A few more clues about what defines culture

In my investigation of the components that comprise, describe and define culture I have identified a few more clues.

Looking at the idea of “the currency of experience” through the lense of queer blogging affords a view of modern culture that although volatile and temporal (given the homosexual social issues of our day) is completely modern, high in detail and certainly genre specific. Rak introduces this idea: “.. the activity of blogging could be a potential site for thinking about queer identity, electronic identity and liberal discourses of identity based on individual agency, unity and the primacy of individual experiences important to many in the western world…[With that]How can this help us to understand what currency experience has in online environments?” (p.166)

Fascinated as I am with this question I am left with another question: how do we describe ourselves to those in the future who find our cultural artifacts of identity on the web which may be one way now and another way later in time?

I think the currency of experience” is indeed in the writings of a culture. In this way queer blogging or any kind of blogging affords a view of a modern culture. Julie Rak quotes Sorapure who discusses how “online diaries [are] unstable objects – constantly changing, sometimes disappearing altogether. As studies of hypertext have noted, it is difficult to determine the object of analysis when it is constantly changing…”(p.168)

A sociological investigation of any kind requires the analysis of such objects. However volatile these diaries or blogs are to cyberspace’s time and space variables, they have become imbued with the critical power and role of cultural artifacts that mark history while they show “how powerful the need for autographical genres to work as forms of classification…”. Rak describes queer blogging as an extension of Focualt’s practice and theory of psychology, driven in large part by the need of “sexually deviant subjects of sexuality to ‘confess’ … with “sexuality as an identity in itself… that ‘prove’ what one’s real identity is”. (p.169) With all this focus on the process of forging an identity I think it brings the process of “culture-making” and culture as a whole into tremendous focus.

Blogging does produce the artifacts that hold our genres and constitute social strategies “…genres are social strategies [found] within writing that are not in themselves value free. Genres produce ideology, embody values, and make culture possible.” (p.176)

In order to understand the social significance of blogging it should be seen in the context of genre theory.” the new genre theory assumes that there are laws of genre… and the laws of genre show that genres have tremendous social power for those who use them and power over those whom the genre excludes.” (p.177)

All in all it is possible to conclude that the currency of personal experience, found in blogging, creates and contributes to our modern day cultural artifacts. Our social strategies are continuously being mapped and embedded there within what we write and leave for others to see.


Rak, Julie, “The Digital Queer: Weblogs and Internet Identity” Biography: Winter 2005; 28, 1 Research Library pg. 166.

A Critique by Victoria Bertotti: “The Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity” by Gordon Wells

Today, there is a recognizable social construction process of cultural artifacts on the web. With the advent of New Media technologies, modern perspectives provide opportunities to combine multiple known theories with respect to actions, dialogues and products and offer an explanation as to what can help to define aspects of culture, as they are discoverable in virtual spaces. The question is however with all the varied multimedia displays of knowledge and information that today’s culture dynamically produces how do we identify the components that specifically define our modern culture?

The overall social context within which culture takes place has expanded to include both offline and online spaces. This new wider cultural dimension is made up of two essential components – a context and the elements within the context. In this age of Web 2.0, the context has been even further redefined by the New Media paradigm shift and away from mass media conventions. As stated in the New Media Handbook: "In the days of mass media, a ... three part framework encompassing production, text and audience dominated media research..." According to Lievrouw & Livingstone, New Media perspectives have now reshaped this view and established that "artifacts, practices and social arrangements [are] broader terms than production, text and audience; they are also more thoroughly 'socialized' and inherently culturally and historically conditioned" (Lievrouw & Livingstone, p.2-3).

In order to analyze the movements inside the new and much larger cultural context of both online and offline worlds, Gordon Wells’ concept entitled "Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity" is most relevant for this discussion. Incorporating the important principles of Discoursing (the use of language in interactions with others that plays a role in almost all human activities) and Activity Theory (the principle that human activity is always mediated by artifacts of various kinds) these well known theories have been considered anew, first by Vygotsky in 1978 when he first established the principle of Mediation and then by Gordon Wells who proposes an additional interpretation to mediation theory. Wells believes there is a "Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity". Given that discoursing is very commonly recognized among scholars as playing an essential mediating role in the development of culture over all of human history, Wells suggests Discursive Mediation "takes the form of a transaction between two human participants with respect to the object of their action" (Wells, p.160).

