Vox Populi?
Since I didn't explain myself well in class last night, I wanted to follow up on my comment with a post here:
While I appreciate that the Internet (and blogs specifically) have the power to lower barriers to political participation and flatten the playing field so that new voices can be heard, I'm skeptical of the assertion that these aspects of the technology will have the long-term effects some people think they will. Claims that technology, or aspects of technology, will create social change fall dangerously into the realm of technological determinism, which as a theory fails to adequately describe the reciprocal interactions between technology and society.
Do blogs amplify new voices? Yes. Does technology, as Carol Darr of IPDI says, "democratize" politics by lowering the barriers to entry"? Yes.
These are significant effects that should be noted, but let's also note the adverse effects as well:
Do blogs make it more difficult to recognize the race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, or physical ability of the poster? Yes.
Is this a good thing? Absolutely not.
Someone in class said something to the effect of "Blogs are good because they help move us towards a society where we don't see people or their opinions in terms of the color of their skin." If this was meant as 'we shouldn't judge people based on these characteristics,' I completely agree, but we should still recognize people's race, gender, etc when listening to their opinions.
I think we have to be careful with blogs. When someone speaks, I want to know where he or she is coming from. On the blogs, that's tough to do. When The Toaster Speaks, isn't it important to know who he is in real life? Democratizing, lowering barriers, and flattening playing fields are all well and good, but not at the expense of homogenizing the online community. Let's NOT use blogs as a venue to carry out those awful distopian "multicultural programs" from high school that focus on unity and cohesiveness and, in the process, fail to celebrate diversity.
Even if you disagree, at least recognize this: despite all the happy, fluffy talk about blogs, most political bloggers are well-educated, privileged white men. Has the game really changed all that much?
7 Comments:
I thought your position was well taken (although you're not the Toaster-guy.) Personally, I'm on the fence on this issue. I'd like to think we all live in a Utopian society where race and ethnic traditions don't count, but hey, I'm a Republican and Utopia doesn't exist. So what are we to do?
Continue to develop our individual thoughts and ideas regardless of ethnicity. In the end, that's what we're judged on.
I, like iammeblog, am not certain that I completely agree with you on this issue. While I think it can be important to take who a person is into consideration when hearing their opinion, I like that who a person is does not necessarily determine whether or not you happen to read what they have to say online. To state that more clearly, the only things a person can tell about me from my blog initially are that I'm from NC and I'm a democrat. However, if someone chooses to engage in a dialogue with me, then they will learn much more about how I think and feel, where I'm from, and how that has shaped me.
I think the anonymity that the Net provides initially is a good thing, but that you shouldn't necessarily take what someone says at face value. Also, often who a person is colors what they say, and lends clues to the persons religion, gender, ethnicity, etc.
I'm kind of running in a circle here, but my overall point is that some anonymity is a good thing as long as you question everything you read and consider that although the writer may seem to have similar views to yourself, he (or she) may be very different, and to explore that.
I don't disagree that some anonymity is good -- in many cases, it serves the valuable function of allowing muted voices to be heard. For instance, many women authors used "male" pen names to get published, which they couldn't have done as women. That said, my point is just that anonymity can only take you so far-- it's good for academic banter, but not for creating real change.
I agree with your last point. Perhaps the real potential for change will be when people read a blogger without knowing their background or gender or sexual orientation, etc., and then meet them. Stereotypes could be busted.
This post has been removed by the author.
As the Toaster referred to in this post, I felt I should weigh in on the pros and cons of anonymity in blogs.
You make a great point in that we should fool ourselves into thinking that the Internet's anoynymous voices are breaking down barriers and stereotypes left and right. Sure, when people read my blog, they had to take what I said on the merits of the arguments and had no other outlet for dismissing my points. What the Internet and blogs do is allow ideas to get past those initial barriers (for instance, anything I hear from someone of the opposite parry is automatically slapped with an asterisk).
As Gaurag points out, we can't equate that anonymity with the breakdown of these barriers in the real world.
It's actually an interesting cunundrum. When I started my blog, I thought of using a clever handle to hide behind, but then thought if I had something important to say, I wanted people to know who it was coming from. But, there really are pros and cons to both arguments. Anonymity has it's perks, such as carrying with it no prejudices or pressumptions, but it also creates a distance between the reader and the writer, a distance the powerful Internet is supposed to be closing, not widening.
Post a Comment
<< Home