the common threads that run through such cultural situations (e.g. large masses of people, monotony, lack of individuality, etc.) could be telling. Combining all the snippets I find from books of this sort will begin to form an amalgam of amazing breadth that I am more than excited to piece together to form the beginning of our digital ethnography.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
No Sense of Place: Joshua Meyrowitz
Joshua Meyrowitz opens his book, No Sense of Place, with an account from his college years. After a three month tour of Europe he comes home to tell of his adventures to family, friends, professors and acquaintances. Through this he realizes that not only does he give a different account of the events that took place, he also delivers the messages in various ways depending on his audience. Relating this to Erving Goffman’s take on social life as “a multi-staged drama in which we each perform different roles in different social arenas, depending on the nature of the situation, our particular role in it, and the makeup of the audience”, he finds it being acted out in his own life. Meyrowitz puts it nicely when he says, “He made me aware of things I knew, but did not know I knew.”
Also studying Marshall Mcluhan, Meyrowitz becomes involved with media communication and many of its facets. Both theorist provided Meyrowitz with clues to understanding social behavior but they didn’t provide exactly what he was looking for, hence we have the book at hand. In the particular chapter that we are looking at for class, Media and Behavior, the first section in part one, Media as Change Mechanisms, sheds light on the fact that most early research geared towards electronic media is primarily focused on message content and not the medium in which it is delivered. In order to address this lack of attention to media as environments in and of themselves, as well as their affects on social life, Meyrowitz uses the rest of the chapter to discuss the following theories: (1) “medium theory” – the historical and cross-cultural study of the different cultural environments created by different media of communication, and (2) “situationism” – the exploration of the ways in which social behavior is shaped by and in “social situations” (Meyrowitz 1986).
It is surprising to me that the media in which messages are delivered have been overlooked for so long. I don’t know if it seems salient because I am in the here and now or if people have been so wrapped up in the message itself that they forgot to consider the medium. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but part of me wonders if it was just easier to shrug off the medium because it adds so many variables. Not to say this was intentional by any means, I am just mentioning it because consideration of the medium in addition to the message makes everything a whole lot messier. Take biases for example. Biases alone contribute a whole host of possibilities for how each individual relates to a message intellectually, emotionally, metaphysically and the list goes on. What is even more absurd is why media messages were studied in the first place. The focus on media messages grew out of early concerns that propaganda transmitted through the mass press or over radio could have a nearly universal effect on different people and could lead to a mass or mob reaction (Meyrowitz 1986). It is not the latter that concerns me; it is the idea that a message could have a universal effect. It just seems that many things have been overlooked here. What I have to keep in mind, though, is that things don’t just happened out of nowhere; they have to develop and grow over time in order to produce something fruitful. This is exactly what has happened here.
The “effects model” was quickly loosing supporters due to its limited knowledge. An alternative approach was that of “uses and gratifications”. The “effects model” is exactly what it says and attributes the influence from the media onto the individual receiving the message. The “uses and gratifications” model attributes choice to the individual to determine what message best fulfills their needs and therefore the individual is influencing the media, not the other way around. Both of these models were lacking insight into the characteristics of the chosen media. This is where “medium theory” and “situationism” come into play.
It is important to note that the singular “medium” is used here because this theory looks at each medium’s characteristics individually as opposed to many other media theories. It makes sense that Mcluhan deems media as extensions of our senses because they cater to exactly that. Different media target different senses and as Mcluhan says, “interplay of the senses shapes forms of thinking and communication.” It is for this very reason that this (i.e. media ecology, our video and the like) is all so important to not only our class but to the general population. It is difficult to relay this, though, due to the extensive background knowledge and theoretical constructs necessary to truly grasp what we are getting at here. I hope that our class is able to take all of this knowledge and wrap it up in a “nice neat” little video (hahaahaha, yea right!) and shed light on the importance of understanding social connections and how this understanding helps us to see ourselves in a new light.
As the medium theorists have suggested, changes in communication patterns are a huge contributor to social change. The mere fact that this has been overlooked up until 1986 and probably well after lets us know that what we, as the digital ethnography class, are getting into is something that holds relevance, now more than ever, because of the continuous expansion of social communication media. Medium theory has one major constraint; it is more of a perspective than a solid theory (Meyrowitz 1986).
“Situationism” is the second topic in this chapter and it stresses the importance of taking things in context. Meyrowitz describes it nicely, “Each defined situation has specific rules and roles. Each situational definition also prescribes and proscribes different roles for the different participants.” The internet has thrown a huge stick into the media spokes, so to speak, because it allows for multiple contexts to exist “at once”, not only that, but it allows users to embrace multiple identities depending on their individual choices. In this way, the electronic age is shifting our situational definitions so that we have multiple avenues to meander down in order to find what we are looking for.
The big picture? What we are dealing with here is a lack of awareness. An awareness for situational contexts and how they affect communication as well as an awareness of what “the medium is the message,” as Mcluhan so eloquently put it, is saying to us. This calls for some major connections made on our [digital ethnography class] part in order to produce something that is accurate, relevant and engaging!