The concept of a "Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity" is best described by “two rather broad but different ways in which discoursing mediates action. In the first, [ancillary] discourse facilitates (or sometimes hinders) some form of material action, such as building a house, playing a team game or navigating a ship into harbor. ... In the second manner of mediation, [constitutive] discourse functions to co-construct a 'possible world' (Bruner, 1986) about which participants share and compare their beliefs, evaluations, and intentions to better understand and possibly improve them or to consider courses of action..." (Wells, p.164). In particular and as pertains to the idea of the online cultural space, Wells refers to the "possible world" that maps most logically to the idea of cyberspace. "I describe this world as a possible one because ... the world to which the participants refer is not necessarily available to sensory perception but is being created and interpreted through discourse itself " (Wells, p.164).

Wells suggests discursive mediations consist of transactions that use the artifact as an object of an exchange. He then formed two conclusions about the role of discoursing in activity. First, that discoursing always functions as a mediational means in achieving the goals of the action in which it occurs. Second ... non material action is typically structured by cultural scripts" (a.k.a.: genres) ... " so the discoursing that mediates joint action is structured by discourse genres, which are also cultural artifacts (Bakhtin, 1986)" (Wells, p.176).

This is a vital consideration because it fundamentally addresses how activities and exchanges between people are characterized in any context, whether it is on or offline evidenced by an object of an exchange. With this conceptual framework that helps to explain how actions are mediated by discourse. It is also possible to then better grasp what humans are socially constructing on the web that result in demonstrations of cultural meaning and evidence of these demonstrations that are left behind. With that in mind, I propose that web-based interactions are "transactions" and the very same kinds of discursive mediations Wells describes and that the use text and multimedia act as objects of an exchange on the web. Fluid at their conception, these objects of an exchange become cultural artifacts that change through use and perception and seemingly solidify. This idea of an evolution toward a stasis in culturally agreed upon knowledge and understandings are supported in the introduction to New Media Handbook. The editors discuss the “dynamic links and interdependencies among artifacts, practices and social arrangements. ... These dynamic interrelations are not infinitely flexible, however, and ... can and do become routine, established, institutionalized and fixed." (Lievrouw & Livingstone, p.3). And as artifacts necessarily become fixed, cultural evidences appear to increase, telling an ever-broader story as time pushes on and even turbulent cultures eventually stabilize. In the article Cyberspace and the American Dream, E. Dyson states, "Second Wave" (of New Media) "ideologues routinely lament the breakup of mass society. ... to reconstitute society in Third Wave terms, we need to jettison... the false assumption ... that diversity automatically brings more tension and conflict in society. ... If 100 people all desperately want the same brass ring, they may be forced to fight for it. On the other hand if each of the 100 has a different objective, it is far more rewarding for them to trade, cooperate and form symbiotic relationships. Given appropriate social arrangements [and exchanges of objects via discourse], diversity can make for a secure and stabile civilization" (Dyson et al, p.302). It is here that I conclude that a Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity creates exchanges that do work to solidify what culture becomes bit by bit. This process of exchange ultimately helps us identify exact measures of culture that can be found in the expanded social continuum, online as well as offline.


Dyson, E., Gilder, G., Keyworth, G., & Toffler, A. (1995) Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age (Release 1.2, August 22, 1994), 295-308.

Lievrouw & Livingstone, (Eds.) (2006) The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition. London. 1-14.

Wells, G. (2007) Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14(3), 160-177.

Searching For A Way To Identify the Artifacts of Culture

The meaning and definition of culture appears to be a very large, abstract and often fluid subject as I have discovered. I have been doing some reading to help me get very specific about talking about cultural artifacts because I want to be able to identify these components on the web when I find them. In an effort to make this search more quantifiable, first I present a useful article here that I then critiqued in the post that follows this one.

Abstract: "Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity" by Gordon Wells

