The Church of Google

While I agree that Google has had a large impact the internet as we know it today, I can’t help but be a bit skeptical. This skepticism mostly stems from questioning the power of a company that has a potential monopoly.  Google has become such a stronghold on the internet.  It is virtually impossible to go on a website and not see a Google logo.  The word “Google” has even become a synonym of searching for something.  When someone doesn’t know certain information, they are often told to “Google” their question.  Now not only is Google a method of searching, but it means searching.  This brings me back to my original skepticism: what does this say about the power of Google?

            To answer Geoff’s second question, I’m not sure how to feel about Google’s goal to “synthesize everything”.  In many ways this makes me think that synthesis takes away the greatest aspect of the internet: different information.  Having the ability to search across different mediums throughout the world in one place is what makes the internet special.  Furthermore, what gives Google the credibility to make such decisions necessary to synthesize data?  Wouldn’t that just make every source the same source?  This allows Google to input their own agenda in the information that they change and/or leave the same.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with the values of this company, I’m relatively sure that I disagree with their control over internet information.  Wasn't the original purpose of Google to be a search engine?  I don’t think information synthesizer is part of that. 

Reaction to The Church of Google

In my opinion, Google is one of the most important features of the internet. With the power to "Google" something, one can search through millions of sites and archives to find exactly what information they need in a matter of a little more than a second. This is absolutely extraordinary to think about that we can have any information we need about anything in a matter of minutes, or even less. Google is now even more important than it was years ago because the power of the search engine has systematically increased and the base has broadened, giving it an advantage over the less powerful search engines.
Giving Google such power over what people can find though, gives it a lot of power. Let's say that Google does not find a certain piece of information to be worthy of including it in a search result, it can omit that information. If Google should ever decide to do something like that, the public will most likely never know because they will have a difficult time trying to find it on the internet without Google.
In order to keep the competitive edge over other search engines such as Yahoo!, Ask Jeeves, Bing, and Dogpile, Google offers complimentary services, such as giving users related searches, using their website to play games (such as Pac-Man), compiling user's preferences into home pages, and adding links to other organizations, such as the news. Google will not stop doing this, even if it depletes some money from profits, because Google's features is what separates it from other search engines. As long as Google can keep users interested, it will be guaranteed success.
Artificial Intelligence is related to Google because it relies on human programming to have computers do the work. Google would be interested in AI because it shows an opportunity to increase both the quality of its service and profits. When a user types a search into Google, a human does not compile the results for the user, a computer finds results that pertain to the keywords all over the internet. If Google can master AI and somehow link it to their services, Google's already success can reach even higher.

The Church of Google

In Carr's somewhat alarmingly named chapter "The Church of Google" he characterizes the internet behemoth both positively and negatively. First he praises its importance to the internet as our primary means of navigating the billions of webpages. However, he also blames Google as purveyors of distraction, who profit off of your every click away from a concentration.

1)Do you agree with Carr about Google's importance to the internet? There were other search engines before it, and others since (like Bing). Is Google as important now as it was in the early 00s before the internet truly became a mass media?
2)What do you think of Google's goal to "systematize everything" and synthesize as much data as possible and make it widely available? Can we trust Google? Do you think it's safe for one company to control so much data (books, internet searches, video), especially if it calls itself a "moral force"?
3)Carr describes how Google operates some of its "complements" at a loss, like Youtube which lost between $200 and $500 million dollars last year, in order to collect data from its users. Despite these losses, Google is still an extremely profitable company. What do you think could cause it to stop expanding or to stop offering complementary services? What could stop Google at this point?
4)How does Carr's description of Artificial Intelligence fit into his book? We can see how it links to Google, which is interested in AI, but what point does Carr want to make by describing the power of AI and its differences from actual human thought?

Questions for The Church of Google

Some questions for thought:

Carr mentions that Taylorism is based on six assumptions:

1)      That the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency.

2)      That technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment.

3)      That human judgment cannot be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity.

4)      That subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking.

5)      That what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value.

6)      That the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts.

Do you feel that these six aspects of Taylorism are correct, or are they missing/overlooking something?  Also, do you believe that these aspects of Taylorism can be found in internet companies like Google, as Carr does?  Lastly, Carr says that Google is doing for the mind what Taylor did for the hand.  Do you feel that this is true?  Have we, through using Google, become “automatons” following identical online procedures and habits?  If we have, is this a good change or a bad change (or maybe even a little of each)?

Carr also discusses the issues surrounding Google Book Search, namely that he feels the search “dismembers” books, ruining the cohesion and linearity of the text, all while placing other links, tabs, and ads nearby to distract “the reader’s fragmented attention.”  Does Carr have a point, or is he overly concerned without a need to be?

