In One’s Element (Project Space: Homework 1: Space, Place, and Identity)

A space that holds special meaning to me is my home; predominantly my nuclear family that occupies it, and who have helped define it a “home.” In the ordinary sense of the word, “home” is simply defined as a place where one lives, but to me “It is about the ties, the connections, the stories, the food, the rituals, the seasons, the minutiae that go into forming the family unit” (Ansa 276). The location and physical attributes of my home are not as imperative, as the objects and inhabitants (family) within it, because if my family wasn’t there with me, it would just be any other building structure.

“Like all of us, I carry my child hood with me,” I can move around from place to place, but the whereabouts of my family bond stays in the same “place.” Which is unquestionably why I find it unrepresentative to say that the actual “space” of my house is the most important. Personally, the activities that occur that within the space of my house, such as barbeques, birthday party celebrations or family dinners are the most important, because they remind me of different times in my life (Kron 34). The space of my nuclear family gives me a self-identity, because I often find myself mirroring my parents and sibling. Without them, I would perhaps have different beliefs, morals; that’s why I find it incredibly important to mention them.

The objects and decorations around my house, also hold sentimental value and imperative meaning. Contrary to that, I also believe my home holds special meaning to me, because of what’s in it, because possessions also harvest a degree of personal identity. Possessions play a role in creating, maintaining, and preserving the identity of individuals. “Our possessions give us a sense of security and stability” (Kron 130). For instance, in my bedroom, I have books, movies and records I’ve devotedly collected over the course of my life, and they mean a great deal to me, because of the arduous process I went through trying to acquire them. On one occasion, I really hankered after Japanese author, Jun'ichirō Tanizaki’s, rare personal diary Childhood Years: A Memoir, but could not find it anywhere. For months I kept searching, not really bothering to order over the web, because of the ridiculous prices; then finally I took a trip to Berkeley and unintentionally found it in a bookstore. In this sense, I feel the process in acquiring the book helped piece together a part of my “identity,” and not because I was seeking a particular status by obtaining this book; because I know for a fact, the average individual has no clue who Tanizaki is. That particular incident really showed me how devoted I could be to a particular “liking,” which I feel says a lot about my identity.

Over time, individuals develop a set of symbols which they believe represents the self-identity that they want to project as these material possessions are a part of one's identity. That said, I don’t fully agree that “every human being is a status seeker on one level or another - and a status reader.” I say that because I feel some people just have certain hobbies and interests and just enjoy collecting certain things, but technically, I wouldn’t disagree that it gives you a certain status.

On contrary to that, someone could make a case that, “things are cherished not because of the material comfort they provide but for the information they convey about the owner and his or her ties to other” (Kron 133). I myself often find myself believing this, because “without familiar things we feel disoriented. Our identities flickers and fade like ailing light bulbs” ( Kron 135). In order words, our possessions allow to distinct between ourselves and others.

My house and family for instance, gives me an identity that could only be created by having my family, which I personally feel is a special thing; or such as, the books I have collected and read over the years; I’m sure it would be quite rare to find someone with the same exact taste of books as me, considering the plethora of books out in the world. If I would’ve never encountered the space of books, I would probably be writing about something else, and would perhaps be a slightly a different “being.” In the end, whether it’s family, a home, or possessions, “We create environments that are extensions of ourselves, that serve to tell us who we are, and act as role models for what we can become” (Kron 36).

Works Cited

Ansa, Tina McElroy. “The Center of the Universe.” Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston: Pearson, 2012. 274- 277. Print.

Kron, Joan. “The Semiotics of Home Décor.” Signs of Life in the USA: Reading on Popular Culture for Writers. Eds. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon. Boston: Bedford-St. Martins, 2012. 128-137. Print

What About Connectivity?

People often change their use of technology to facilitate their creation of a desired social reality, but could this be creating a false sense of community and connection? The internet as a tool for communications can harvest both positive and negative effects, a significant bulk of technology specialists, examiners, and myself, say it improves social relations and will continue to do so (Pewresearch NP). While others believe we are “tethered” to our personal technology, to extent that we may be physically present but absent emotionally. The medium of the Internet creates an abundance of tools for people to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations, so rather than creating a false sense of “community.” wouldn’t it make more sense that people are thinking and behaving the way they always have, just with different mediums of communication? (Gopnik 41).

