For Monday, October 6th: Read Intro to Chapter on Technology, “Breaking Down Borders” and “Cyberhood vs. Neighborhood” (pp 337-351) in Common Culture. Respond to any one set of questions in “Examining the Text” at the back of one of the two chapters (here on blog – responses must be posted by 7 a.m.); come in prepared to discuss a question from the other chapter.
For Wednesday, October 8th: Meet in Innovation Hall, Room 327; bring in a paragraph that describes your argument in response to one of the two texts we discussed last week, as well as your intended approach for your next essay. Also, come prepared to begin your research for Essay # 2 (we will begin research in class).
For Friday, October 10th: Locate and bring in one scholarly article or data set that supports your essay argument (and be prepared to discuss how and why).
16 responses so far ↓
sohaiba // October 5, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
I read both articles and was pleased to find that both writers had an “open-mind”. John Perry’s article is more engaging than informative, however Robert Samuels’ is shorter and to the point; intended for readers with a shorter attention span. So I decided to answer the questions for the first article.
1. Instead of jumping to his point, Samuels presents us with some examples. This helps readers to visualise the point of his argument given in the title of the article. The breakfast-man, the iPod girl, and the “business” woman were all involved in personal activities, two of them with technical gadgets. We see that these people are not concerned with the world around them, and the technology helps facilitate this ideology. What causes the ipod girl to stop humming? Why did she start humming to begin with? The most likely culprit is the iPod. Therefore, the opening strategy helped Samuels introduce his argument.
2.”Personal culture” as described by Samuels is when “people are able to personalize their own media and decide, on their own, what culture they want to consume.” (7, 8-9) Samuels suggests that technology factors into the equation by providing choice and mobility, “cell phones can combines work functions and play functions…”(6, 5-8) and “devices like iPods and laptops allow people to take culture with them” (7, 5).
3. The last two paragraphs suggest that Samuels finds technology detrimental to society, in his own words “Most of us are plugged in to technologies that, while allowing to personalise our environment, also effectively isolate us from our neighbors” (8, 11-13). This is further realised by lines 1-3 in paragraph 9 “we adapt to our new technologies and to the new spaces these technology create; we adapt, in fact, by using more technologies” suggesting that a polarization trend is occuring. To move away from others’ personal space, you must embrace one of your own. The end result, a very “private” public society where almost no interaction occurs.
4. It is safe to assume that this article is intended for people who are both critics of technology and those, like the examples given, embrace it. The purpose of this article is the realisation that we are closing the doors on real-life socialism by embracing technology. One of the most distinctive features was how he relates Borders Cafe with the borders between social interaction, which serves to keep the reader aware, not boring them. Another feature was its balanced approach; “Some critics argue…, however…”. He doesn’t want to alienate any pirticular reader. Finally he concludes with a satisfying statement stating that the world is still the same, no matter what happens.
mikeb89 // October 5, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
Cyberhood vs. Neighborhood.
1.Barlow writes about many things that are essential elements of community, those that happen in the real world, and those that happen in cyberspace. Some of those elements are interaction, relationships, and community. Some of these elements are not used in the virtual world, and some are harder to do in the real world. Virtual communication cannot replace the real bond that two or more people feel after spending time with eachother, or have the sense of companionship. However, talking in cyberspace is much easier than it is in the real world, being able to connect to chat rooms instantly through internet and not travelling, and the many thousands of people online have experiences and lives as well, and might be going through the same situations that you are.
2. Prana is the unseen happenings that go into a relationship, and the heart of what happens in real life bonding that can’t in the virtual world. Actually being able to see, hear, changing the tone of voice, making gestures, and having an experience that makes real friendships and relationships. Barlow explains that having a community in cyberspace is still worth it, showing that there is still a bond in the online communications through experiences, and seeing many people’s ideas. One of these advantages is joint suffering. Having thousands of people means having thousands of experiences, and there are bound to be people who are going through similar experiences and pains, and can share them and give advice. Barlow also explains that it is inevitable that there will be cyberspace communications in the future, so we should prepare and hope for a richer community online.