E-Books and the kindle

The kindle is a new fascination among readers because it is one compact device that holds many books. Also, it has the power to enable the user to click on and follow hyperlinks. These hyperlinks lead to definitions for words or other articles. I feel that these hyperlinks are nothing but helpful to the reader. If the reader does not understand something, they can simply click on the hyperlink and be led to a place where they could find out what they need. If they do not need to understand anything, and is compelled by what they are reading, I see no reason that the reader would want to interrupt their activity to click on a hyperlink. It is true that this medium allows the user to distract themselves if necessary, but the choice is a huge part of the reason it is a concern. The reader must choose to stop what they are doing to click a hyperlink, but what would interest the reader in doing so if they are enjoying themselves reading their book.
The paper community is worried its era of dominance has come to an end. Very soon it will. Because most media are rushing to an electronic format rather than physical, all paper materials will cease to exist due to the convenience of electronic media. Why should a user buy 10 physical books from a store, while they can go online and download it to their kindle for a cheaper price? Physical books still have some years left in their time of rule, but their sales will decrease as the number of downloads increase. They will indeed be missed, but only to be replaced by something more convenient and cost effective.

What's to become of the book?

I personally found the ending paragraphs of Chapter 6 of The Shallows to be very profound and thought provoking. The entire chapter addresses the issue about what is to become of the book in our now Internet and multi-tasking obsessed society. I really find this topic interesting because I myself love to read books; there is something really special to me about being able to curl up on a couch with a blanket and read a novel. I often find that I am completely absorbed and I lose track of time while getting to know the characters and the plot of the story. It also seemed really intriguing to me when Carr discusses the introduction of the e-book. This aspect was especially interesting to me because I am currently reading the e-book version of The Shallows on the Kindle. Carr talks about how the Kindle allows for a more distracted read because of the hyperlinks and wireless internet availability-- I however find that if I am truly interested in what I am reading I won't even notice the hyperlinks, and if I do I won't have the desire to click on them and navigate away from the text. I have read quite a few books on the Kindle, and if I am interested in what I am reading I have to problem staying focused and in retrospect if I am reading an actual book that I find especially boring I will have a hard time focusing and staying connected with that version of the text.
My questions for you are:
Do you believe that it is the medium of a text that influences how you are reading or the actual content of the text itself?
Do you think that the hyperlinks are distracting in a negative way or could they also be seen as positive in the way that they allow for a larger field of knowledge and opinions and real life connections to the text?
Do you believe that books will become "momentos of how reading used to be" or do you think they will continue in popularity as this same negative forecast has been predicted for them in the past?

First, I think our education system has yet to fully adapt to the so-called distracted state that technology media has brought about. My little sister is in third grade and she still brings home books for reading and they still have Sustained Silent Reading for half an hour in her class. Moving up to high school, I feel as though there has been an increase in the need for silent reading for intellectual growth because Advanced Placement courses are becoming more popular. In those courses, high school students take on the work load of a college student, with sustained reading in textbooks being a primary way in which the students learn in the class. And we all know how much reading we do (or are supposed to do) for our classes as college students. Essentially, reading for an extended period of time in order to gathering information and insight is still a central practice in our education system, which, mostly likely, will be here to stay for a while. We have yet to have shorter class periods or readings in shallow, bullet-pointed form; however, I do feel that the emphasis on more interactivity in classrooms and less lecture is the educational system’s way of slowly and begrudgingly giving in a little to our distracted minds. Yet, other than that, I don’t see how the educational system is working with our shortened attention spans, if anything, it’s the only think keeping sustained reading and thought alive.

            Furthermore, I’m not sure what I think about the educational system becoming as disjoined as our search for knowledge on the internet. Like I said before, I feel like the educational system is the one of the only institutions keeping extended reading and thought alive. Cornerstones of education and scholarship, such as the essay and personal research will still need to be written in order to people to fully understand complex topics and issues. Therefore, I don’t think this linear form of thinking will ever go away. Yet, if the educational system is one of the basic institutions were we learn about and understand the world, will all sustained thought be lost if the educational system does not teach it? And does that even matter? I know Carr is arguing that yes, it does matter and I do find that I agree with him on several points; however, as we’ve talked about in class, I am hesitant to say this is a bad thing. I think distracted ways of thinking are just too new for us to know how to deal with them. 

Questions on The Deepening Page

Carr talks about the Deepening Page and this idea that over time "silent reading" became imbedded in our way of acquiring knowledge or exercising our minds.  It was a way that the mind could grow and imagine and focus withoutout being distracted. "The nature of education and scholarship changed, as universities began to stress private reading as an essential complement to to classroom lectures".  However, Carr also talks about how naturally our brains, just as many other mammals on this planet, are naturally wired to be predispositioned to shift our gaze, and hence oyr attention, from one object to another, and that the new media embraces this natural shifting of attention that our brain favors.  My question is, do you think that our education system ultimately has adapted to this change in media and technology or not? Also, do you think that our education system adapting to a change in media and technology and straying from the idea of "silence reading" and lecture based education is a good thing?