This raises the question, “what is a social reality?” “If biological reality, is created by nature, social reality, on the other hand is created by humans through social interaction” and “it involves somewhere along the line a negotiation between speech partners” (Bockting 25). The internet serves as the stepping stone in which people communicate in this day and age, so it holds a vast significance. The penetration of the Internet has virtually established itself in every sphere of social life. From companionship and dating to economic, political, and cultural, from social networking to virtual conferencing, no aspect of life as we knew and understood has lingered unaffected. In this sense , it can be supposed that the Internet is no longer just another tool that people use, but an atmosphere within which people function and live their desired social reality.

“Both robots and the Web will have a profound, and bad, effect on human psychology”, says Sherry Turkle, the Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT and author of “Always On.” Turkle believes technology will lead to devalued and alienated lives rather than enriched ones. In other words, technology creates a new state of the self, which she calls “tethered and marked absent” (38). People use the Internet and technology as this “new state of the self” and create what Turkle feels are false identities and false communities (37). My view, however, contrary to what Turkle has argued, is that people aren’t necessarily creating a new “self” but rather just applying themselves to the abundance of communication technology, in order to create a desired social life. For example, the Internet erases “geography” as a problem in social relationships, which I personally feel is great, because distance often kills the best of intentions. In other words, the Internet allows people to stay “connected” to an atmosphere that feels comfortable for them, which ultimately creates, in my opinion, stronger relationships and communities.

Turkle goes on to say, "We are witnessing a new form of sociality in which the isolation of our physical bodies does not indicate a lack of connectedness but may be its precondition” and “The connectedness that ‘matters’ is determined by our distance from available communications technology" (39). I can not attest to this because personally, I feel she is forgetting about the people who consciously separate both physical life and what we do or say in a text or email. Throughout my busy weekday schedule, I often find myself yearning to create a desired social life with my friends and family by using the medium of the Internet. In using the Internet, or any form communicational technology for that matter, I’m still fully aware of the “outside world.” Turkle makes an overriding assumption that just because someone uses communication technology, their entrenched in the “isolation” of technology. I fully endorse that people use the Internet to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations, which in my case, is to spend more time with my family and friends. In this sense, I use technology to facilitate the creation of a desired social reality, in order to sustain personal relationships. Ultimately, I don’t think Turkle considers how people often have incompatible schedules, so in order for them to feel connected to their loved ones they use the medium of the Internet.

On one occasion, Turkle encountered a student at MIT, who explained to her how technology made him feel like a new person. The student even when on to admit that he had “become” his device. (Turkle 36). In other words, the student felt he could function a lot better with his device in hand. He goes on to say, “I feel invincible, sociable, better prepared. I am naked without it. With it, I‘m a better person.”(Turkle 36). In this sense, according to Turkle, “we all are cyborgs now;” in which she describes as being “always wirelessly connected to the Internet, always online, free from desks and cables.” The guy she talked to was remarkably insightful, but she fails to recognize that the effects of technology are thin on the ground. By focusing on the amount of time people spend digitally connected, Turkle fails to see Internet life cannot stand on itself without real-life. Research shows that people sooner or later convert their cyber contacts into more traditional face-to-face, the same as I do (PewresearchNP). For instance, I speak to my cousins from Chicago every week, but when I see them every six months or so, we don’t spend time talking about little details since we already discussed those things over the Web. Ultimately, we‘re better prepared, which I would say makes me feel the exact opposite of “naked,“ which ultimately helps us create a closer-knit relationship. In this case, the has Internet helped us build a more concrete and connected relationship, but does not necessarily makes us feel like new people or having “become” our devices.

From personal experience the ease of electronic communication has never lead to
weaker social ties, it’s actually done the opposite. Many people I’ve encountered often feel so “tethered” to technology because it’s a place where they vent out their emotions. Since the primary use of the Internet is communication, some people might reason that the Internet will have positive social consequences in peoples’ everyday lives because it increases the frequency and quality of interpersonal communications among people. Personally, easy access to others makes me feel better connected and more strongly supported by others, which ultimately leads to happiness and commitment in families, organizations, communities, and society in general.

In opposition to Turkle, Alison Gopnik, a professor of psychology at the University of California - Berkeley and the author of “Diagnosing the Digital Revolution: Why It’s So Hard to Tell Whether It’s Really Changing Us” comments, “she can give us an excellent picture of what people think about the effects of technology. The trouble is that it doesn’t tell us what those effects actually are” (41). Gopnik states that people think and behave as they always have, just with different forms of communications. I agree that people are just habitually adapting to their surroundings during the Internet age, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people still believe technology is some bizarre form of indoctrination to a specific template of community and connection. Computers are certainly intriguing and captivating, and the Internet is most assuredly alluring with its research and communicative capacities, but the characteristics and effects of technology are at a standstill and unidentified.

