Sunday

Time For Some Campaignin'!!

              On YouTube through JibJab.com, I found this video called “Time For some Campaignin’” and thought it was a very good example of Pathos. Pathos is a quality that evokes some kind of emotion from the audience. This video is about the elections of 2008 and 2012 with Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John McCain. The video is for once not one sided, and it makes fun of each one of the main characters and what they have and do stand for. On a bigger picture, it playfully makes fun of the entire voting and campaigning system we have in the US.
By using the clever jingle and the out of proportion little people, it makes the audience want to laugh but at the same time they don’t want to because they want to be able to hear the lyrics to the song. Having each character make fun of the other and yet make fun of them self is also another way of sort of self-deprecation without having the actual people say them, which brings the candidates on more of a human level. Being able to laugh at people unites people and compels them to act together.

It is a satire that compels the audience to laugh and enjoy the well thought out song. In making the audience laugh it is able to “commiserate” with them about the campaigning system and the voting practice. I put commiserate  in quotes because they want to make it seem like they r on your side but really they are in a way reminding u that even though the system is stupid you should go out and vote.

Thursday

Understanding Agger’s “Everyday Life In Our Wired World”

            In chapter One: “Everyday Life In Our Wired World,” of Ben Agger’s, The Virtual Self: A Contemporary Sociology, Agger discusses the relationship between people’s everyday lives and their social structure. He argues that the self is directly connected to your everyday life, and can be directly connected to the social structure that results therein. He describes the Internet as playing a key role in our social structure and how it “…alters the distinction between self and society.”

            “Virtuallity is the experience of being online and using computers; it is a state of being referring to a particular way of experiencing and interacting with the world.” Here Agger speaks to the topic of how the Internet is largely a part of our daily lives. He argues that we need it in order to communicate with the rest of the world. In many ways, Agger goes on to say, the Internet has begun to dictate what we do with our lives. Agger points to the example of: school, work, what we eat, what we buy, schooling, parenting, traveling, etc. The internet, Agger says, is a postmodern world in which people all around the world communicate.

            In a sense Agger is using Sociology to better prove his point. “Mine is a different kind of Sociology, one that addresses virtual selves living in postmodern worlds.” Agger would like people to enter this postmodern world and “de-professionalize” sociology by using this world to encourage conversations of sociological insight. In short, use the Internet to share opinions about different things going on in the world today. Being able to enter this postmodern sociological world and being able to go anywhere at any time, Agger calls worldliness. The Internet talks about many different topics from all over the world, and for a person to go on and engage in a conversation of sociological insight on any topic at any time, shows this person’s “saturation to  popular culture.”

            Though we are in a very progressive age Agger, was able to argue that “…our moment in civilization is perhaps less postmodern than meets eye as a result of ‘fast capitalism.’” According to Agger it makes sense for people to go online and talk about their everyday routines, but there can be certain things that can unsettle or as Agger said “jolt” the everydayness. A jolt could be any of the following: war, natural disaster, the economy, etc.  It is because of these jolts that Agger says that our moment in time is not as postmodern as it could be. Agger discusses some of the “jolts” that went on in his life time; from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and his brother to the more recent September 11th disaster.”

            With all that is happening in the world, all these “jolts” that we run into, all the media and online sociological conversations of insight, Agger explains that it is hard to comprehend how we have any order at all. Agger then uses his definition of Social repression to explain the origin of the social order that we have. “Surplus repression goes beyond what is necessary for peaceful coexistence; it bends people’s creative energies in destructive and self-destructive directions, thus creating the existing social order.” So in a sense, Agger is attempting to explain that naturally people as a group strive for order, and end up achieving it through a sort of chaos.  

            Agger then goes on to “examine the relationship between everyday life and enveloping social structure[s]” in our society as a whole.” He goes on to discuss how structure does not just happen, but rather, as we mentioned viz., it works through the self which in turn recreates the order that we seek. But then Agger states, that in the same way, the self is able to “disobey social laws, overthrowing them through the force of will and leverage of social movements.” So, in a way, the self is able to make or break us (to borrow the colloquialism) in the way that we can use it to create or, on the other hand, destroy social structure by getting involved in a “jolt” (viz.) that may cause some social tension on the Internet and/or in society.

            “Everyday life plays a crucial role in people’s diversion from politics… they are discouraged from theorizing their everyday lives which are influenced by these powerful yet invisible structures.” All Agger is saying here is that a person’s first inclination is not to go online and start “chatting” about world or local politics; it simply does not come natural to a person. Unless of course, these politics are somehow connected to a “jolt” that directly influences that person’s life in some way that allows them to want/need to engage in a sociological conversation in the postmodern world we call the Internet.