Also studying Marshall Mcluhan, Meyrowitz becomes involved with media communication and many of its facets. Both theorist provided Meyrowitz with clues to understanding social behavior but they didn’t provide exactly what he was looking for, hence we have the book at hand. In the particular chapter that we are looking at for class, Media and Behavior, the first section in part one, Media as Change Mechanisms, sheds light on the fact that most early research geared towards electronic media is primarily focused on message content and not the medium in which it is delivered. In order to address this lack of attention to media as environments in and of themselves, as well as their affects on social life, Meyrowitz uses the rest of the chapter to discuss the following theories: (1) “medium theory” – the historical and cross-cultural study of the different cultural environments created by different media of communication, and (2) “situationism” – the exploration of the ways in which social behavior is shaped by and in “social situations” (Meyrowitz 1986).
It is surprising to me that the media in which messages are delivered have been overlooked for so long. I don’t know if it seems salient because I am in the here and now or if people have been so wrapped up in the message itself that they forgot to consider the medium. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but part of me wonders if it was just easier to shrug off the medium because it adds so many variables. Not to say this was intentional by any means, I am just mentioning it because consideration of the medium in addition to the message makes everything a whole lot messier. Take biases for example. Biases alone contribute a whole host of possibilities for how each individual relates to a message intellectually, emotionally, metaphysically and the list goes on. What is even more absurd is why media messages were studied in the first place. The focus on media messages grew out of early concerns that propaganda transmitted through the mass press or over radio could have a nearly universal effect on different people and could lead to a mass or mob reaction (Meyrowitz 1986). It is not the latter that concerns me; it is the idea that a message could have a universal effect. It just seems that many things have been overlooked here. What I have to keep in mind, though, is that things don’t just happened out of nowhere; they have to develop and grow over time in order to produce something fruitful. This is exactly what has happened here.
The “effects model” was quickly loosing supporters due to its limited knowledge. An alternative approach was that of “uses and gratifications”. The “effects model” is exactly what it says and attributes the influence from the media onto the individual receiving the message. The “uses and gratifications” model attributes choice to the individual to determine what message best fulfills their needs and therefore the individual is influencing the media, not the other way around. Both of these models were lacking insight into the characteristics of the chosen media. This is where “medium theory” and “situationism” come into play.
It is important to note that the singular “medium” is used here because this theory looks at each medium’s characteristics individually as opposed to many other media theories. It makes sense that Mcluhan deems media as extensions of our senses because they cater to exactly that. Different media target different senses and as Mcluhan says, “interplay of the senses shapes forms of thinking and communication.” It is for this very reason that this (i.e. media ecology, our video and the like) is all so important to not only our class but to the general population. It is difficult to relay this, though, due to the extensive background knowledge and theoretical constructs necessary to truly grasp what we are getting at here. I hope that our class is able to take all of this knowledge and wrap it up in a “nice neat” little video (hahaahaha, yea right!) and shed light on the importance of understanding social connections and how this understanding helps us to see ourselves in a new light.
As the medium theorists have suggested, changes in communication patterns are a huge contributor to social change. The mere fact that this has been overlooked up until 1986 and probably well after lets us know that what we, as the digital ethnography class, are getting into is something that holds relevance, now more than ever, because of the continuous expansion of social communication media. Medium theory has one major constraint; it is more of a perspective than a solid theory (Meyrowitz 1986).
“Situationism” is the second topic in this chapter and it stresses the importance of taking things in context. Meyrowitz describes it nicely, “Each defined situation has specific rules and roles. Each situational definition also prescribes and proscribes different roles for the different participants.” The internet has thrown a huge stick into the media spokes, so to speak, because it allows for multiple contexts to exist “at once”, not only that, but it allows users to embrace multiple identities depending on their individual choices. In this way, the electronic age is shifting our situational definitions so that we have multiple avenues to meander down in order to find what we are looking for.
The big picture? What we are dealing with here is a lack of awareness. An awareness for situational contexts and how they affect communication as well as an awareness of what “the medium is the message,” as Mcluhan so eloquently put it, is saying to us. This calls for some major connections made on our [digital ethnography class] part in order to produce something that is accurate, relevant and engaging!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Lum's Overview of Media Ecology & Clive Thompson on Ambient Intimacy
Media ecology is hardly something that can be summed up in an overview, yet Lum tackles the challenge with finesse. By combining the work of many scholars both directly and indirectly related to media ecology Lum is able to paint us a general picture of this realm. Our particular reading begins with Neil Postman's definition of media ecology introduced in 1968 as the study of media as environments; referring to media as complex message systems and media ecology as an attempt to unveil their implicit, intrinsic structures and impact on human perception, understanding, and feeling. The study of media ecology is grouped into two basic levels: media as sensorial environments and media as symbolic environments.
