Things I Understand:
Miller began his article with a description of phatic culture or "namely a flattening of social bonds as we move into ‘networked sociality’ and a similar ‘flattening’ of communication in these networks towards the non-dialogic and non-informational". I think Miller is describing how the use of internet as a source of sustaining relationships has changed the form and foundation of relationships. I don't understand his use of 'dialogic' in his explanation of phatic culture, maybe we can discuss that in class.
Miller also divided his article in to for distinct sections:
1) Firstly, he expalined "blogging culture and its relationship to the social contexts of individualization". He writes about the power of individualization and the separatedness of American culture and how the internet support the individual nature of people allowing relationships online to become fleeting and even temporary. At the same time, these relationships can be extremely open and trusting yet often through rapid and continuous communication.
2)Secondly, Miller discussed "the social networking profile within the contexts of ‘network sociality’ and the rise of database culture". The idea is that relationships have become ""informational" and not "narative". This is seen in profile on MySpace in which a person describes "likes or dislikes" or maybe "single or in a relationships". Photos have also become a strong component in formulation of relations between to people and even commenting on thoose photos on sites like Facebook.
3)The third section on Miller articles was concerned with "microblogging, connected presence and the ascendancy of phatic culture". The online world using "objects" such as Facebook to fulfill easy access to communication in a "postsocial" environment.
4)Lastly, Miller explains "the usefulness of phatic media". I think that it was extremely important that he cover this subject considering the information in the article wasn't exactly a positive analysis of current mass media culture. In a way, this fast information highway is a successful marketing tool, a way to bring succinct messages to the public. I understand that these new platforms of communication are speedy but I don't exactly understand the value behind it besides the gains made by capitalism and consumerism.
I grew up with the internet and as a an "internet native (as Morrison and McMillan would call me) much of my communication between friends and even family is through email, Facebook, and MySpace. Although I am an avid internet user I sat in shock when I read in Teens and Social Media that "93% of teenagers are online". Is that only shocking to me? Only seven percent of the teen population isn't involved? I am also blown away that a landline is still the most common way teens communicate. I figured that since cell phones have become so popular landlines could be almost obsolete. I wonder what the reasons of this are. Maybe there is a comfort in using a family line from the house or the fact that a landline almost always has service?
Before I entered this class, I also had no idea how popular blogging was/is. "Half of all online teens (49%) now read the online journals or blogs of others, up from 38% in 2004". Holy cow!
I also love how the article took into account that the most active teens online are often the most active offline. Perhaps a stereotype of "the teen online" has entered my mind in some way, picturing a kid who has no life outside of the internet.
Sometimes when I'm online, I find myself thinking about what I would have be doing with my time if I was a teen in the 1980's. I don't have any time to be bored because I can always log on and be entertained by a video, a conversation, or a song someone uploaded to a music site.
I didn't know how much money people can make on blogs. This video was very informative!
click here
No comments:
Post a Comment