Today's class discussion was absolutely fascinating. On the topic of public texts, we collectively created the argument that one can address several types of individuals that each relate to a different discourse community. I find it particularly interesting how such a personal opinion can find a place in the political role. Take it as if Chris Kluwe was an ordinary person in our classroom. Although not a public figure anymore, a regular person can equally access discourse communities by making a text public. The availability of text, especially now with the rise in technological methods facilitating the proliferation of texts, now makes virtually any text available for others to interpret.
"FUCK NEU". Such an uncomplicated phrase can be interpreted as a dense sentiment from someone who made the text available for others to interpret. In class today, I mentioned how the internet and the phrase mentioned earlier still create an incognito personality for the individual sharing the text. In modern days, the availability of the Internet allows for text to become more easily accessed and for our points of views to be expressed easily. As Sam argued in class today, in our modern society, we use technology to speak to people, instead as speaking with people. I am tempted to relate this to graffiti and how a visual representation in a public environment can unite people on the same floor of debate and conversation. Therefore, our public opinions on the Internet are the new graffitis on walls.
In addition to that, the communities a public letter such as Chris Kluwe draws and attracts are so directly affected or interested by the content and his stance that they feel the need to comment. Like a graffiti on a wall, a comment on The Huffpost's Gay Voices forum allows one to join a debate with a clandestine identity. By remaining secret, one is further aroused by the freedom of expression now possessed and joins this forum shaped by people I have never met so why not say whatever I want. Why not write "FUCK NEU" on a bathroom door if I know no one will ever know it was me? The thrill of not being recognized feeds to the fact that we fear judgment which is why we fear the possible screenshotting of our snap chats since we lose control of what other people might do with them. By remaining unrecognizable, the openness of the public sphere of communication gains power as it becomes more available and protective of people to create conflict.
Today's list of elements of the term "public" mentions how it allows a relationship among strangers. By having an easy access to the comment forum of the public letter to the state delegate, I am engaging with other members of my society as if we were both speaking about a graffiti at a bank. We might be both equally affected by the graffiti's existence or its message, therefore it unites us into taking a collective stance on the graffiti being on the bank's wall. This is where pathos, or emotions, meets ethos, or ethics, since an emotion that I express so publicly now creates an ethical argument on other people as to why I am thinking that way, therefore stimulating logic, or logos.
Lastly, communication is a perplexing aspect of society that we definitely take for granted. By analyzing how we connect on a public level we are seeing how our society is building itself through "poetic world making" as the list says, because we are gaining the courage or necessity to spread our ethos and pathos and making them being heard so that we can intercept other people's panoramas on logos so that society can move forward based on what we think.
It's really interesting to see how you talk about how easy it has become to access writing now no matter who you are. If you want something, you just type it into google and you can get a million results with academic articles, news columns, personal blogs, and even more. By giving text this much power to be disseminated across so many mediums I don't know if it also takes away from it's original intent or purpose. Is there a paradox with the more access one has to something the more easily it becomes to misinterpret it? By opening the audience for a piece of work, while you are still creating a public because attention will be paid to something, a public might also be paying the wrong kind of attention to it; or one that was not the original intent of the author. I think this is something that authors have started to keep in mind, but it's difficult to know where something is going to end up, whether it's someone screen shotting a snapchat or something bigger, it's an issue I guess every writer has to keep in mind now when creating anything.
ReplyDeleteI think you guys hit some great points.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of something that's put out there being so easily accessible being related to the level of misinterpretation is spot on I think. I'm assuming from my general knowledge, but I wouldn't be surprised if the rise in political correctness came with the advent of audio and video broadcasting. So many people can hear what you're saying and take it to mean something, so we continually scrub our public voice of anything that can be taken the wrong way.
It's interesting to think about whether being anonymous contributes or inhibits more productive discussion. While people can be more honest while their identity is hidden, they're also much more vile when they don't have their reputation to protect. I think that's part of why snapchat screenshots are so unsettling to us, part of who we are in a private moment is being taken out of context and is now an image that can be shared with anyone. On top of that, there's no control over whether your identity will still be attached to it or not.
It's hard to see where this discussion really stops as there are so many facets of it.