Over history, the cumulative development and products of culture have been built upon discourse. In an effort to understand what has contributed to the building of cultures, G. Wells considers the relationship between discourse, actions and the results of interactions. Defining discourse as “the use of language in interactions” the premise is to examine discourse in order to investigate how language contributes to interactions. First the author considers two essential concepts: Activity Theory and Vygotsky’s Principle of Mediation. Activity Theory argues that artifacts of various kinds have always mediated all human activity. The Principle of Mediation established the idea of mediation and defined it in two ways - by tools or signs. The author assimilates these concepts and proposes that the function of discourse is to mediate the goals of different kinds of social interactions. Wells’ theory of the "Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity" is explained as “a transaction between two human participants with respect to the object of their action". He sees discourse as a method for mediating actions within a language framework. What Wells has labeled “Discursive Mediations” consist of transactions that use the artifact as an object of an exchange. To best illustrate this concept, the written word is the proper example of the “object of an action” that has served as a mediated artifact for as long as the text has been part of human history. Wells further distinguishes two kinds of discourse that mediate activity as well. Ancillary discourse “facilitates material action such as building a house, playing a team game or navigating a ship into harbor”(Wells, p.164). Constitutive discourse facilitates and co-constructs ideas about which participants share and compare their beliefs, evaluations, and intentions to better understand and possibly improve them or to consider courses of action..."(Wells, p.164). As a result, discourse is best described as a framework structured by genres – which are staged, goal-oriented social processes that constitute the nature of actions in the context of interactions. Overall, discoursing that mediates joint action of any kind is structured by these discourse “genres”. Finally Wells contends that it is these genres constitute “cultural artifacts” that form the building blocks to understanding the components of culture.

Wells,G., (2007). Mediating Role of Discoursing in Activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14(3), 160-177.

Please now review my critique in the following post.

What are the considerations for building CMC environments to host interactions that are intended to create cross-cultural displays of knowledge?

There is substantial evidence that “In CMC, people are more likely to be brought together by shared interests, giving them the chance to discover similarity in values and interests, and to focus on one another’s conversational style without attending to appearance (McKenna and Bargh, 2000; Whitty, 2004)” (Baym, N. 2006, p.44). This important quote is a reminder that even with all the risks in CMC environments there are powerful forces and ambitions that can overcome these many obstacles to authentic interactions. There is much to look forward to and as cliché as it might seem, hope for the future with what technology can create and make possible. “…despite the implications of many interpersonal and postmodern theories that people can’t or won’t form personal relationships through CMC, people do, and do so often and fairly successfully. CMC and the Internet offer new opportunities for creating relationships” (Baym, N. 2006, p.43).

The New Media Revolution has shown that people the world over need CMC technologies so much there has already been a evolution and adaptation: “…over time, CMC becomes more similar to face-to-face communication in terms of socio-emotional conversation and impression formation” (Baym, N. 2006, p.44). The real message however is how do we culturally co-exist globally and socially represent ourselves to each other? One way is by building constructive cross-cultural displays of knowledge that by nature change the focus in CMC to a more honest disposition and continuous river of authentic, integrity centric interactions. With a view toward common purpose we can return to an essential idea that underscores why people choose to cooperate: the primary need to create exchanges and to be understood. Humans also fundamentally need reasons to unify and with less focus on the individual so much can be accomplished together: “In the area of group decision making, reduced socio-emotional communication and increased task orientation can enhance group work” (Walther, J., 1996, p.6).

With all these ideas in mind, the social aspect of CMC environments is certainly omnipresent yet perhaps less pronounced when coupled with actionable knowledge, activities and objectives to achieve that serve the many not just the individual. It does seem when there is a functional concern for others more cross-cultural displays of knowledge have a chance for creating understanding between people about who they are and what matters to them as not simply individuals but as members of a culture as well.

Baym, N. (2006). Interpersonal Life Online. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition (35-54). London: Sage.

What are the consequences when the “social truth” about someone is obscured?

One’s social truth, as I see it, completely depends on the individual choosing to be authentic. Then it is a matter of whether or not the receiver intuitively chooses to believe the interaction to be authentic. This zone of proximal orientation is now what is open to scrutiny as well as constant interpretation in any social / cultural exchange in CMC environments: “A … characteristic of CMC is the limited information available regarding participants. The notion of reduced social cues remains central. However the effort has shifted from asking simply what effect this has to more nuanced efforts to understand the variety of possible consequences…“ (Baym, N. 2006, p.38).

I believe that perceptions of culture are what become obscured in small subtle and incremental ways over time. “Interactions between two individuals can thus have consequences for social formations larger than pairs” (Baym, N. 2006, p.38). With such a potentially vast impact, these grains of dis-truth certainly have cumulative affects. One might even extrapolate that these affects might lead to wars between countries over time. The question remains, what can be done?

Baym, N. (2006). Interpersonal Life Online. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition (35-54). London: Sage.

“Diminished social cues” compromise CMC interactions and are part of the technology landscape. How can the truth about anyone really be known?