3. Barlow explains his argument using rich examples and life experiences, using his past and then going through his life as it goes through the article. He starts talking about his ranch life, and moves into his cyberspace world, along with his soon-to-be wife dying. He also gives his points from a broad range to a more specific purpose near the ending. At the beginning, he shows the advantages and disadvantages to having communications online, and later goes into the real meaning of community, religeon, and emotions that happen in real life and in cyberspace. He shows both ends of the arguement, and at the end explains that cyber communications is a confusing area and whether it can replace real relationships to an extent.
katiebug13 // October 5, 2008 at 7:21 pm |
Breaking Down Borders: How Technology Transforms the Private and Public Realms.
1. I believe that Samuels began his article by describing the three people he sees at the café because it serves two purposes. One purpose it serves is to pull the reader into the article and makes them be able to imagine what he’s talking about. It also helps to introduce his argument because it enables the reader to envision his point that because of technology people are able to blur and change the lines between public places and private ones. It helps illustrate how people are able to turn public places, like bookstores, into their own private area by blocking out those around them with the help of computers, iPods, and cell phones.
2. When Samuel’s talks about “personal culture” he means the fact that thanks to technology people are able to take things like music with them wherever they go. Instead of going to places like concert halls or concerts in general, people are allowed to listen to the music they want, when they want to, and where they want to. It allows people to surround themselves with the music, news, literature, movies, and images that they personally choose without bothering those around them (at least if they are polite about it).
3. I believe that Samuels entered his article and tried hard to remain open-minded about both sides of the argument. But it seems to me that he believes that while technology does do an effective job of isolating people from the rest of the world, he does not necessarily think that it is a bad thing. He states that we “adapt, in fact, by using more technology”. It is my belief that in order to survive we, as a species, have to learn to adapt. And while the extreme and widespread use of technology is not going to kill us we still need to learn to adapt. I believe that Samuels believes the same thing.
4. I think that the target audience for Samuels’ article is people in general. Whether they are the people that use the technology all of the time, or they simply observe and choose to ignore those who do, or if they find it irritating that people are always using technology. I believe that Samuels is simply trying to explain to everyone that this extreme use of technology is not a bad thing and should not be viewed as one.
nmalliar // October 5, 2008 at 7:49 pm |
Breaking Down Borders
1) I think Samuels begins his article by describing the three people at Borders because they really are the steriotypical coffee shop book readers, who like to relax in public places annd spend their time in a leisure fashion. These people can be grouped together as “yuppies”. Or at least thats what my dad calls them. The reader learns from these descriptions that anyone can make themselves at home if they have the right necessities. A computer, phone, music player and countless other advanced technologies. With these supplies, we are able to escape our current surrounding and spend time doing whatever we deem necessary. This opening paragraph brings Samuels argument together with observations we all can relate to. Any time I have ever walked into Barnes and Noble, I see countless people sitting in the big, soft chairs reading a book and sipping a late. His discriptions allow the reader to get a more accurate image to relate to what he is arguing and that is that people use technologies as a form of escape. Escape from anything; family, other people, problems at work or school.
2) I think Samuels says personal culture meaning that people are able to develope their own personalized world through all of their technologies. They are able to play music basically inside their head to cut off all sounds from the outside and in a way to get in the zone perhaps. People are able to look at thier own pictures and search facebook to still find out new info about people without ever having to talk to them. People tend to gegt very rapped up in whatever it is they just so happen to be looking for and forget what they are actually supposed to be doing. School work or research for example.
3) I think Samuels opinion about these personal cultures isn’t that of a negative one but maybe that of a worried opinion. He states that when people cut themselves off from one another, no interaction occurs as well as many other social aspects of life. People do not get to comunicate as well and communication skills may actually diminish.