These groupings are important because they get at a key differentiation within the study of media ecology. Marshall Mcluhan gives us the first of two ideas, "the medium is the message", meaning that each medium engenders its own set of sensory characteristics (e.g. print lends itself to the visual, radio to the auditory, etc.) and therefore influences human perception in a certain way. Extremely relevant in our project considering we are looking at the development of identity/anonymity throughout time. The study of media ecology is a core concept that gives a foundation to base our work from. Identity is something that has been created and recreated many times over and it is from the view point of media ecology that we can better understand how the various media from different time periods have influenced the concept of identity/anonymity.
The other side of the coin includes media as symbolic environments. The previous idea gets at the physiological connection media has with its consumer and what this means for interpretation of "reality" while this idea addresses the specific codes and syntax, as Lum puts it, within the different forms of media. Media forms may cater to the physiological senses in order for us to sense our world but it is through symbolism that we perceive and begin to mentally process the world that surrounds us. This concepts underlines the fact that humans are not outside of the media they use to communicate but rather smack dab in the middle of it. Therefore, it is necessary to point out, which Lum does, that humans do not necessarily separate the physiological senses from the psychological symbolism encapsulated in media forms. He reinterates how it is more valuable to look at the interaction between these two key points (i.e. the sensory and symbolic) that begin to shape people's perception of their surroundings.
Once again Lum brings up a point that is especially relevant for a look back in history. With regards to identity/anonymity it is cruical that we try to grasp how people's symbolic frame of reference was similar/different than it is today in order to understand the need, or lack thereof, for a strong sense of identity/anonymity. Understanding that symbolism and sensory stimuli are intimately intertwined is a huge factor when interpreting what can only be found in the literature. There is no one to directly ask and we already have our own frames of reference that cloud our view of how things were regarded in the past.
The idea of single and multi-media environments is a path that can be seen as becoming wider throughout time. As we have moved into the present our options for different media both separately and in combination has grown immensely. This alone has a huge impact on how media forms influence human perception without even delving into the 2 levels mentioned previously. But before we can even get a firm grasp on all this we need to fully understand the broad definition of media.
It is common to think of media as means of communicating information, which is completely true, but what is often overlooked is the possibility for environments themselves to be media. Once the idea is presented it makes sense; Erving Goffman looks at this in his dramaturgical studies of how the symbolic structure of social settings define the parameter for human behavior and interaction (1959). It is possible to view this from the perspective of operating outside of the media and simply using it as a communication device or being engaged in it for the purpose of communication.
Lum goes on to introduce three of media ecology's underlying theoretical propositions, all of which build upon the previous one. Once again, the idea that "the structure of the media defines the nature of information", to quote Lum, reiterates the importance of context when looking back throughout time. Building upon that proposition we come to the idea that each medium will inherently contain a set of biases. These biases can be intellectual/emotional in nature or span across a wides variety of things including political/social biases, content biases or even metaphysical biases. Regardless these all must be considered if we are to even come close to a conclusion on how media affects human perception. Lastly, we have to look at the relationship between technology and culture, particularly how communication technology may impact upon culture (Lum 2006). More importantly we have to consider the possibility that human agency as well as technology play an equally important role in shaping culture, giving rise to the concept of "technology/culture symbiosis.
Lum brings this particular reading to a close with an epochal historiography of media. Focusing on the four major communication epochs: orality, literacy, typography and electronic media. Lum states that "based on the three general theoretical propositions we should begin to see one of the central, defining features of media ecology's paradigm content: the study of how changes in communication media can facilitate fundamental, large-scale, or ecological changes in culture. This is potentially one of the best guides we have when searching for the why's and how's that have brought us to the age of the crisis of significance.
Ambient Intimacy:
In September of 2008, the International Herald Tribune published an article by Clive Thompson entitled "Web ushers in age of ambient intimacy". Its whole focus is on the numerous possibilities of social connection via the endless applications found on the web. An underlying theme of this type of work is the idea of "strong" and "weak" ties and whether or not these web applications are capable of facilitating meaningful and lasting relationships between individuals.
The article begins with a look Facebook, particularly speaking the addition of the news feed back in September of 2006. Oddly enough I personally resisted the Facebook movement based on the fact that every time I went to the library to use a computer I found half of them tied up with people's eyes glazed over as the surfed through the endless supply of trashy pictures. Needless to say while teaching with Wesch for Intro to Cultural Anthropology I found a use for the Facebook (i.e. establishing a way for my students to collaborate for the World Simulation, a semester long group project that requires 20 students to be in sync with one another as they create a culture). It was within a week after I created a profile that the news feed came into being. The big deal was that it took away a HUGE amount of privacy...what was once only visible by surfing through individual's profile pages was now instantly updated for all your "friends" to see. What started out as a panic turned into a love affair, for most. This ability to be connected continuously has been coined as "ambient intimacy".