Convergence of Media

I do not think that the convergence of media onto one medium is a bad thing at all. I do not believe that this convergence is making us less intelligent either. Throughout history, people have always sought to make technologies readily available to them. Examples of this would be buying a television set for the family, gathering around the radio, opening up libraries, and reading newspapers. Radio and television used to be purely entertainment technologies, until news stations opened up on both of those mediums. Though smaller than the internet, news companies opening up on those mediums is a form of convergence.

The only difference between then and today, is that now all of our media is in one place. This one place is the internet. Society has never been able to access this much information so fast and easily, so naturally more and more people switch to this new converged form of media. Unfortunately, because of this other mediums are suffering if they are separated from the internet. Aside from users listening to the radio in cars, it is rare to see them listen to it in their homes when they can pull up Youtube.com on their laptops and play whatever song they want from their iTunes or other media player. It is unfortunate that many media will soon become relics like the home radio, libraries, and newspapers, but it is a sign of progress that they are replaced by more encompassing media. The internet will eventually take over television as well, but its decline will be more slow than the more outdated media such as the internet or the radio.

Just give it time

I do think that the convergence of all previous media (print, television, radio, etc) is natural progression considering the value our society places on speed, control, convenience and progression itself. Clearly, making a “one-stop-shop” technology, like the internet, means that people can spend less time and less money to gather all the information and entertainment that they need. To me, this seems like a logical step. However, I do feel a little upset over the fact that the publishing industry (including newspapers, magazine and books) is having a harder time staying alive in this increasingly digital age. I love holding a book, turning the pages and cracking the spine to the point where just one glance tells you that it’s a well loved book. I hate reading off the computer; I find it harder to grasp the information I’m reading, I read slower, my eyes start to hurt after a while and I hate having to scroll instead of turning a page. Also, I feel like I’m more impatient when I’m reading on the computer. Maybe my brain has changed to the point where if I’m on the computer, it triggers the need to jump from blub to blub, so that I can’t concentrate as well looking at a screen, which would be why I feel like I read slower. My mind still wanders when I’m reading a book (if I’m uninterested in it), but I still feel that it’s a quicker read.

            Now, I’m not entirely sure that this is detrimental. Maybe my brain hasn’t fully adapted to reading longer articles online (which I print out if they’re that long), which is why it seems like moving printed text online is detrimental to my ability to my comprehension level. I am hesitant to say this mass convergence is bad. It’s just different, and change is hard for humans to cope with as we are very much animals of routine. I feel that once this new technology has been around for a while and humans have had the chance to adapt (maybe by the time of our children or grandchildren) we will be better able to deal with the instant gratification of the internet and can then move on to better follow in-depth concepts on the internet.  Therefore, we are not less intelligent—we still have the ability to grasp deep concepts—it’s just that the medium has thrown us for a loop and our brains need a chance to sort it all out. 

Questions for The Shallows

In Chapter 5, Carr talks about how previously, before the computer and internet, technologies progress down different paths. Paper media was restricted to using mostly word, TV's mostly images, and radios mostly sound. Now, with the computer and internet, all of these medias are progressing and beginning to merge together. You can find an "Official Website" for almost any newspaper, TV Channel or show, or radio station. All of these medias not only have websites giving information, but they broadcast their shows (whether it is music or an episode of The Office, for example) and the news publishes print, video, and picture news through their websites.

How does this make you feel? Do you feel as if this is detrimental to us in that our brains need information and instant gratification? Or, do you feel this is just another normal part of the pattern of new technologies that has dated back thousands of years? Does it make us any less intelligent and unable to grasp information in depth?

positive or negative change?

       I think some of the points brought up are very interesting.  Although I completely agree that we see a change in the way we think, I'm not sure if this is a negative change.  It just seems that the way we think and process information is just different than it used to be.  One example that Carr mentions is his inability to read at great length without being distracted.  He says that he has developed a tendency to skim through paragraphs of information to find the most important points.  This change can have a strong linkage to internet use, however I don't think that conclusion can be 100% validated.
       Carr quotes David Sarnoff, pioneer of radio at RCA and television at NBS.  Sarnoff says, "We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them.  The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value." (pp. 3).  This belief strongly aligns with the theory of Cultural Determinism.  I tend to agree with this belief because I think that technologies themselves to not create change.  The way we use them and the extent to which we use them is what causes a change.
       Ultimately, it appears that there have been changes in our society and the way we think.  It most certainly can be seen in our ability to quickly access information.  This has made certain chores much easier.  For example, many now simply look up book summaries in lieu of reading the entire text.  Such decisions can have effects on our reading because people may only need to search for just enough information to complete a necessary assignment. Whether these effects are positive or negative still remains the question.

Carr is quite interesting...