There are reasons to prepare oneself for entering a new environment of any kind. Whether one approaches these new experiences in CMC environments with fear or hopefulness, I contend makes every difference about their behavior. How someone chooses to be known is often reflected in what disposition they adopt. The idea of fear certainly changes offline behavior and so it must creep into dimensions of how we to exist online. Manifestations of this mindset appear in subtle ways, especially without the ability to “be” in ones body and have appearance. Nancy Baym comments about this by summarizing much research about this area of interactivity: “The reduction of physical appearance cues…creates a kind of invisibility or anonymity (Carnevale and Probst, 1997; McKenna and Bargh, 2000; Sproul and Faraj, 1997; Turkle, 1996), which opens the potential for multiplicity of identities (Stone, 1995; Turkle, 1996), a high degree of privacy (Baron, 1998), and a lower sense of social risk (Curtis, 1997) or accountability (Stone, 1995) among other possibilities…(Baym, N. 2006, p.38).

Naturally it is logical to see that there are online dimensions of fear that now exist just as they do in the real world as discussed in the article titled “Second Thoughts About Second Life” which presents the phenomenon of the website about a full and ever expanding virtual world online. Bugeja ruminates about the risks in online communities: “Most of us concede that controversy occurs often enough in the real world. Why do we doubt it would occur in a virtual world whose service terms bestow anonymity and disavow liability?” (Bugeja, M., 2007, p.3). It seems necessary to then ask if we face fear on and offline how do we arm ourselves (must we arm ourselves?) online? And oddly enough a new question arises that seems almost out of place: Does insurance even exist for the kind of liability that might occur online?

Yet there must be hope for humankind. People as a whole around the globe have a fundamental need to look to the good in others – as cited by all religions everywhere. The question is how can we be sure we are interacting with as much of this “basic fundamental goodness” in others as much as possible most of the time? Clearly humankind continues to exhibit hope in the face of adversity through the ages and we will continue to do so. Some insight helps to further support these ideas from Joseph Walther’s article titled Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyper-personal Interaction as he “…seeks to explain relational development in the face of reduced cues. His social information processing theory proposes that, regardless of the medium, people experience the need to reduce uncertainty and increase affinity” (Baym, N. 2006, p.44). This observation seems hopeful to me that humankind does continue to strive to be authentic and have integrity, one person at a time.

Baym, N. (2006). Interpersonal Life Online. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition (35-54). London: Sage.

Bugeja, M. (2007, September 14). Second Thoughts About Second Life. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i03/03c00101.htm

Walther, J. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23(3), 3-43.

What does it mean to be “socially and culturally honest“ about oneself when using CMC systems to interact?

With the ubiquity of the Internet and all its possible uses continually being discovered and expanded, defining this personal baseline of truth becomes more and more a central issue for communicating the ultimate message: a person’s integrity.

It appears to me that people discern and shift their ideas of the importance of the self-monitoring needed to “stay true” to one’s core integrity. Depending on the context and the function of the interaction it becomes more or less important to be socially and culturally honest. Is it a professional context? A social context? Or both? Consider this simple but essential fact of modern life: “…the rise of the Internet has clarified that this technology is fundamentally social (Parks and Roberts, 1998; Sproull and Faraj, 1997)” (Baym, N. 2006, p.35). Given that it is the Age of the Internet and that it is not possible to effectively and fully separate professional from social contexts, doesn’t one’s display of integrity become an even more important issue?

I believe that individuals should, morally speaking, have to (and do) exercise a core baseline of telling the truth about themselves. Telling the truth in this way is essential both on and offline. Nancy Baym contends in her article “Interpersonal Life Online” that Computer Mediated Communication’s (CMC) interpersonal opportunities are its most important” (Baym, N. 2006, p.35). This to me means we have even more opportunities and responsibilities now to make every person-to-person interaction more authentic and to make them really matter.

Whether we are on or offline, being “whole” as a person always has a universe of implications. In a cultural context of any kind, the social disposition an individual exports to others does have a particular implication – that being they serve as a representative of their culture, whether they are conscious of this fact or not.

Baym, N. (2006). Interpersonal Life Online. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition (35-54). London: Sage.

Some Thoughts on The Perception of Culture and the New Interpretive Frontier of the Knowledge Revolution

Two articles that have influenced my thinking since my previous blog entries are “Cyberspace & the American Dream” and “Does Your Knowledge Affect My Thinking?” What I experienced reading them is a sense that there is a new interpretive frontier for understanding the meaning, perception and definition of culture in the age of the “knowledge revolution”.