Facebook isn't the only application that allows this, though. Another site that is growing on the popularity charts is Twitter, a messaging service that allows users to post short updates on their every move, as they see fit. It is similar to the status posting function on Facebook so that all your people know what you are up to, how you are feeling and what you are thinking. Both of these communication methods demonstrate this idea of "an aggregate phenomenon...no message is the single most important message," explains Marc Davis, chief scientist at Yahoo and former professor of information science at the University of California at Berkeley. One Twitter user claimed he was, "beginning to sense the rhythms of his friends' lives in a way he never had before. "
Japanese sociologist Mizuko Ito discovered this "co-presence" between lovers using text messages via mobile phones to communicate "tiny messages that felt even more intimate than a phone call." This, along with Facebook's news feed and Twitter, represent a connection revolution in terms of how we understand the people we are connected too, regardless of the media. Ambient intimacy and its ability to provide another way to know people clear the path for major changes in the way humans relate to each other across time and space.
The "Dunbar Number", after anthropologist Robin Dunbar, indicates the average number that human grouping cease to grow in number. It is being questioned whether or not applications like Facebook and Twitter are able to increase this number. When you think about this you have to consider the "quality" of the relationship and what significance it has to the individual. This was previously mentioned as "strong" and "weak" relationships; smaller circles of individuals that are maintained on a more intimate level and those that are not known as well, respectively. Thompson found that as he interviewed the most aggressively social people online they maintained the same group of close-knit friends at relatively the same number while the connections also became deeper. Weak ties, on the other hand, increase immensely. The people usually consist of acquaintances that would otherwise fade away if it weren't for the internet. Thompson tells us that this can be a very good thing, though, one reason being that sociologsits have found that "weak ties" greatly expand your ability to solve problems.
There is always a downside, though, which brings me back to my current mode of thinking. I do have to say that despite the fact that possession of a tool that allows quick and easy communication to numerous people at a use-at-your-convenience disposal, I have to agree with Caterina Fake, a founder of Flickr photo-sharing site, when she says "that the sheer ease of following her friends' updates online has made her occasionally lazy about actually taking the time to visit them in person." This is a reality for many people. As is a tendency of users to spread their "emotional energy too thin" by engaging in "parasocial" relationships via the Internet, with people who usually don't even know they exist.
In light of my research I am still trying to make a more solid connection of how I can make this information applicable. I know its there I just have rethink my approach here. Any feedback is wonderful...here's what I've been thinking: If I take more of an approach towards the concept of identity, and then fit anonymity into all that, I could hypothetically use twitter as a starting point to move back from. I have a communication mutation going on right in front of my face, which will conjure up some deep thoughts about what in means to relate with other human beings and how, like Lum summed up, media ecology can assist me with getting to the roots of this question. I will especially be addressing the ideas of environments as a medium and the second theoretical proposition that accounts for multiple biases depending on the media at hand (even though the whole paradigm of media ecology lends itself nicely to my research ;). This is going to be fun kids!
These groupings are important because they get at a key differentiation within the study of media ecology. Marshall Mcluhan gives us the first of two ideas, "the medium is the message", meaning that each medium engenders its own set of sensory characteristics (e.g. print lends itself to the visual, radio to the auditory, etc.) and therefore influences human perception in a certain way. Extremely relevant in our project considering we are looking at the development of identity/anonymity throughout time. The study of media ecology is a core concept that gives a foundation to base our work from. Identity is something that has been created and recreated many times over and it is from the view point of media ecology that we can better understand how the various media from different time periods have influenced the concept of identity/anonymity.
The other side of the coin includes media as symbolic environments. The previous idea gets at the physiological connection media has with its consumer and what this means for interpretation of "reality" while this idea addresses the specific codes and syntax, as Lum puts it, within the different forms of media. Media forms may cater to the physiological senses in order for us to sense our world but it is through symbolism that we perceive and begin to mentally process the world that surrounds us. This concepts underlines the fact that humans are not outside of the media they use to communicate but rather smack dab in the middle of it. Therefore, it is necessary to point out, which Lum does, that humans do not necessarily separate the physiological senses from the psychological symbolism encapsulated in media forms. He reinterates how it is more valuable to look at the interaction between these two key points (i.e. the sensory and symbolic) that begin to shape people's perception of their surroundings.
Once again Lum brings up a point that is especially relevant for a look back in history. With regards to identity/anonymity it is cruical that we try to grasp how people's symbolic frame of reference was similar/different than it is today in order to understand the need, or lack thereof, for a strong sense of identity/anonymity. Understanding that symbolism and sensory stimuli are intimately intertwined is a huge factor when interpreting what can only be found in the literature. There is no one to directly ask and we already have our own frames of reference that cloud our view of how things were regarded in the past.
The idea of single and multi-media environments is a path that can be seen as becoming wider throughout time. As we have moved into the present our options for different media both separately and in combination has grown immensely. This alone has a huge impact on how media forms influence human perception without even delving into the 2 levels mentioned previously. But before we can even get a firm grasp on all this we need to fully understand the broad definition of media.
It is common to think of media as means of communicating information, which is completely true, but what is often overlooked is the possibility for environments themselves to be media. Once the idea is presented it makes sense; Erving Goffman looks at this in his dramaturgical studies of how the symbolic structure of social settings define the parameter for human behavior and interaction (1959). It is possible to view this from the perspective of operating outside of the media and simply using it as a communication device or being engaged in it for the purpose of communication.
