DIGITAL REVOLUTION & CONVERGENCE CULTURE

This blog post was the first SRR we completed for the course. Unlike the typical SRR that asks us to summarize, respond, and reflect to a given text, this SRR asked us to consider how three different frameworks help us to understand how we read and write today. I’ve chosen to include this particular post in my e-Portfolio because it prompted me to critically engage with a set of frameworks—literacy and orality; rhetorical situation; and rhetorical ecology—more meaningfully than I have in the past. Specifically, adding Ong’s literacy and orality into the mix, I think, enabled me to acknowledge contextual constraints. While I believe context is vital to understanding literacy practices, we should acknowledge that context might be influenced by societal or cultural values. In other words, depending on our values (for instance, what is considered literate or not), we may not fully perceive or understand the context for a given text. When I apply rhetorical situation or rhetorical ecology as a framework in the future, this blog post reminds me to consider that the context I see for a particular text may be incomplete and therefore not fully representative of what has shaped that text. I’m not exactly sure how to combat this limitation, except to say that acknowledging our subjectivity as researchers, readers, and writers is important. Foregrounding our positionality helps to ameliorate the occlusion that can potentially result from tracing out the context of an artifact.

One of the assignments we completed for the course is a Circulation Map. The circulation map is intended to be a representation that shows how a given term or image has circulated across time and space. Additionally, the map should demonstrate the connections that are central to that circulation. Within the larger context of the course, I see the circulation map as an opportunity to experience firsthand some of the key concepts we have been addressing in class. We have studied networks and circulations, as well as how media spreads in various contexts. Being able to trace the circulation of a specific image or phrase gives us a better sense of the complex, messy, and interconnected ways that media spreads and circulates. For my circulation map, I chose to trace the phrase “break the internet.” As I wrote in my reflection accompanying the map, I learned that this phrase is by not a particularly recent phenomenon. Although Paper’s headline featuring the phrase alongside Kim Kardashian repolarized the phrase, it has been in circulation since the 1990s. I also gained valuable experience in a kind of inductive coding. Some of the phrase’s circulation feels chronological; however, much of the connections I traced did not feel meaningfully connected by time alone. As I was mapping, I decided that I needed to break down my findings into manageable, but meaningful categories. I decided on literal vs. metaphorical, celebrities vs. everyday people; and intentional vs. accidental. These categories allowed me to think about the circulation within a more nuanced context.  For instance, I learned that celebrities are far more likely to use “break the internet” as a way of intentionally marketing or promoting content than everyday people. Additionally, I also began to think about the way we determine the value of media, especially media that is viral or spreadable. Some critique “break the internet” as a means of engineering one story to dominate more newsworthy media. I think this provokes questions worth considering as I continue learning about media in digital contexts.

This blog post was another SRR we completed for the course. This particular SRR was a COLLAB share, meaning that we compose a response collaboratively with a group and then post it to the course blog. We were asked to respond to the question, “Drawing on these texts and others, what is the new work of composing? In this new work, what do we gain and what do we lose?” Our readings for the week focused on new composing practices, which stress multimodality, assemblage, and remix. I have to admit that it felt appropriate to not only be composing collaboratively (thus, moving away from the concept of a lone author with purely original text) but also to be composing in a digital platform (Google Docs) for a digital space (Blogger). Additionally, I always feel as though I benefit from composing collaboratively, and this SRR was no exception. As we were writing, Julianna and Jeff brought up some really interesting points that helped me to see the limitations of new composing methods. For instance, even though digital composing allows us to benefit from concepts like assemblage, remix, and multimodality, we are often still committed to what Johnson-Eilola and Selber call “a unique, creative text” by a single author. In this way, we still privilege originality and the written word. In the learning that lies ahead, I will strive to remain cognizant as a composer of what modalities I might be privileging—and whether or not that is effectively rhetorically. I can also see this SRR shaping my pedagogical practices. The discussion of multimodality, assemblage, and remix can better help us teach students that language, meaning, and composing are all fluid and contingent.