Right away an important thought struck me immediately as it jumped off the page of the “Cyberspace & the American Dream” article: “The central event of the 20th century is the overthrow of matter. … The powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over the brute force of things.” (Dyson et al, p.295) I find this “ascendant” aspect very inspiring and I relate it to the idea of the birth of ideas, cultures and counter-culture, etc. Most of all I see it as a unifying force for looking at human kind overall as perceived by cultures to other cultures and individuals to individuals.

Pondering how “the knowledge revolution, and the Third Wave of historical change it powers, summon us to renew the dream and enhance the promise.” (Dyson et al, p.296) I started to wonder what is the dream of what knowledge can accomplish? Where can it take a person? It seems so infinite and so much like and attuned to the concept of “cyberspace”. And here it is expressed: Cyberspace is “ … inhabited by knowledge… connected to the physical environment by portals, …” (Dyson, et al, p.296). Fortunately for everyone the infinite has real footholds in our physical reality.

In addition, what attracts me so much is the potential of what knowledge can produce are the really succinct explanations of culture now being delivered in cyberspace. What stands out to me especially is how knowledge is the great unifying theme and its power, when coupled with cyberspace can embrace something so large as the definition of a culture as a whole entity and actually make it seem potentially understandable and within one’s grasp to know. Next, I find these ideas connect to the “Does Your Knowledge Affect My Thinking?” article because it relates and describes how there is a fundamental need for the use of schemas by the individual. As I see it, to understand the great universe of knowledge one must depend on schemas: “A schema is an abstract cognitive structure that results when one assimilates new information and prior knowledge (Pratt, Krane & Kendall, 1981)” (Goldstein, p.1). “Because we cannot retain all the information we confront, we engage in a comprehension process aimed at broader comprehension (Bartlett, 1932) (Goldstein, p.1).”

As expressed in the “Cyberspace & the American Dream” article, The Third Wave economy and the knowledge revolution are so powerful that these forces demand that those who populate it are equipped to handle the ride. Let’s face it: in order to survive and thrive we need coping mechanisms. Because ”each person has different prior experiences that result in a unique set of beliefs, perceptions and expectations, … people will vary in terms of what … they remember and …understand…” (Goldstein, p.1) schemas help us navigate: “when a person confronts new information, relevant schemas may be activated.” (Goldstein, p.1) With such a survival skill (one among many that are required) one can more likely function and cope with the huge new cultural forces of the Third Wave.

There are tremendous cultural changes occurring and the implications of living in this age are confusing to say the least. Of these implications we find that “Turning the economics of mass-production inside out, new information technologies are driving the financial costs of diversity – both product and personal – down toward zero, “demassifying” our institutions and our culture. Accelerating demassification creates the potential for vastly increased human freedom.” (Dyson, et al, p.297)

This freedom is a vital new energizing power and it has changed cultures across the globe, each with a different interpretation and explanation of the nature of its own culture. This suggests an even greater implication. The “rising Third Wave constituency is highly diverse… composed of individuals who prize their differences” (Dyson, et al, p.308) suggest these differences pose tremendous perceptual challenges for us humans to comprehend each other. So, with this in mind, I find it fascinating to consider “whether exposure to the background knowledge of a communication partner may influence an individual’s own schema activation and comprehension (Goldstein, p.11). It really intrigues me to think that if we are to truly know another culture it comes down to the nature of a long series of one-to-one interactions and the sharing of what we know and how we know it and the essence of continuous schema exchanges.

Goldstein, M., (2006) Does Your Knowledge Affect My Thinking?” (p. 1-17)
Dyson, E. et al (1995) “Cyberspace & the American Dream”(p.295-308)

What role do ICTs play in the historical versus a modern view of culture?

Information Communication Technologies have fundamentally changed societies. It is accepted now that "...technology, action and social context are inseparable phenomena, each influencing the other..." With this in mind, what is the contrast between a historical versus a modern view of culture and what role does technology play in constructing these views? What are the distinctions and how do we measure them?

In the Handbook of New Media, the introduction raises the following idea: “… every system affords a certain range of interpretations and that range is determined by the discourses that have been inscribed into it' (2004:27). (Lievrouw, L., Livingstone, S. pg. 4)”. What this points out is the need to examine the working framework of cultural systems in relationship to technology.