Being that Carr went to Dartmouth for English and from what I have read does not have a neuroscience background, I am slightly more skeptical to believe his theories whole-heartedly. However, I do see the truth in them. From what I remember of Neuro.120 with Dr. Joel Bish, Carr’s descriptions of neuroplasticity and how it develops could definitely change the way we think with the repeated use of a certain mode of thought. Because we can change the connections in our brain, train them to fire in certain patterns, it is hard to argue against Carr using neuoplasticity as proof that we will be able to think associatively. The more we use that train of thought, the more we are habituated into that train of thought, meaning that old thoughts patterns may diminish in some form. In other words, I do think that it is possible for us to become proficient in thinking associatively; however, I am not ready to take that as a complete fact.

            I’m not sure how we’re going to fare in the future with this associative way of thinking. In all honesty, I don’t think it’s going to do us much good. We need to be able to plan long term and fully think through plans and their implications; however, if we do not have the ability to fully think about one topic for an extended period of time, our decisions and actions will be very in the moment without much thought. Now of course this is extreme, but I do think that linear thought is important to get things done and get them done right.

At the same time, I don’t think we can avoid using the internet, meaning that we cannot avoid developing our associative thought process. Therefore, I think that we need the education system to push linear forms of thought, like reading novels, just as much as they push the technological advances in education. I think both thought processes are useful in different ways and both should be developed in a type of balance with each other—not that we should think one way or the other. 

The Way we Think Today--Good, Bad, or just Different?

Similar to what Sean has referred to in his blog, there is evidence that the internet has been transforming the way we think, transgressing from a linear way of thought to a more staccato-like preference in the way we collect and absorb information.  However, on page 3, Carr acknowledges that McLuhan’s reason for this change in our thought process is not as much a result of the medium’s content as it is a byproduct of the medium itself.

Carr says, “As our window onto the world, and onto ourselves, a popular medium molds what we see and how we see it—and eventually, if we use it enough, it changes who we are, as individuals and as a society.”

For instance, in Carr’s discussion of Scott Karp, a lit major in college, he focuses on Karp’s more recent loss of interest in reading books.  Instead, Karp now does all of his readings on the web.  Furthermore, Bruce Friedman admits that he can no longer read and absorb more than 3 or 4 paragraphs at a time in its entirety.

What do you think of these changes?  How are they reinforced in our culture and do you think their potentially unrealized effects are good or bad?  What have we gained and/or lost as a result of such changes? 

Maybe it is important to read each page of say Pride and Prejudice.  Or perhaps it is simply good enough to understand the gist of the plot either by skimming or using some form of Sparknotes.  What do you think? 

Is the internet dumbing us down, or simply changing the way we think?

The point that Carr seems to be making so far is that the repeated heavy use of the internet is rewiring our brains, decreasing our ability to think linearly or in depth for extended periods of time, just as the monkey's brains were rewired when given different stimulus from the nerve cells in their hands.

Do you think that it is possible that our brains will rewire themselves to become just as proficient at thinking associatevely as they are linearly?

Will a generation raised with the internet fare well in the future, or is the ability to think linearly superior?

Are the problems people are encountering with decreased ability to think linearly a result of these changes being reported and studied by people who were raised to think linearly and are having problems adapting to a more associative style?

Finally, if it turns out that the associative, sporatic style of thinking cultivated by internet use is impacting our ability to think well, what can we do to avoid falling into that trap given the internet's utility, endurance, and widespread use?

Oh hey there cognitive surplus!

I’m going to address the first question posted under the heading, "Questions for 11/02."  I feel as if one of the things that Shirkey is missing when he states that free time and a good media landscape are needed for cognitive surplus is availability. Cognitive surplus is only possible for those who have access to computers and the internet. I know we have talked about this a decent amount of times in class; however, I feel it’s important to point it out because cognitive surplus isn't free to everyone then, like Shirkey makes it seem. Cognitive surplus is bought and sold to the people who can afford it and countries that can afford it, which means that only the upper classes of world can participate in this use of cognitive surplus. Therefore, some dire issues of the lower classes in our world need this cognitive surplus to bring about change, but because they don’t have access, they must wait for a citizen who does have that access to care and utilize their cognitive surplus. This doesn’t mean that cognitive surplus has any less power; it just means that those who create and share and consume on the internet are a select group of people because of differing social classes and their privileges.

I do, however, believe that cognitive surplus has the ability to create change, that is, once the world has adapted to using weak ties to collaborate and organize. I think it is possible that when this next generation reaches adulthood, they will be more prepared to utilize cognitive surplus because they have been the creators and sharers of it since their childhood. They will have also been the consumers of it since childhood, meaning that they will be more open to being emotionally involved and moved to action through the use of the internet, weak ties and cognitive surplus. We already see examples of cognitive surplus working to our advantage today, such as Shirkey’s example of the Kenyan presidential election and Ushahidi. If it has begun to be effective today, I think it is capable of evolving to be more effective tomorrow with the global culture we are currently building. 

11/02 -BWright

1) Is Shirky's vision of a communal transformation of society a practical one?

2) How would this society be different from current society, and what aspects would have to change?