Lum goes on to introduce three of media ecology's underlying theoretical propositions, all of which build upon the previous one. Once again, the idea that "the structure of the media defines the nature of information", to quote Lum, reiterates the importance of context when looking back throughout time. Building upon that proposition we come to the idea that each medium will inherently contain a set of biases. These biases can be intellectual/emotional in nature or span across a wides variety of things including political/social biases, content biases or even metaphysical biases. Regardless these all must be considered if we are to even come close to a conclusion on how media affects human perception. Lastly, we have to look at the relationship between technology and culture, particularly how communication technology may impact upon culture (Lum 2006). More importantly we have to consider the possibility that human agency as well as technology play an equally important role in shaping culture, giving rise to the concept of "technology/culture symbiosis.
Lum brings this particular reading to a close with an epochal historiography of media. Focusing on the four major communication epochs: orality, literacy, typography and electronic media. Lum states that "based on the three general theoretical propositions we should begin to see one of the central, defining features of media ecology's paradigm content: the study of how changes in communication media can facilitate fundamental, large-scale, or ecological changes in culture. This is potentially one of the best guides we have when searching for the why's and how's that have brought us to the age of the crisis of significance.
Ambient Intimacy:
In September of 2008, the International Herald Tribune published an article by Clive Thompson entitled "Web ushers in age of ambient intimacy". Its whole focus is on the numerous possibilities of social connection via the endless applications found on the web. An underlying theme of this type of work is the idea of "strong" and "weak" ties and whether or not these web applications are capable of facilitating meaningful and lasting relationships between individuals.
The article begins with a look Facebook, particularly speaking the addition of the news feed back in September of 2006. Oddly enough I personally resisted the Facebook movement based on the fact that every time I went to the library to use a computer I found half of them tied up with people's eyes glazed over as the surfed through the endless supply of trashy pictures. Needless to say while teaching with Wesch for Intro to Cultural Anthropology I found a use for the Facebook (i.e. establishing a way for my students to collaborate for the World Simulation, a semester long group project that requires 20 students to be in sync with one another as they create a culture). It was within a week after I created a profile that the news feed came into being. The big deal was that it took away a HUGE amount of privacy...what was once only visible by surfing through individual's profile pages was now instantly updated for all your "friends" to see. What started out as a panic turned into a love affair, for most. This ability to be connected continuously has been coined as "ambient intimacy".
Facebook isn't the only application that allows this, though. Another site that is growing on the popularity charts is Twitter, a messaging service that allows users to post short updates on their every move, as they see fit. It is similar to the status posting function on Facebook so that all your people know what you are up to, how you are feeling and what you are thinking. Both of these communication methods demonstrate this idea of "an aggregate phenomenon...no message is the single most important message," explains Marc Davis, chief scientist at Yahoo and former professor of information science at the University of California at Berkeley. One Twitter user claimed he was, "beginning to sense the rhythms of his friends' lives in a way he never had before. "
Japanese sociologist Mizuko Ito discovered this "co-presence" between lovers using text messages via mobile phones to communicate "tiny messages that felt even more intimate than a phone call." This, along with Facebook's news feed and Twitter, represent a connection revolution in terms of how we understand the people we are connected too, regardless of the media. Ambient intimacy and its ability to provide another way to know people clear the path for major changes in the way humans relate to each other across time and space.
The "Dunbar Number", after anthropologist Robin Dunbar, indicates the average number that human grouping cease to grow in number. It is being questioned whether or not applications like Facebook and Twitter are able to increase this number. When you think about this you have to consider the "quality" of the relationship and what significance it has to the individual. This was previously mentioned as "strong" and "weak" relationships; smaller circles of individuals that are maintained on a more intimate level and those that are not known as well, respectively. Thompson found that as he interviewed the most aggressively social people online they maintained the same group of close-knit friends at relatively the same number while the connections also became deeper. Weak ties, on the other hand, increase immensely. The people usually consist of acquaintances that would otherwise fade away if it weren't for the internet. Thompson tells us that this can be a very good thing, though, one reason being that sociologsits have found that "weak ties" greatly expand your ability to solve problems.
There is always a downside, though, which brings me back to my current mode of thinking. I do have to say that despite the fact that possession of a tool that allows quick and easy communication to numerous people at a use-at-your-convenience disposal, I have to agree with Caterina Fake, a founder of Flickr photo-sharing site, when she says "that the sheer ease of following her friends' updates online has made her occasionally lazy about actually taking the time to visit them in person." This is a reality for many people. As is a tendency of users to spread their "emotional energy too thin" by engaging in "parasocial" relationships via the Internet, with people who usually don't even know they exist.