4) the target readers of this article might be the people isolating themselves from society through their technologies. He intends to inform them of how they have no interaction with their surrounding when they get in their “caves” if you will. He might be suggesting thats its not exactly healthy to not have good interactions and to not meet new people. The overall purpose is to inform readers to not get caught up in the everyday distractions of technologies and to slow down sometimes and remember to spend time with people you care about and to get involved in other things. Samuels tells us about how people can talk on their cell phones and get so rapped up in their conversations that they forget where they are and what they were doing. We shouldnt let these new technologies control our lives.
apiccioni // October 5, 2008 at 8:05 pm |
Breaking Down Borders: How Technology Transforms the Private and Public Realms
1.Samuels begins with the description of three people at a Borders Café because he is trying to prove his point of how technology transforms the private and public realms. He describes each person as being so involved in what they are doing, whether it is reading a newspaper, listening to an iPod, or working on a laptop, that they forget they’re in a public place. Samuels is trying to give examples of how sometimes we get so comfortable in a public place, we make ourselves feel like we are at home.
2.Samuels describes “personal culture” as a way for people to create their own media and decide “what culture they want to consume.” Technologies help us to create a “personal culture” by allowing us to immerse ourselves in the worlds we create through things like laptops and iPods. We can filter out all of the things we don’t want to see or hear.
3.Samuels opinion of technology’s influence on our culture is that it is inescapable. We use technology for everything and instead of improving our culture it has put up “barriers.” Samuels even says that “we adapt to our new technologies and to the new spaces these technologies create; we adapt, in fact, by using more technologies.”
4.I think Samuels is targeting anyone who uses technology, which is everyone. Samuels is just trying to get across his point that every person either uses technology or is around it daily. When Samuels was describing the three people at the beginning, he was showing that he was targeting everyone because they were male and female, different ages, and had different backgrounds.
snguyeng // October 5, 2008 at 9:12 pm |
Breaking Down Borders: How Technology Transforms the Private and Public Realms
1) Samuels begins his article with detailed descriptions of three people he sees at Borders Café because he is telling us what he sees in his daily life. I learned that all of the people he describes have one or more electronic device with them while in the Borders Café. This opening strategy helps Samuels introduce his argument by providing three examples to support it.
2) I think Samuels says “personal culture” is a way to be ourselves in our own way. For example, Samuels says, “devices like Ipods and laptops allow people to take culture with them wherever they go.” The music on the person’s Ipod reflects that person’s own “personal culture,” because of the type of music on it like: techno, trance, classical, pop, rap, rock, and so on.
3) I think Samuels’ opinion of technology’s influence on our culture is sort of bad. In the second to last paragraph he talks about how technology tends to make people isolate themselves in their own “personalized space” and become anti-social. The last paragraph talks about how technology is bad because even though you “put on headphones to tune out the cell phones,” you can’t really escape the “technologically mediated environment.” You’re just using another piece of technology to try and avoid the other piece of technology. Supposedly, technology is making people more anti-social.
4) I think the target readers for Samuels’ article was intended for everyone. I think its purpose was to show how technology is taking over our lives and how we depend on it so much. I really don’t see any specific features that determine the audience. The last two paragraphs show the purpose
namatirai // October 5, 2008 at 10:37 pm |
l think Samuel begins his article with the descriptions in order to make the article more real and not to seem like he made it up.He clearly shows the impact of technology using the examples of real people.In his article he writes about how technology has affected the three people’s lives.From the descriptions l have learnt that technology has led us to do things that we did in private in the public examples are for the three people,the cellphone woman seems to have no problem sharing her Las Vegas plans with evreyone sitting around her.From Samuel’s article l also learnt that due to technology we’ve sought off got new rules of how to act in public places and for how to socialize with and around one another he gives an example of the telephone which used to be located in the private realm but now due to technology of the cellphones a person can take a call in public.l also learnt that due to technolgy peopkl can live both there public and private lifes at the same time with the technology of the internet and laptops people can work and play at the same time.Technology also has its disadvantages of encouraging a high level of multitasking which can lead to lack of concentration.It has also led to the creation of a new culture in which people are more of socialising on their own instead of back in the days when culture was as a social and public activity.Technology sometimes get us a ll wrapped up that we no longer have time to interact with each other.but despite all its disadavantages we adapt to the new technologies.Samuel’s stragedy has made his argument more understandable because he puts in the real people .
chkimi2 // October 5, 2008 at 10:45 pm |
Breaking down borders.