3) How does Shirky use his idea of a "transformed media landscape" to empower individuals and strengthen human agency?

Questions for 11/02

1) In his talk "How cognitive surplus will change the world," Clay Shirky says cognitive surplus is made up of free time and a good media landscape. Do you think there are other factors that compose the idea of cognitive surplus? Also, Shirky says if we use cognitive surplus to create civic value, we can change a society. Do you agree with his idea? Why or why not?

2) Shirky poses a question at the end of his talk "How cellphones, Twitter, Facebook can make history": how should we use new media that are global, social, ubiquitous, and cheap? How do you respond to the question? In what way do we have to beware of media change?

1) Do you think that, in general, someone who read only the NYT's spin on the wikileaks coverage will bother to look at other news sources to get another view? Do you tend to look at one source for your news coverage, or do you look for several sources? If you look at several sources, do you think they tend to have the same slant?

2) The author appears to have a prior bias against the NYT's from the very beginning of the article, where he mentions "the NYT's sleazy, sideshow-smears against Julian Assange." Do you tend to pick up previous biases while reading online articles?

3) Greenwald is a well-known political pundit, and a very influential liberal voice in the media, with a long track record of exposing government and media deceptions. Do you take this into account when reading his articles? Do you look into who is writing the articles you read?

Questions on WikiLeak

1.) After looking at wikileaks.org for a better understanding, and reading the article by G. Greenwald, would you say you agree with his take on the situation, or would you tend to disagree? Why?

2.) Also, with the some four hundred thousand page document being release/ leaked, how would this help display the way technology has helped shape our society- or shown the way in which technology has advanced?

3.) Lastly, now knowing th info that was leaked, does it change the way you think about our government, military/ armed forces, in anyway, and if so why?

Questions for Thursday, October 28

1) In Chapter 9, pg. 159, Ling asserts that "The mobile telephone is the tool of the intimate sphere...perhaps at the expense of the non-intimates." If you are standing alone while waiting in a long line at the grocery store, are you more likely to interact with the strangers around you, or use your mobile phone to interact with non-present intimates? Why do you personally behave that way?
2) Ling reiterates the idea that the mobile phone reinforces already strong-tie relationships, perhaps to the detriment of weak-tie relationships. Do you think that the usage of Facebook is a way to make up for the fact that the mobile phone excludes non-intimates? How can network technologies be used to create a "correct" level of social cohesion? What do you feel is the "correct" level of social cohesion, where there is a balance between strong ties and weak ties?

Response to Questions: Phone Conversation as Filler and IM Lingo

Firstly, I find myself not only using phone conversations as a filler, but pretending to be texting on my phone as a filler all of the time. I don't even think that it is something that people think about anymore. For example one time I was in an elevator with a stranger and I noticed that we both started to look at our phone and go through it. Also if I'm ever walking by myself in the dark sometimes I would pick up my phone and call a friend. Actually, I even have pretended to be in a phone conversation to ease my discomfort of being alone and/or watched by somebody. Why do I do this? I guess to avoid looking or actually being alone in an awkward situation.
As far as instant messaging goes, I think that sometimes voice can be lost, or misinterpreted. Using the lingo such as lol, bff, or ttyl (etc.) has become more and more used in real life conversations as a matter of fact. I find it interesting how even adults have been starting to make the transformation--perhaps the entire language will be made up of simple abbreviations that we are required to know by heart, in the future.

Questions for 10/21

1) On page 105-106, Ling describes a woman who uses a cell phone conversations as a "filler" until her friend arrives. How often do you do this and why do you think this is?

2) How does instant messaging add voice to writing? How and why does language differ in IMs than in real life communication? Do you think that IM is the closest form to personal conversation without hearing someone else's voice?

-Brett and Matt

Solidarity on the Social Technologies

This is a response to Question for Monday 10/11

I don’t think the social technologies are direct results of Collins’ idea, but some parts of Facebook and Twitter may work to build solidarity. The functions of event invitations on Facebook and Retweets on Twitter can be used to expand information, movement, and ideas, and gather users. The users strengthen solidarity with others there by sharing a same interest. In the case of an event invitation on Facebook, a host sends invitations to other users and the guests can choose whether to attend the event. If they decide to attend, the information is known by other users who are friends of the guests, and this function may increase the numbers of the guests. The system of event invitations follows the process of how rituals are made, that is, “by shaping assembly, boundaries to the outside, the physical arrangement of the place, by choreographing actions and directing attention to common targets, the ritual focuses everyone’s attention on the same thing and makes each one aware that they are doing so” (Ling, 74-75). The social technologies may be applied to what Collins says in this way.

Yet still, it is hard to say that people use the technologies to create assemblies to make a change in social order. Facebook and Twitter are individual-based technologies and a purpose of the use depends completely on users. Also, the systems like event invitations usually work temporary so that the strong social solidarity is hardly given to the users. Thus, while I believe the social technologies have a possibility to produce emotional energy for gathering and cohesion, it is hard to say the desire for generating the energy creates the technologies.