In light of my research I am still trying to make a more solid connection of how I can make this information applicable. I know its there I just have rethink my approach here. Any feedback is wonderful...here's what I've been thinking: If I take more of an approach towards the concept of identity, and then fit anonymity into all that, I could hypothetically use twitter as a starting point to move back from. I have a communication mutation going on right in front of my face, which will conjure up some deep thoughts about what in means to relate with other human beings and how, like Lum summed up, media ecology can assist me with getting to the roots of this question. I will especially be addressing the ideas of environments as a medium and the second theoretical proposition that accounts for multiple biases depending on the media at hand (even though the whole paradigm of media ecology lends itself nicely to my research ;). This is going to be fun kids!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
"post-human anthropology":whitehead: & "looking backwards, looking forward": silver
"we are not who you think we are!" with this statement neil whitehead cracks open a can of worms that has been lurking in the anthropological shadows for years. when you "study" your own kind, meaning the human race, you are faced with the dilemma of how to experience their experience when you already have an experience of your own. since the days of the great anthros bronislaw malinowski and franz boas, anthropologists have employed the method of participant observation. this "research method" allows the observer to gain a more intimate perspective amongst the situations/cultures he is interested in. neil whitehead takes this to the max with blood jewel, the goth band he creates to take participant observation and invert it so to speak. he believes that we have to "Otherwise, critical understanding of certain kinds of social and cultural features of a situation is simply beyond the reach of ethnographic methods."
it is this experience he describes to us in "post-human anthropology", published 2009 in Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. combining his past research on sexuality and violence in cultures of French Guiana and Brazil with the rapid trend towards creating identities and living our lives via cyberspace, whitehead delves into a world that has been difficult to tap in to as an anthropologist. the gothic realm of the industrial music scene encompasses both sexuality and violence sometimes in its rawest form. by adding the element of cyberspace whitehead is able to look at the role anonymity plays in allowing unknown identities to express otherwise culturally unacceptable behaviors. in order to tackle cyberspace, though, a new method must develop to account for the fact that the "subjects" of our "research" are no longer tangible objects that we can physically travel to and interact with like the good ol' days. this allows for a revolution in the way that we participate in and analyze all that takes place when creating an ethnography.
ksu's digital ethnography class is standing smack dab in the middle of this methodological creation with its project on anonymity (and everything that revolves around it and is intertwined within it, i mite add :P). as we continue forward with our "research" on anonymity we realize more and more how pervasive its concept is within our culture, there is no way around being an observant participant. taking this approach is not only a "good idea" it is a must if we are to discover anything worth sharing. how to go about it is definitely a collective effort but each individual student is going to take an approach that is appropriate for their personality and research topic of interest. as we all do this together and continue to keep an open dialogue about our "project" the dynamics will be fruitful. while searching for a model that provides a framework so general you can lay it down in any environment but still be able to create a unique structure on it, each of us will contribute new avenues to explore and knots that we will attempt to untangle.
in "looking backward, looking forward" david silver does exactly what the title says; he takes a look back into the recent past (i.e 1990's) in order to try and understand what is coming in the future. silver reviews the scholarly literature discussing cyberspace from three stages. the first stage, popular cyberculture, goes back to the early 90's when we have one of our first waves of computer rage. it starts as informaitonal text, though, and their are always conflicting views. some people saying the internet will distort reality while others talk up the opportunity for a new frotier to accomplish things that have never been done before; exactly what we see happening. whether it is distorting reality or forging new frotiers is what we are her to find out!
the second stage, cyberculture studies, focuses on virtual communities and online identities (hmmm...ring any bells ;). here we see the topic from neil whitehead's "post-human anthropology" popping up again: how do we deal with the fact that our "subjects" no longer exist in a physical space. cybertheorist allucquere rosanne stone (1991) defines cyber space as “incontrovertibly social space in which people still meet face-to-face, but under new definitions of both ‘meet’ and ‘face’”. this is ideal for our digitally ethnographic adventure relating to anonymity because we need to, as stone put it, work under new definitions. in addition to her proposal of redefining 'meet' and 'face' we also need to consider the meaning of 'identity' and 'anonymity'. working with these four concepts and realizing how and why they are reshaping themselves in response to a change in communication platform, we will get tremendous insite into how we operate as human beings and what it reveals about our wants/needs and what we do in order to fulfill them.
"we are not who you think we are!" with this statement neil whitehead cracks open a can of worms that has been lurking in the anthropological shadows for years. when you "study" your own kind, meaning the human race, you are faced with the dilemma of how to experience their experience when you already have an experience of your own. since the days of the great anthros bronislaw malinowski and franz boas, anthropologists have employed the method of participant observation. this "research method" allows the observer to gain a more intimate perspective amongst the situations/cultures he is interested in. neil whitehead takes this to the max with blood jewel, the goth band he creates to take participant observation and invert it so to speak. he believes that we have to "Otherwise, critical understanding of certain kinds of social and cultural features of a situation is simply beyond the reach of ethnographic methods."
it is this experience he describes to us in "post-human anthropology", published 2009 in Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. combining his past research on sexuality and violence in cultures of French Guiana and Brazil with the rapid trend towards creating identities and living our lives via cyberspace, whitehead delves into a world that has been difficult to tap in to as an anthropologist. the gothic realm of the industrial music scene encompasses both sexuality and violence sometimes in its rawest form. by adding the element of cyberspace whitehead is able to look at the role anonymity plays in allowing unknown identities to express otherwise culturally unacceptable behaviors. in order to tackle cyberspace, though, a new method must develop to account for the fact that the "subjects" of our "research" are no longer tangible objects that we can physically travel to and interact with like the good ol' days. this allows for a revolution in the way that we participate in and analyze all that takes place when creating an ethnography.