Wikipedia defines culture as having four specific components: values, norms, institutions and artifacts. These are the pillars that structure the systems that every culture devises. Cultural epochs can be looked at as chunked points on a spectrum and pre- and post New Media cultures each have different stories to tell about how ICTs have influenced historical versus a modern views of culture. The differences between cultural epochs are better observed when the evolution of the New Media culture and the analytic focus of field of New Media studies involve examination of the social shaping and social consequences of the "dynamic links and interdependencies among artifacts, practices and social arrangements… (Lievrouw, L., Livingstone, S. pg. 3.)" These are some of the very same factors that can be found within the definition of culture. These terms also straddle the evolution of ICTs and most importantly, the generational span of the two most recent “media cultures”, each of which exhibit both historical and modern views of culture.

This is fertile ground for discovery of the contrasts between historical views versus a modern views of cultures influenced by ICTs. Even with the tremendous power of “These dynamic interrelations [between artifacts, practices and social arrangements] [they] are not infinitely flexible, however [and the] ... use of the term infrastructure is intended to suggest that artifacts, practices and social arrangements - and the relations among them - can and do become routine, established, institutionalized and fixed..." It is possible to conclude that cultures solidify in much the same terms from one cultural epoch to another and that there is also a new and concurrent “mutual shaping process in which technological development and social practices are co-determining” (Lievrouw, L., Livingstone, S. pg. 4.) what society ultimately becomes. This appears to be the starting point for locating the distinctions about how Information Communication Technologies affect culture and how we might measure them in relationship to forming and contrasting historical vs. modern views of culture.


Lievrouw, L., Livingstone, S. (eds) (2006) The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition, London. pg. 3-4.

Did the New Media Technologies Revolution start as a Counter Culture?

Observing the recent and relatively short history of Information and Communication Technologies suggests an important question: Does the evidence of this radical revolution in modern day society point to the makings of a true counter culture?

It's the chicken and the egg argument: does society shape the use of technology or does technology shape society? "The term 'social shaping' borrowed from technology studies, is usually associated with the critique of strong technological determinism and a shift toward strong social determinism in the 1970's and 1980's in that field (MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1999). As ...noted of mass communication research several years ago "in technological determinism, research and development have been assumed as self-generating. The new technologies are invented ... in an independent sphere, and then create new societies or new human conditions." Since then "... new media researchers in the social sciences are virtually united in rejecting accounts in which technological innovation is the cause and society is the effect (see e.g. Wolgar, 2002). Instead they have adopted the counter view that the technological, instead of being a sphere separate from social life is part of what makes society possible - in other words it is constitutive of society (MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1999;23). ... It has subsequently become the dominant perspective in new media studies (Boczkowski and Lievrouw, forthcoming; Livinstone in press)." Lievrouw, L., Livingstone, S. (eds) (2006) The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition, London. pgs. 3-4.

Even if this is now the dominant perspective, did the origins of this technological and communication revolution stand out so much as to warrant consideration as not just an independent sphere but yes, as an actual new society? I reference the metaphor of a "counter culture" from the socially radical period of the 1960's and in particular Theodore Rozak's book "The Making of a Counter Culture", 1968. It is true that that period evolved and fundamentally restructured our society. This can also be said of the evolution of ICTs. The question is were these movements so revolutionary to be similar in their degree and impact on society to provoke questions about how we have now arrived at a unique place in history where two tremendous culturally significant streams have become so confluent that they overlap? With what implications?

Initially one could conclude that "Technology is society made durable." as considered by Bruno Latour (1991:103). The meaning of durable is worth considering: enduring, historical, defined, discoverable over and over again." However, now that we are here, as David Byrne from the Talking Heads band says "How did I get here?" The only response that seems to make sense is what the Grateful Dead band's ballad reminds us all of: "What a long, strange trip it's been." And now, where are we going?

E-Learning is my orientation: here's where I begin

I want to begin this blog with the following quotation that sets a particular tone and focus for my inquiry as an instructional designer. This quote has inspired me to be more serious about investigating how social theories, Web 2.0 and technology as a whole have new roles to play in the field of e-learning, my professional field of interest:

"Researchers, educators and instructional designers...view cognition and learning as inherently social processes ... [and] it is critical to explore how social context influences sense making." Goldstein, M., "Does Your Knowledge Affect My Thinking? p.6, 12.19.06

Please, if you wish, I welcome your thoughts.

The Digital Age

We are here!