1. He gives us an image in our head so we can see what he’s seeing. I think he’s also letting us relate to it, because when we walk around in public places, we may see similar things. I learn that what he’s seeing is very common for every public place we go to. I don’t go to one public place without seeing someone with headphones on or talking on their cell phone. This is a very good opening strategy because it got my attention and I wanted to see where he was going with this.
2. Personal culture is a part of culture that we mostly want to be a part of. Technology helps us create personal culture because we customize everything through technology. Like he says that instead of listening to everything we like and don’t like on the radio, we can listen to the certain types of music that we WANT to listen to on our mp3s.
3. He says technology is making us isolated and distracted. Because we have our cell phones and laptops, we completely just block out our surroundings and just focus on our conversation on the phone or browsing on the laptop. So instead of interacting with one another, we end up isolating ourselves from each other. He also thinks there nothing really wrong with that because new technology is used to adapt to other technology. We avoid one technological thing with another technological thing.
4. Target readers are probably everyone, because we all use technology. I think the overall purpose is to show us how technology is affecting all of us in different ways. The visual introduction he gives he begins with, is how he is showing us how we are everyday. We’re the people he describes: the person on the laptop, the person on the cell phone, or the person listening to our mp3.
sadafh12 // October 5, 2008 at 11:11 pm |
Cyberhood vs. Neighborhood.
1. The author Barlow says that one of the most essential elements of a community is diversity. He says that it’s one of the most important things to healthy community. In the real world you see body language, you hear tone of voice. For the author, the physical world offers more prana which is Hindu for breath and spirit.
2. Barlow says that prana is the difference between information and experience. It is the vital element in the holy unseen ecology of relationships. He says that prana is what is removed when you make replica’s of experience such as the evening news. It is a spiritual thing and you can’t get that feeling over the internet. He still enjoys cyberspace becuase he felt like he had found the new locale of human community.
3.The way Barlow structures his article in a way, where he starts with background info and goes into how he got onto the cyberspace world and then the differences and then finally how cyberspace can really make a difference. He uses alot of personal experiences which can make a piece seem more like he’s talking to you directly and whether you can relate to it or not.
ssinghq // October 5, 2008 at 11:20 pm |
Breaking Down Borders: How Technology Transforms the Private and Public Realms.
1. I think that Samuels began the article by describing those three people in the café to make it seem real, to grab readers attention which he did, and to present his argument as he told us about what those three people were doing ( for instance the girl being on iPod).
2. I believe that by using the term ‘ personal culture’ Samuels meant that in this contemporary world with unlimited resources, people instead of blending into societies common culture, develop their own personal culture in which they do what they want to do. For instance he gives a good example of that girl listening to her ipod having the music she wanted to listen instead of going to concerts and getting bored.
3. I think that Samuels thinks that while technology is making us do multi tasks at the same time which sometime can be dangerous for the person who is doing those tasks and people around him, multi tasking using the new technologies has become irresistible. I believe that he doesn’t think it’s a bad thing to multi task because there is no way of escaping this technology mediated environment.
4. The target readers of Samuels’ article I believe are the common people. He is definitely not targeting any specific age groups. His overall purpose was to make people aware of high use of technology these days which can be dangerous sometimes. He also talks about how this use is making people anti social. For example, people in the café, if not engaged in their own modern equipments, are more likely to talk to other people and socialize.
ziazamir // October 5, 2008 at 11:50 pm |
1. This article that Samuels wrote about was a cultural studies book relating to technology. It is only wise to have introduced the section with the detailed descriptions of the three people he sees at Borders Cafe. One reason is he is seen as Anthropologist doing a cultural studies of a group of people at a certain place. The great thing is is that the readers share the same experience Samuel gets. We learn from his observations. As a result, it helps introduce his argument by the readers learning about the group and example Samuel is talking about, and it allows the reader relating themselves to the group of people at the library so they can share their own experiences.