ksu's digital ethnography class is standing smack dab in the middle of this methodological creation with its project on anonymity (and everything that revolves around it and is intertwined within it, i mite add :P). as we continue forward with our "research" on anonymity we realize more and more how pervasive its concept is within our culture, there is no way around being an observant participant. taking this approach is not only a "good idea" it is a must if we are to discover anything worth sharing. how to go about it is definitely a collective effort but each individual student is going to take an approach that is appropriate for their personality and research topic of interest. as we all do this together and continue to keep an open dialogue about our "project" the dynamics will be fruitful. while searching for a model that provides a framework so general you can lay it down in any environment but still be able to create a unique structure on it, each of us will contribute new avenues to explore and knots that we will attempt to untangle.
in "looking backward, looking forward" david silver does exactly what the title says; he takes a look back into the recent past (i.e 1990's) in order to try and understand what is coming in the future. silver reviews the scholarly literature discussing cyberspace from three stages. the first stage, popular cyberculture, goes back to the early 90's when we have one of our first waves of computer rage. it starts as informaitonal text, though, and their are always conflicting views. some people saying the internet will distort reality while others talk up the opportunity for a new frotier to accomplish things that have never been done before; exactly what we see happening. whether it is distorting reality or forging new frotiers is what we are her to find out!
the second stage, cyberculture studies, focuses on virtual communities and online identities (hmmm...ring any bells ;). here we see the topic from neil whitehead's "post-human anthropology" popping up again: how do we deal with the fact that our "subjects" no longer exist in a physical space. cybertheorist allucquere rosanne stone (1991) defines cyber space as “incontrovertibly social space in which people still meet face-to-face, but under new definitions of both ‘meet’ and ‘face’”. this is ideal for our digitally ethnographic adventure relating to anonymity because we need to, as stone put it, work under new definitions. in addition to her proposal of redefining 'meet' and 'face' we also need to consider the meaning of 'identity' and 'anonymity'. working with these four concepts and realizing how and why they are reshaping themselves in response to a change in communication platform, we will get tremendous insite into how we operate as human beings and what it reveals about our wants/needs and what we do in order to fulfill them.
it is this experience he describes to us in "post-human anthropology", published 2009 in Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. combining his past research on sexuality and violence in cultures of French Guiana and Brazil with the rapid trend towards creating identities and living our lives via cyberspace, whitehead delves into a world that has been difficult to tap in to as an anthropologist. the gothic realm of the industrial music scene encompasses both sexuality and violence sometimes in its rawest form. by adding the element of cyberspace whitehead is able to look at the role anonymity plays in allowing unknown identities to express otherwise culturally unacceptable behaviors. in order to tackle cyberspace, though, a new method must develop to account for the fact that the "subjects" of our "research" are no longer tangible objects that we can physically travel to and interact with like the good ol' days. this allows for a revolution in the way that we participate in and analyze all that takes place when creating an ethnography.
ksu's digital ethnography class is standing smack dab in the middle of this methodological creation with its project on anonymity (and everything that revolves around it and is intertwined within it, i mite add :P). as we continue forward with our "research" on anonymity we realize more and more how pervasive its concept is within our culture, there is no way around being an observant participant. taking this approach is not only a "good idea" it is a must if we are to discover anything worth sharing. how to go about it is definitely a collective effort but each individual student is going to take an approach that is appropriate for their personality and research topic of interest. as we all do this together and continue to keep an open dialogue about our "project" the dynamics will be fruitful. while searching for a model that provides a framework so general you can lay it down in any environment but still be able to create a unique structure on it, each of us will contribute new avenues to explore and knots that we will attempt to untangle.
in "looking backward, looking forward" david silver does exactly what the title says; he takes a look back into the recent past (i.e 1990's) in order to try and understand what is coming in the future. silver reviews the scholarly literature discussing cyberspace from three stages. the first stage, popular cyberculture, goes back to the early 90's when we have one of our first waves of computer rage. it starts as informaitonal text, though, and their are always conflicting views. some people saying the internet will distort reality while others talk up the opportunity for a new frotier to accomplish things that have never been done before; exactly what we see happening. whether it is distorting reality or forging new frotiers is what we are her to find out!
the second stage, cyberculture studies, focuses on virtual communities and online identities (hmmm...ring any bells ;). here we see the topic from neil whitehead's "post-human anthropology" popping up again: how do we deal with the fact that our "subjects" no longer exist in a physical space. cybertheorist allucquere rosanne stone (1991) defines cyber space as “incontrovertibly social space in which people still meet face-to-face, but under new definitions of both ‘meet’ and ‘face’”. this is ideal for our digitally ethnographic adventure relating to anonymity because we need to, as stone put it, work under new definitions. in addition to her proposal of redefining 'meet' and 'face' we also need to consider the meaning of 'identity' and 'anonymity'. working with these four concepts and realizing how and why they are reshaping themselves in response to a change in communication platform, we will get tremendous insite into how we operate as human beings and what it reveals about our wants/needs and what we do in order to fulfill them.