            In short, Agger has used the postmodern Internet as a way of showing and discussing the relationship between the everyday lives of people online or not, and their social structure. So from reading this we see that the Internet, though we often times take it for granted, plays a crucial role in how we formulate or destroy our social structure through the self, as it pertains to the goings on around us in the world.

Works Cited

Agger, Ben. The Virtual Self: A Contemporary Sociology, Chapter One : “Everyday Life In Our     Wired World”. Chinchester, Wiley-Blackwell, Dec. 18 2007. Print.

Tuesday

What's in your Infosphere?

In Michael Vlahos’ “Entering the Infosphere”, he defines the info sphere as being “… the shorthand for the fusion all the world’s communication networks, databases and sources of information, into a vast and intertwined and heterogeneous tapestry of electronic interchange.” (Vlaho’s 2) The way I would describe it to make it clearer would be to say: picture your selft inside a giant bubble. Now think about all the internet sites you visit, all the social networks you chat on, and all the places you visit for just fun, or for shopping. Now picture all of those sites around  your bubble. This is sort of a picture of what Vlahos’ Infosphere would look like.

I agree with his definition of Infosphere. I do not know a whole lot about it right now, but from what I have learned both in the classroom, and out, the infosphere encompasses you and the things that you do each day. As it becomes more popular, more and more activities will be added to our infospheres because they will be available to us online. Vlahos’ opinion, of which I agree, is that soon our infosphere will be of great importance to our everyday lives, even more than it is now.

Vlahos predicted that in the future people will be able to conduct business, and do their work, and conduct their activities on their Infosphere. I agree with this however he goes on to say that eventually be able to meet with a doctor through our infosphere also, and I thought this was just absurd! How is a doctor supposed to make a diagnosis when you are not face to face with them? I do not see it working. But he is right when he said that people will be able to gather and share information on it, because that is sort of what we are doing right now. We are not far from most activities being conducted on and through our infospheres.

Meta-Awareness

Meta-Awareness

                Last week, our class discussed meta- awareness, and our professor posed questions about writing and how we write and what has to be going on while we do it. Personally, I have a number of quirks, and downfalls when it comes to writing, but it all depends on what kind of writing I am doing. I have three main categories of writing that I do: 1) School (essays, lab write-ups… etc.), 2) Novel (fictional story I write in my spare time), 3) Fun! (short skits/ plays, short stories, sketches… etc.)

                For school, I have to write it strait on the computer; no hard copy writing. Because it is school work, I will allow anything to distract me, so it helps if I get out of my room and go to a place where there is hustle and bustle. Any dining area is good or the Colvin Center.  I have to be listening to music, but it can’t be anything with words so I usually listen to movie soundtracks. It doesn’t matter what I am drinking, but I cannot have any food nearby or else I will only want to eat it, but I cannot be hungry or else I will only think about how hungry I am! It does not matter what time of day I decide to do this as long as I am focused the quality of work will be the same at all times of the day.

                In writing my novel and when I am just writing for fun is when I get pretty anal-retentive. Everything HAS to be perfect. It has to be quiet, soft classical music has to be playing, and my hands have to be clean. I care about this writing so much more than my school work in the sense that I am potentially writing this for others for more than one reading, as opposed to a peer edit (one read) and a grade from the teacher/professor (one read). The time of day really depends on when I have a spark of creativity, because when I have it I have to write everything down or else I my lose it until I get another spark like that, which could be as long as a month or two in the future.

                I have quite a number of quirks but in a way they help me produce my best work, so I find myself catering to them when I need good quality work.

Web 2.0: Leading Us Into The Dark

                In several Articles read in class and out, they have talked mainly about Web 2.0 and some of its interesting qualities. In Andrew Keen’s book, The Cult of the Amateur, Keen suggests that this Web 2.0 has a dark side to it as well. However, in his first chapter, “The Great Seduction, Keen’s argument is only the small beginnings of his main argument. Throughout, Keen uses the argument of cause to help him make his points. In Chapter 1, he argues that Web 2.0, rather than giving us in depth analysis of the world around us, is instead dishing out a “superficial observation”. Here Keen refers to the “Amateur” on the web, and how anyone is capable of writing about a news story, but only some should be allowed to; for only some are more than an artificial reflection. This, Keen says is all thanks to democratization which is now “undermining truth” and “belittling expertise”. Here we see an example of argument of cause. By allowing amateurs to write, we are giving up the need/want for expertise in our news stories today. But how? How can democratization, the floor that our own country stands on, be responsible for this? In short it is because, we are creating a world where “author and audience are increasingly undistinguishable and authenticity is almost impossible to verify”. Here Keen uses the argument of cause once again: Because of democratization, it is now hard to differentiate between author and audience. And not being able to differentiate between the two, is leading us blindly into the dark.