Boyd’s article was fascinating. Two statements immediately struck me.
Primarily, in discussing identity performance, she acknowledges that the process of writing the self into being on a mediated public involves a catch-22. More control is evident, including explicit self-reflexivity and “the self-monitoring that Foucault describes” (2008, p. 129). However, simultaneously, “digital bodies are fundamentally coarser, making it far easier to misinterpret what someone is expressing” (p.129). Secondly, in addressing privacy in public, Boyd writes: “When outsiders search for and locate participants, they are ill prepared to understand the context; instead they project the context in which they relate to the individual offline onto the individual in this new online space” (p. 133).
While Boyd’s article was important in many aspects, what it did for me was bring back my wintering knowledge of literary criticism. The above two statements provided an interesting mirror to the timeline of how writing has been understood and critiqued. In questioning these mediated publics and the writing that exists, I see functions of aesthetics, quality of theme, similitude in dissimilitude, (Arnold, Coleridge), catharsis or symbolism (Freud, Lacan), ideology (Marx), ironic potential (Brooks), poststructural criticism in recognizing the ephemeral hierarchy of speech to print (Derrida, Foucault), reader response theory (Fish), expression as “the building up of an integral experience out of the interaction of organic and environmental conditions and energies.” (Dewey, p. 484), and further feminist theory such as that from Elizabeth Flynn that labeled “productive interaction…where comprehension is attained when the reader achieves a balance between empathy and judgment by maintaining a balance of detachment and involvement” (1273), and the conception of the multiple persona/ a tolerance for ambiguity (Anzaldua), among many others. (The two anthologies I used to briefly summarize are listed below.)
In other words, literacy -- interacting -- on mediated publics involves very sophisticated reading when identity performance, community, and privacy are such overt concepts. Teens often navigate the layers of symbols, media, and print without recognizing such sophistication in addition to navigating the contradictions and hypocrisy of our societal structure (Boyd, 2008, p. 136). What may happen in the absence of sophistication is the antithesis of understanding – the danger of the single story (Chimamanda Adiche) and the construction of the self in such a manner as well. Boyd concludes: “As a society, we need to figure out how to educate teens to navigate social structures that are quite unfamiliar to us because they will be faced with these publics as adults, even if we try to limit their access now” (p.138). I would suggest that exploring the evolution of literary criticism and basic media literacy offers a solid starting point through which this education might begin. Critical pedagogy is often a powerful tool in combination with exploration of identity and voice.
Anzaldua, G. (1997). La conciencia de la mestiza: Towards a new consciousness. In
R. R. Warhol & D. Price Herndl (Eds.), Feminisms: An anthology of literary theory and
criticism (2nd ed., pp. 765-775). New York: Rutgers.
Dewey, J. (1989). The act of expression. In D. H. Richter (Ed.), The critical tradition:
Classic texts and contemporary trends (pp. 484-499). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Flynn, E. A. (1989). Gender and reading. In D. H. Richter (Ed.), The critical tradition:
Classic texts and contemporary trends (pp. 1271-1284). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Richter, D. H. (Ed.). (1989). The critical tradition: Classic texts and contemporary
trends. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Gwen, I appreciate your comments about teens lacking the sophistication to navigate and comprehend the complexities of the online persona. However, since many of them are approaching this from the same naiveté does that create a ‘level playing field?’ I also agree with Boyd’s statement, “When outsiders search for and locate participants, they are ill prepared to understand the context; instead they project the context in which they relate to the individual offline onto the individual in this new online space” (p. 133). However, doesn’t this happen with all writing; an author may write something with a specific meaning in mind, however, the reader will interpret anyway they choose.
ReplyDeleteOh Wow! Great questions Jeannette! To be honest, I had not thought about the implications of a “level playing field,” or whether or not this even exists. I was simply taken back so suddenly by the article to undergrad days, delving deeply into the intricacies of how we understand text.
ReplyDeleteI think you are completely correct – there is always the challenge of misinterpretation (thus, Boyd’s concern and the manipulation that is occurring on mediated sites). Interpretation, though, is often authoritative and also seen as an act particular to the reader: “who reads what, how.” The reader “hazards interpretation or makes a decision as to what has been asserted” (Fish in Richter). So, it can be argued that there is no real misinterpretation, as this is reader action, anyway. In education, we acknowledge this through funds of knowledge… Yet, because these mediated publics are both written, conveyed through text, and further work in exploring or displaying personas, the balance of interpretation and authorial intention is vivid for teens, as they attempt to gather meaning reflective of/for themselves, as well as learn to objectively read and value the human intention on the other side of the text. Maybe this is where I was going… the level playing field is not so much where they are coming from, (the naïveté) but what education does.