Discussion Question: Technology and Perceptions

In the Interpersonal Ritual as the Locus of Social Interaction section of Chapter 4, Ritual Interaction of Everyday Life, it is explained that Goffman says that if a society is to be maintained, it must socialize its members to be "self regulating participants in social encounters" (Goffman 1967 pg44). It then talks about the family gatherings in Norway when there was only one television channel to watch and how it brought the family together with a safe and positive feeling. Now that there are several channels along with mobile devices. In fact certain devices and how/when/or where they are used may create particular perceptions of an individual. How would you, or most people, distinguish these different perceptions, and in what ways do you think that they have been changing over the years?

Discussion Questions: Solidairty Achieved?

Ling has been outlining concepts and ideas that have been flowing between Goffman, Durkheim and Collins, in an effort to see how they operate in our Mobile Tech World.
Goffman emphasizes the affect of the individual upon the situation in front of him. His co-presence needed to create the identity kits of their being. Objects/tech of use in the interactions of interactions becomes less important, and the individual becomes symbolically central to the generation of everyday rituals.
Durkhiem states that the ritual event creates positions for the individuals involved. With specific totems that are important to the ritual, participants are moved from their normal lives to a special place. Solidarity thus becomes achieved through social interactions and the creation of significant totemic symbols.
Co-presence in these ideals is thus of the most importance. A true everyday ritual creates more significant social gains (such as friendship) through totems, identity kits, ritual conversation, compared to telephone communication. The telephone in many cases becomes a backstage mediator of social exchange.
Collins combines some of these ideals and centers on the moment of focus for participants in a social ritual event. Feelings that participants create during a ritual interaction supersedes the event forwards, turning each participant into a member of that event, becoming part of a whole. Collins also looks at the need for the participants in the event to make effort to “walk the line”, keeping a common duty to make sure all rituals are carried out so everyone feels good. The failure to keep the intensity and order of the ritual can thus social move participants out of a group, moving them off a focused solidarity. Co-presence is thus definitively important.
By looking at the views these researchers took and their reasons for doing so, do you think that our mobile phones today with applications and various other technologies supersedes the comments made by these researchers? Do mobile phones now have ritual functions that create strong ritual situations? Our author cites the way mobile phones can help maintain an event through mitigated situations by texting a conversation or reminding a friend about an appointment, filling a chink in the rituals armor. And do you think that mobile phones create ritual failure?

I don't think Facebook makes the grade.

I am hesitant to say that the reason people flock to Facebook is based in Collins concept of ritual interaction chains.  Collins reveals that ritual interaction chains have several parts, including, “two or more people physically assembled; boundaries to outsides; a common focus of attention through which the participants become ‘mutually aware of each other’s focus of attention;’ sharing a common mood” (74). 

First, Collins believes that people must be co-present in order for this increased solidarity through mutual interaction to increase. Now, I know that the author is extending these theories to include mediated interaction; however, I feel that the mediated interaction of the mobile phone is closer to co-presence than Facebook. A phone conversation is more personal and is capable of better mimicking co-present interactions because a person can hear tone of voice, pauses in the conversation, cues to continue the conversation, etc. Even texting, I feel, has become a more personal form of communication as compared to Facebook because not only do you have to know the person in order to get their number, but text messages usually involve more personal content because it cannot be conveyed in the public domain of Facebook.

I will admit that Facebook may be an attempt to create a ritual interaction chain virtually, that the human need to interact has lead to the creation of sites such as this; however, I do not feel it is affective in completing this task. To continue with Collins requirements, Facebook does have boundaries to the outside in that if a person does not sign up for the site, then they are not a part of the group. At the same time, this site is free so anyone can join and a person is only as connected as they want to be through the selection and rejection of friend request.

 Furthermore, the idea that Facebook creates “a common focus of attention through which the participants become ‘mutually aware of each other’s focus of attention’ is true to an extent. But similar to its boundaries, Facebook is a self-selecting service in that we only have to concentrate on what we want pay attention to. I personally do not pay attention to half of the statuses on my news feed, and when I do, I don’t feel like I am becoming mutually aware of anything or “sharing a common mood” for that matter. Unless it’s a close friend (whom I have already established a relationship with through co-presence), I don’t particularly feel the strong, emotional connection that Durkheim, Goffman and Collins discuss.

Therefore, I think that Facebook may be an attempt to create a ritual interaction chain; however, it is not particularly successful.

Question for Monday 10/11

On Page 74, in the chapter on Ritual Interaction Chains, Ling is analyzing Randall Collins's ideas on social interaction.  "Collins argues that interaction rituals produce emotional energy, the gathering of which is a central motivating force for individuals.  Affect is the engine of social order.  Those interaction rituals that are the most effective in generating emotional energy are the ones that bolster institutional stability."  