2. Personal Culture samuel suggests is created by the individuals. The example he gives is “instead of seeing cutlure as a social and public activity, like going to concert hall, devices like iPods and laptops allow poeple to take cutlure with them wherever they go.” This is how it creates personal culture.
3. It seems that Samuel is concerned about the transforming world towards technology. He mentions the fallacies of it: how it is illegal to drive with phone, and how people are so independent kind of ignoring others. However, he mentions, that this is something the world is going to have to adapt with becasue technology is always going to rise. So even thouhg their is this personal cutlure, personal cutlure shouldnt dominate.
4. The target readers are the people. I use the word people because it is effecting everybody; whether its rich people, poor people, or anybody. The thing is is that we are adapting so quickly with this technology that we are forgeting the culture of our ancestors. This is the point of the author. However, to some degree, it is okay to develop technology as some argue it will improve the daily living. A couple of references i would like to make are the ones specifically to lives of the people like the people at borders. It seems as if they are blind to the fact of this new technology advancement; yet, it shouldnt be that way.
peterdeutsch // October 6, 2008 at 1:15 am |
1. He describes the location, and each of the people so you may become familiar with the setting, people, and their technologies. You learn that each of them are different in setting their own private space in a public cafe. He catches your attention, and leads you to want to know why each of the people are incorporated into the article.
2. Personal Culture is described as instead of going to concert halls, you may use your iPod to listen to whatever you like, and create your own culture. With laptops, and iPod’s we are able able to have the freedom to make your own culture.
3. He seems to have no problem with Personal Culture, and people revolving around their technologically mediated enviornment.
4. The people who sit there in public settings and don’t put into consideration of others, to show that even though it may be distracting it is the world we live in. He says that we in fact adapt to each other through more technologies.
ncicalese // October 6, 2008 at 1:25 am |
Breaking Down Borders
1. I think Samuels is obviously using those three people to give the reader a sense of what the article is going to be about. It pulls in the reader with the detailed descriptions and shows them how technology has changed the meaning of private places and public places. You learn from these descriptions that we have used technology to transform public places, such as book stores, into our own private places. We go to what should be a social place and block out everything around us with our head phones or cell phone. It helps introduce his argument because he sets a realistic scene in a book store that most of us could relate too. It makes us recognize the issue with technology he then talks about in the article.
2. When Samuels says “personal culture”, he means that we can choose what music or news we want to surround ourselves with, which makes it more personal. Instead of going out somewhere we have the leisure of staying right where we are and listening to whatever music we like or catching up on only the media that interests us.
3. I think that Samuels takes a stance on both sides. Although he feels that technology isolates us from one another, he also describes how we must adapt to our surroundings. Everyone is adapting to the new technologies and we have to adjust to the environment that the technology creates.
4. I think Samuels is targeting everyone in this article, because there is not one specific group of people that use technology. When he uses his descriptions of the three people in the beginning, he is describing anyone who uses technology. The purpose of this article is just to draw our attention to the affect that technology has had on the environment, and that it isn’t technically a bad affect. Samuels describes the transformation of our environment by stating, “these new commercial public squares have become shared spaces that are neither private nor public”. But in his last paragraph he talks about how we adapt to the technology around us.
abigailchavez // October 6, 2008 at 1:29 am |
1. Samuels began his article with the vivid descriptions of the three people he saw at the cafe to present his argument. We learn that each of the people being described are in their own world and not acknowledging anything else. This opening tactic helps Samuels introduce his argument by directly stating the facts.
2.Personal Culture is the term used to identify ones own personal space and world. Instead of using the term common culture which in a sense unifies us in one society, Samuel used ‘personal culture’ to mean that people develop their own world in which they can do anything they wish to do. Samuels uses the girl listening to her ipod and tapping her feet to help us understand how technology helps us create ‘personal culture’.
3. I believe that Samuels points out the pros and cons about modern technology. I think he is trying to say that although we isolate ourselves using all this new technology, human beings also have the ability to adapt.
