What interested me the most in Brown's article was that something that started off as meant to be funny-- Dino Ignacio parodying Bert in various "evil" circumstances-- turned into something much greater. Dennis Pozniak thought it would also be funny to put Bert next to bin Ladin, the image turned up on a Google search, and suddenly Americans are seeing a symbol of their childhood on posters in Bangladesh. The guesses that turned up were many, varied, and incorrect "as Western observers attempted to make sense of the jarring couple of Bert and bin Ladin."
Brown says that "Ignacio was admittedly 'freaked out' by the whole situation," prompting him to take down his original website. His is an extreme example-- not everyone goes from a joke website to the evening news, after all-- but similar misunderstandings happen every day to internet users. Tone, facial expressions, and so on are not conveyed well in text, not even with the help of emoticons. In face-to-face conversation, when such cues are crucial, misunderstandings still happen; how much more so on the internet? I've lost count of how many times I wonder if someone is being serious on Facebook or just joking (Usually it's, "I hope they're joking"), and that is with people I know. The confusion is only compounded when the rhetor is someone I don't know.
I especially appreciate Brown's statement that "We should remember that this is not a problem created by the Web." It isn't, as I've already said; take away the internet and people still struggle with communication. Having the internet at our disposal means that the conversations come faster, the confusing images circulate to a broader audience, and a cross-section of beliefs and cultures are occupying the same space and looking at the same things. No wonder messages get mixed and tempers run high. Brown makes a great point that "the Web offers a place where community happens to us without any sort of intentional gesture"; we're all already here, so we have to make sense of what is happening.
I don't agree with Poster that we should scrap our current lenses of interpretation and make a new one that we can all agree on. After all, if we all interpret everything in the same way, what is the point of discussion? Who needs this community if we all begin and end on the same page? One of the great things about the Web is that it offers a gathering space for people of various viewpoints. Relax one's own outlook a bit, yes, be open to new ideas, certainly, but to suggest giving up previous means of interpretation altogether-- I'm not convinced that is a good idea.
Ah, it's refreshing to know that some people still see glimmers of hope for communication among divergent viewpoints. I try to remain optimistic but I occasionally find myself (although never entirely serious I suppose) wishing that we could just settle things via a MMA cage match or something.
ReplyDeleteI guess my main concern is how conflicting worldviews can possibly come together. Worldviews after all are more than just certain viewpoints. They typically embody the whole of a person's meaning. Can the extremes ever collide without causing real life explosions? Heh that wasn't really articulate...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how Brown points out that the Web is a place where "community happens to us without any sort of intentional gesture." This community allows us, sometimes even forces us, outside of our comfort zones. I believe this in itself to be a great thing. By having this convergence of viewpoints we are not only allowing ourselves to grow but I believe we are also allowing our "real life" communities to grow as well. We are able to take what we see on the internet and bring it into conversations with friends, co-workers, and family. Thus, further spreading the convergence of community that begins on the internet.
ReplyDelete@Chinchin: I think I'd be happy if the general public could be convinced not to take every difference of opinion as a personal affront. It would go a long way toward having actual conversations (as opposed to the cage match).
ReplyDelete@Megan: Very true! And another upside of the web community is that you can take a break if needed-- it's not like other environments that people are more or less stuck in. If I'm getting overwhelmed, I can just turn off the computer for a while, then come back when I'm ready. That would also go a long way toward productive communication on the internet-- step back when you're frustrated, then come back when the thoughts are clear again.
I'm not sure if Brown wants us to throw away our old way of interpreting altogether, but he definitely suggests that we make changes. I think he's right to encourage us to pause for a moment and take advantage of the "learning moment" we get from ViRaL texts like Bert Laden. I have to admit that when I encounter jarring texts, my gut instinct is to figure what it means and why the creator made it. I guess the ideal scenario would be that next time I'll remember Brown's essay and take a second to think about what I can learn.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't Brown that wanted us to move to a new interpretation, it was Poster. The one who says, among other things, that there is no place for monotheism in the new hermeneutic-- he has a long way to go to convince people of that.
ReplyDeleteBut, you're right about taking the time to process before jumping into "analysis" mode. It's not necessarily the best first step.
The issue becomes, how much can we understand each other cultures without ultimately influencing everyone to share common ideas and perspective. But isn't that what we want to happen? Don't we want people to be openminded and listen to what others have to say? It's kind of ironic that the more tolerant we are, the more we begin to have similar views and become one perspective.
ReplyDeleteNathaniel, I think you make a good point. And I think it has broader implications, too. The more we think alike, the more likely it is that someone who has a completely fundamentalist view can be restricted to the realm of "lunatic we don't talk to". When we think more and more alike, those who think differently seem crazy and other. To me, this seems like a sort of scary outcome. What if I'm the person whose views don't evolve?
ReplyDeleteChinchin: "I guess my main concern is how conflicting worldviews can possibly come together. Worldviews after all are more than just certain viewpoints. They typically embody the whole of a person's meaning. Can the extremes ever collide without causing real life explosions?"
ReplyDeleteGood point about worldviews. I think a lot of the problem has to do with the fact that we tend to overestimate our interpretive abilities, both online and off. Worldviews are sophisticated complexes of thoughts, attitudes, and emotional judgments about the world and how it works. They're not the kind of thing that's easily conveyed in 500 (or 44) words of text. And yet we like to think we can 'figure someone out' merely by reading one or two things s/he wrote. Our reactions to views that don't match up with our own tend to be tinged with a little bit of hostility toward the person holding those views. When things get out of hand -- as online they often do, especially on YouTube -- people will take their disagreements over one or two issues and blow them up into 'irreconcilable' differences. If online discourse is going to be effective at promoting cross-cultural understanding, Web users will have to strive to avoid making totalizing assumptions about the 'others' sharing their space, and to recognize disagreement as a good thing and not a pretext for conflict or disengagement.