"we are not who you think we are!" with this statement neil whitehead cracks open a can of worms that has been lurking in the anthropological shadows for years. when you "study" your own kind, meaning the human race, you are faced with the dilemma of how to experience their experience when you already have an experience of your own. since the days of the great anthros bronislaw malinowski and franz boas, anthropologists have employed the method of participant observation. this "research method" allows the observer to gain a more intimate perspective amongst the situations/cultures he is interested in. neil whitehead takes this to the max with blood jewel, the goth band he creates to take participant observation and invert it so to speak. he believes that we have to "Otherwise, critical understanding of certain kinds of social and cultural features of a situation is simply beyond the reach of ethnographic methods."
it is this experience he describes to us in "post-human anthropology", published 2009 in Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. combining his past research on sexuality and violence in cultures of French Guiana and Brazil with the rapid trend towards creating identities and living our lives via cyberspace, whitehead delves into a world that has been difficult to tap in to as an anthropologist. the gothic realm of the industrial music scene encompasses both sexuality and violence sometimes in its rawest form. by adding the element of cyberspace whitehead is able to look at the role anonymity plays in allowing unknown identities to express otherwise culturally unacceptable behaviors. in order to tackle cyberspace, though, a new method must develop to account for the fact that the "subjects" of our "research" are no longer tangible objects that we can physically travel to and interact with like the good ol' days. this allows for a revolution in the way that we participate in and analyze all that takes place when creating an ethnography.
ksu's digital ethnography class is standing smack dab in the middle of this methodological creation with its project on anonymity (and everything that revolves around it and is intertwined within it, i mite add :P). as we continue forward with our "research" on anonymity we realize more and more how pervasive its concept is within our culture, there is no way around being an observant participant. taking this approach is not only a "good idea" it is a must if we are to discover anything worth sharing. how to go about it is definitely a collective effort but each individual student is going to take an approach that is appropriate for their personality and research topic of interest. as we all do this together and continue to keep an open dialogue about our "project" the dynamics will be fruitful. while searching for a model that provides a framework so general you can lay it down in any environment but still be able to create a unique structure on it, each of us will contribute new avenues to explore and knots that we will attempt to untangle.
in "looking backward, looking forward" david silver does exactly what the title says; he takes a look back into the recent past (i.e 1990's) in order to try and understand what is coming in the future. silver reviews the scholarly literature discussing cyberspace from three stages. the first stage, popular cyberculture, goes back to the early 90's when we have one of our first waves of computer rage. it starts as informaitonal text, though, and their are always conflicting views. some people saying the internet will distort reality while others talk up the opportunity for a new frotier to accomplish things that have never been done before; exactly what we see happening. whether it is distorting reality or forging new frotiers is what we are her to find out!
the second stage, cyberculture studies, focuses on virtual communities and online identities (hmmm...ring any bells ;). here we see the topic from neil whitehead's "post-human anthropology" popping up again: how do we deal with the fact that our "subjects" no longer exist in a physical space. cybertheorist allucquere rosanne stone (1991) defines cyber space as “incontrovertibly social space in which people still meet face-to-face, but under new definitions of both ‘meet’ and ‘face’”. this is ideal for our digitally ethnographic adventure relating to anonymity because we need to, as stone put it, work under new definitions. in addition to her proposal of redefining 'meet' and 'face' we also need to consider the meaning of 'identity' and 'anonymity'. working with these four concepts and realizing how and why they are reshaping themselves in response to a change in communication platform, we will get tremendous insite into how we operate as human beings and what it reveals about our wants/needs and what we do in order to fulfill them.
Whenever we have a new development, in any realm, it is first born, then acted out (at least by some) and then viola…we have silver’s third stage, critical cyberculture studies. It takes a minute for things to catch on and get to the point where they are demanding enough recognition that people want to study them on an official basis. Silver sums up the complexity of critical cyberculture studies in four main points saying that critical cyberculture…
*explores the social, cultural and economic interactions which take place online
*unfolds and examines the stories we tell about such interaction
*analyzes a range of social, cultural, political and economic considerations which encourage, make possible and/or thwart individual and group access to such interactions
* assesses the deliberate accidental and alternative technological decision – and design processes which, when implemented, form the interface between the network and its users
these are important points, hence them being verbatim, because they exemplify the differentiation between the first two generations silver discusses and the third. in the first two generations silver points out that the main goal is to describe a realm we know as the internet. there are ideas beyond the virtual communities and online identities, though, and the third generation seeks to get at this by approaching the internet as a process that should be kept in context whenever participating/observing, or both, and thinking of it as something that actually gives us more concepts, usually even more complex, to think about and attempt to describe.
another key player in the digital ethnography class' adventure into the realm of anonymity. especially because we are each delving into something different we have to remember the context of the external and the internal. coming back to the idea that we need to treat this predisposition to complexity as part of "research project" not a problem to be solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
