Well I'm trying to climb out of the post Jenkins hole I seem to have fallen into. After finishing Convergence Culture, I tried to dabble in a couple of free reports that I think Jon posted: one by Jenkins called Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture and another by Carrie James on Young People, Ethics and the New Digital Media. I also got caught up reading Jenkins' 3-part blog series in which he answered an esteemed critic of his book, Ian Bogost (http://henryjenkins.org/2006/08/hmm_buttery_a_response_to_ian.html). This exchange was really interesting, sort of like watching Jenkins explain himself to the jury. It helped clarify his ideas for me a little bit. I wanted to read Turkle, but was afraid to get sidetracked knowing that Lessig is looming large before me. So into Lessig I have plunged (OK, more like stuck in my big toe to test the waters, but at least I'm in the vicinity).
Podcast #6 was particularly interesting to me and generated several random reflections. Hope I can remember:
Dr. K's discussion about effective discourse, and his comments about the nature of the MOO, got me thinking about what kinds of "moves" or "levers" we use there. Particularly, what purpose does the non-class related, background rhetoric serve? You know, the banter about turbans, old girlfriends, and margaritas.... It may seem less valuable than the communication about deep, rhetorical concepts, but is it? Or is it somehow an integral part of the rhetorical situation?
Geertz - I'm adding him to my reading list. Like stringing beads on a piece of yarn with no knot...
Process over product? I think this is, perhaps, one path to the heart 5369 and our collective inability to define our existence last week, at least to the satisfaction of the prof 'zenning' the class (Nancy's term for leading by pondering...very descriptive). Beyond course requirements for a degree plan, I heard several comments that indicated a common thread: we love being here and interacting with smart people about a topic that interests us. Some online communities may serve a more concrete purpose; others may exist primarily because the participants experience in it a satisfaction that may difficult to pin down, yet is nonetheless very real.
Writing vs. Face to Face - which is more real? I sort touched on this topic in my previous blog (Progress Report #1) in trying to articulate what I see as the differences between the MOO and a traditional classroom. Person to person interaction may have the historical edge, but online interaction like what happens in the MOO seems more pure to me. And wouldn't more pure equate to more natural? Online communication isn't weighed down by social perceptions.
Probability and project methodology - I must admit I'm struggling with the how at this point. So it was helpful for me to focus on the concept of probability, and on the idea that we are not trying to achieve, nor are we claiming, any kind of rigorous research credibility. We are trying to gain insight into something that is slippery, complex, and ultimately impossible to neatly nail down.
Ah, the things you ponder. Great posting. Keep it up! P.S. There is a part of me that would like to analyse our in- and out-of-class discussions as the immersive discourse environment required for the class project. Why are we there? What are we hoping to get from it? What kind of agency are we expressing in our weekly meetings? How do we support it in our blogs, fb postings, and other chatter? Are there questions and issues we are hiding from others? Are there hidden agendas? You get the idea.
ReplyDelete