4. I believe that this article was targeted to those who criticize my generation and how out of focus we are. The overall purpose of this article was to inform its intended readers that technology is not so bad, indeed it’s very useful and that humans are adapting to it fairly fast. The last two paragraphs help me determine who the audience of this article are. In the last two paragraphs, Samuels points out the bad things that come with the new technology, but in the last paragraph he counter attacks what he said in the previous paragraph by saying “But is there really anything wrong with that?” and also pointing out the pros.
vixers // October 6, 2008 at 1:32 am |
Breaking Down Borders: How Technology Transforms the Private and Public Realms
1. I think Samuels begins his article with the detailed descriptions of the people he sees because we can relate to these people because they are just every day people we see at a typical bookstore. We learn that these people are just average people doing their own thing are actually transforming such a public place into their own private realms are what we do as well, do to the use of technology. Immediately, Samuels’ audience can relate to his text because the people who we are first introduced to are easily recognizable to us. He is introducing us to ourselves-to these typical bookstore inhabitants before he begins to analyze them first individually, then as a group, before making even larger conclusions about our society’s culture as a whole.
2. By “personal culture”, I think Samuels means that due to the forward movement of technological advancement, we are able to pick and choose what we wish to listen to, learn from, and be inspired from. Technology allows us to have more personal items to create our own personal world. The cell phone, laptop, and iPod/mp3 players allow people to “personalize their own media and decide on their own what culture they want to consume” (p.341).
3. I think Samuels’ opinion of technology’s influence on our culture is that because we are given he option to pick and choose what we want to listen to, we are limited by our own personal choices, but despite the danger that may arise from living in such a self-involved world we have created for ourselves such as the loss of human interaction, we adapt to these technologies and are still able to survive.
4. I think the target readers of Samuels’ article are everyone concerned or involved in the advancement of technology and how it effects our culture. It seems like the article is for a general audience, both people from the generation where personal computers do not exist, to the new, well-adapted, very tech-savvy generation. The people described in the article seem in their 20s-30s, part of the tech-savvy generation as their technological experiences are noted, but in contrast, the worries that the author expresses exhibit the same concerns of the older generation, why are wary of how technology would effect us as a culture. The purpose of this article is to make people more aware of what technology has done to us as a people and as a culture, whilst still reminding us that it is not necessarily a bad thing. Samuels warns us that these new technologies could lead our society to socialize and interact with one another a lot less. For example, Samuels notes that “there are new rules for how to act in public places and for how to socialize with and around one another” (p.340) The lady on the cell phone obviously doesn’t care about sharing her conversation with the public, and the woman with the iPod embarrasses herself by singing out loud for the world to hear. He also states that our new advanced technology not “only help us cross back and forth between the public and the private, but they also function to undermine the distinction between work and play” (p.341). Samuels also points out a growing world of distraction with the iPod girl who is supposed to be studying from her textbook, but winds up embarrassing herself in public. The author warns us of an increasingly more self-serving, self-involved society as well that could lead to dangerous physical and social consequences. But just as he leaves us in a sense of hopelessness, despair, and endless worry, he invites us to reassess our opinions, and mentions that we have logically adapted to this new technology and that it has incessantly become a part of our culture.
kcrumb // October 6, 2008 at 2:09 am |
Breaking Down Borders
1. Samuals begins the article the way he did because he is trying to put into perspective how dependent we are to technology. After all the three people all had phones and ipods and computers. We learn that their is one man with his phone reading a sports section, as if he was at home. The first woman was listening to music and wiggling to the beat. The third person was a women who skipped out on a job interview to go to Las Vegas. This strategy helps us look at ourselves with a more outside look than with our bias. I also see these people and just laugh.
2. Personal Culture is basically when people just keep to what they are doing, what they like and what they do. Technology alows people to bring their culture with them.
3. Samuels looks at technology as a way to show our culture more. You can often tell how a person is by looking at the songs on their ipod or the pictures on their camera. Technology lets us see more about a person than a conversation.
4. The audience target seems to be young adults and teenagers. The audience could be much older as well because the piece is relatively objective. The purpose of the article seems to be that technology is like what the title suggest breaks down public and personal realms.
You must be logged in to post a comment.