Do you think this idea represents the exact reason that new social technologies become so popular?  Is this the driving force behind revolutionary ideas like Facebook and Twitter?

Cell phones social status and friendships!

I'm currently sitting on my couch watching a commercial for the Iphone 4 (note the multitasking while doing homework... lets see how this one goes), so why not start my response with that! I think that cellular devices indeed do have a way of socially classifying people. Firstly I will note that from where I am from, you do not just exchange cell numbers--you exchange PINS. Coming from a generally high-class (not to mention materialistic) area of the Jersey Shore, I can't tell you how many of my friends have questioned me why I don't own a blackberry... God forbid. However I must admit, my current phone came after I had lost and/or broken 2 shiny blackberry pearls. But I find it funny that some people look at my EnV 3, a very dependable phone, and call it "ghetto". Yet, if you don't have a phone that has the internet at its fingertips, how are you supposed to respond to Facebook posts, or download apps, or BBM? When I see people with nice phones I don't immediately judge that they are materialistic and wealthy. People are busy these days! Receiving and responding to e-mails the minute you get one is actually an acceptable and legitimate reason now to have a mobile device which requires you to pay $30 a month and more. So I don't think social status is always dependable on what type of phone you have. But if I see someone walking around with an Iphone or blackberry with the same sparkly pink case my best friend from home flaunts, yes I think people could get some ideas. Which brings me to my next response--friendships and texting.

             Speaking of my best friend from home, I can particularly think of several times we have gotten in "fights" because of miscommunication through text. That isn't to say that texting has surely created greater bonds and closer relationships among friends... especially girls I'd say. But they sure can mess things up sometimes! Example: usage of the Ha's. I've discussed with many people what the ha's mean in a text when responding to someone. If somebody says hahaha or more they are really laughing and think that its funny. If you say haha they kind of think it's funny, or just courtesy laughing. Lol probably is just a filler for not knowing what else to say. The most dreaded response is probably a ha. It is often perceived that if you get a ha in a text message, that means someone is mad at you or uninterested. See how it can get so complicated (this is but one silly example)! In a conversation we have facial expressions and tones. Text messaging is left to interpretation. And misinterpretation after misinterpretation is never a good thing.

Cell Phones and our Social Structure

I believe that cell phones increase our ability to be social. With cell phones, it is like everyone within speaking distance and no one can get very far apart. Although physical distance can be a factor in how close friends are, with cell phones no matter how far we are from each other they can still talk. Because of this, friendship retention rates are the highest they have ever been. Under previous circumstances, distance usually meant deterioration of the friendship because they would cease communication and eventually replace each other with others who are closer.
Also cell phone help friendships because when they are in a close proximity to each other, they can make plans with a lot less effort. Instead of making plans days before the actual event, friends can call text each other just minutes before they meet up to do whatever they wanted to do. The new speed and spontaneous activity that friends are able to do with cell phones increase social activity. Also instead of trying to free up everyone's schedules for a time when every friend in a group gets together is no longer needed. Now a mass text can be sent to everyone in a specific group in a matter of seconds. This progress is all due to the spread of cell phones.

Mobile communication = stronger friendships...I think.

Lots of questions! But I think the question of whether or not the mobile communication technologies strengthen a group of friends is the most interesting. Even so, I don't have a definitive answer, or at least a yes or no answer, to that question. I think there are several characteristic of mobile technology that can work to strengthen and weaken a circle of friends. 

First, I am assuming that this group of friends has already been established through face to face interaction over an extended period of time. If this is so, mobile communication allows these friends to share important events and frustrations with their group at a moment’s notice. Even something as simple as a girl wondering whether or not a dress looks good on her and sending a picture to get a friend’s input is strengthening their bond of friendship. As Ling talks about on page 31, a person's strong ties are important in the decisions that they make on a regular basis because their opinions are trusted. The ability to have instant contact with a friend will strengthen those ties, as it becomes an extension of that trust. 

However, constant communication can back fire and weaken a group’s ties to each other when they become sick of each other. It is much more likely that a person becomes annoyed with her friends when she is not left alone. The friend who just won’t stop texting (the over-texter) gets annoying after a while, especially when she don’t take the hint that her friend is done speaking with her. In this case, the annoyed friend may still hold on to her annoyance with the over-texter in their next face to face meeting, or send back a rude text to make the over-texter stop texting. Either way, it is possible that through mobile communication, friendships can become too close, to the point where tensions run high and a strain is put on the friendships. In this sense, the group is weakened due to their constant communication.

Furthermore, in both examples, the friends were brought closer together, either to strengthen the bonds or before their bonds were weakened. Therefore, I guess I find it hard to believe that anything other than a lack of communication would weaken the ties of a friendship. Simply communicating with others forms bonds no matter how the communication is performed.  So I guess I do have a definitive answer!!! :) 

New Tech, New Ties

On page 15 the author makes reference to mobile phones doing more than just carrying out the function of holding a telephone conversation. He says that "the mobile telephone has emblematic status in modern society." Just by knowing what kind of telephone someone has could give you a more specific view of their life and status. Do you agree that something as simple as a telephone is a way in which we can give status to individuals? Are people being categorized by the type of cell phone they carry?