In the end, our society maybe be “tethered” to personal technology, but not to the extent that we may be physically present but absent emotionally. People have behaved as they always have, just with different forms of communication and connections, so people shouldn’t feel utterly alone or absent. Ultimately, as with many things in life, it seems that moderation and steadiness are key to amplifying an element’s positive effects, especially the Internet‘s. The essences of my argument is that moderation is creating a new form of socializing and empathizing with others, but with the same token, still understanding the importance of face-to-face conversations. People use the Internet, to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations and to facilitate their creation of a desired social reality that the tyranny of daily life does not allow.

Works Cited

"The Future of Online Socializing." pewresearch.org. PewResearchCenterPublications, 02 July 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. .

Bockting, Ineke. “The Literary Character: Between Life and Linguistic Sign.” Character and Personality in the Novels of William Faulkner: A Study in Psychostylistics. Lanham, Maryland: University of America, 1995. 25. Print.

Gopnik, Alison. “Diagnosing the Digital Revolution: Why It’s So Hard To Tell Whether It’s Really Changing Us.” Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston, Pearson, 2012. 35-40. Print.

Turkle, Sherry. “Always On.“ Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston, Pearson, 2012. 35-40. Print

Project Web: Homework #3 - Modes of Attention (Writing Workshop: Building Paragraphs)

Having a low tolerance for extended focus times could perhaps be because of the constant use of the Internet and other forms of media. In the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” Nicholas Carr claims that the way we “read” on the Internet makes us less capable of deeply focusing for long periods of time, or of critically evaluating what we are reading. In the article, Carr describes how some of his friends who used to immerse themselves in a book or a lengthy article very easily, who now find themselves’ losing concentration after two or three pages (2). I can completely attest to this; most of my friends often tell me similar stories about how particular websites have made them passive readers. A couple of my friends, who were born and raised with the Internet, often tell me how difficult it is for them to read pages of text, because they’re so used to reading, or more over skimming through sort passages/messages, such as texts. They simply “get fidgety, lose the thread, and begin looking for something else to do” (2). The friends’ stories Carr and I have experienced wholly endorse the idea that what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away the capacity for concentration and contemplation (2).

Personally, I feel the appreciation of beautiful, rich literature, such as classic literature and academic articles have been undergoing rigorous scrutiny because of the way we “read” on the Internet. If we read in this fashion, known as hyper attention, we’re unconsciously choosing to become “skimmers” and “bouncers.” In Carr’s view the more we use the web, the more we have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing; which I think is true. The majority of my friends, who religiously use the web, are the friends who lose their concentration while reading lengthy material. My friends have become part of the nation of “skimmers” and “bouncers.” The web “puts ‘efficiency’ and ‘immediacy’ above all else” (3), which seems to be what people are hungry for nowadays. In other words, speed seems to be the number one priority in reading on the web, comprehending the material is now a secondary issue.

“The shift in cognitive styles can be seen in the contrast between deep attention and hyper attention, “ says N. Katherine Hayles, a literary and social critic and the author of “Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes” (28). One must first understand the meaning of both “deep attention” and “hyper attention” in order to understand the shift Hayles acknowledges. Deep attention, the cognitive style predominately described as having a high tolerance for extended focus times (Hayles 28). On the other hand, hyper attention is described as switching focus rapidly between different tasks and seeking a rather high level of stimulation. (Hayles 28). According to Hayles, the increasing role of media in the everyday environment has shifted younger people to the cognitive style of hyper attention (29). In other words, media has in a way made people more prone to multi-tasking, and constantly seeking higher levels of stimulation.

The essence of both Hayle’s and Carr’s research and claims is that the Internet makes us less capable of deeply focusing for long periods of time, or of critically assessing what we are reading. Although, I agree with Hayles to a point, I cannot accept her overriding assumption that, “children growing up in the media-rich environments literally have brains wired differently than humans who did not come to maturity in such conditions” (32). Though I concede that peoples’ attitudes respond to their environment, I still insist people change in order to strengthen and grow; similarly to anyone who didn’t grow up in a media-rich environment. I think everybody is wired the same when it comes down to approaching the Internet; it makes us less capable of deeply focusing for long periods of time, or of critically evaluating what we are reading. In this sense, people who were born and raised with the internet are just adapting to their surroundings; they aren’t necessarily “wired” differently.