New Tech, New Ties: Mobile communications and bonds

Just quick: We were talking about Rutgers and the suicide. Someone asked if the roommate knew that the kid was gay. My roommate was watching the news and they said that the roommate had been posting on twitter how the boy was making out with other guys in the room.

On page 3 Ling says that "mobile communication seems to strengthen communication within the circle of friends." Do you agree with this statement even though it is now easier to ignore someones text or phone call? Is communication truly strengthened when most of the communication taking place on a mobile phone is text and "text talk" is as short and fast as possible? When we cannot see facial expressions or hear voice inflections?

On page 11 Ling says "once a bond is forged, however, mediated interaction is often as effective as co-present..." But what if a bond is not already established? Thanks to networks like Facebook it is easier to meet someone online and never meet face-to-face to establish a bond. Will mediated interaction still be just as effective then?

New Tech, New Ties pp. 1-39

Hey guys :)

In the first chapter of New Tech, New Ties, Ling discusses his "plumber" experience. On page 5, he proposes that his interaction with the plumber is an example of "how mediated interaction can sometimes take precedence over the co-present". Do you agree with this statement? Do you feel that you are a victim of this phenomenon?

-Allie

Whats the Reality of "Virtual Reality"?

The concept of virtual reality is an interesting one. Virtual reality allows the recreation of one's life to make it the way they please. In a virtual reality, you are anything you want to be at all. What makes virtual reality popular is that there are never any stressful problems people have to deal with in the virtual world, everything goes their way. The same cannot be said about real life. In real life, it is not that easy to make friends and have a healthy social life, make a business succeed, or do anything you want anytime you want to do it. In a virtual life, people are always interactive and social, because of this people are often unable to socialize in real life. Without the knowledge of how to socialize, it is very difficult to find a partner and be successful if co-workers do not like you very much. I feel that many people have become hooked on virtual reality and are disillusioned by the fact that they feel they can substitute whats real for the virtual world. The truth is that no matter what world you feel you can express yourself in, the real one is the only one that matters. The real world runs the virtual world.

Questions for "Communication Power" by Manuel Castells

On page 69, Castells discusses Second Life as a form of mass-self-communication that creates a "social space of virtual reality that combine sociability and experimentation with role-playing games. He reveals that players inability to create a utopia in Second Life make it so players are leaving, expanding the virtual frontier. How is the ability to leave and create new spaces of living going to affect how we relate to others online and in real life? Is virtual reality a new frontier if we're continually recreating the life we already have in reality?

On page 135, Castells writes that "convergence is fundamentally cultural and takes place, primarily, in the minds of the communicative subjects who integrate various modes and channels of communication their practice and in their interaction with each other." Do you agree with this statement, why or why not?

-Elizabeth and Leigh

Networks: Productive or Detrimental to Society?

    Ever since social networks came about they have taken off to be a huge hit on the internet.  Facebook now has millions upon millions of members and I personally have about 700 "facebook friends", half of whom I never talk to and some I barely even know.  They now even have a movie coming out about facebook and how much it is impacting our society.  But are social networks Productive or detrimental to our society?          
    Other than the typical type of network that we think of today, an internet social network, networks can also be word of mouth communication in getting your name out into the world.  This is a huge business practice and an effective way for up and coming college graduates to make a name for themselves in the career that they want to pursue. Some businesses even rely on networking to bring in most of their business.  For example, if you have ever heard of Amway Global, they have been around since the eighties, and are one of the biggest fortune 500 companies in America, but only recently have started producing commercials.  They relied solely on word of mouth networking to do business.  Now many people, including me will argue that this business is a business pyramid scheme and in no way should you get involved in this business, but nevertheless social networking is more prevalent in the business world than people think.
    I believe that one has to look at the context in how an individual is using the netwrok to determine whether or not it is detrimental.  If you are using facebook to keep in touch with long lost friends, than I don't see any problem with that.  But if you are using it to stalk people who you dont know or post obnoxious pictures and show off how cool you think you are, than it is detrimental to both our society and your own reputation.  As far as other types of networking.  I think that networking in the business world is a revolutionary idea and awesome in the business world.  Maybe not for a pyramid scheme, but for a student in college to go to a career fair and hand out resumes to different companies and businesses and get his/her name out in the world, that is networking at its finest.

Expressive Causality or Articulation and Assemblage?

    Technology is obviously a huge part of our world.  I don't think there is anybody that will deny that.  But the question that we have been investigating in class is how exactly it is a part of our world.  Slack and Wise have recently presented us with two different views on this matter. Expressive Causality and Articulation and Assemblage.
     Expressive Causality is a theory that states that all cultural connections or anything regarding technology and culture is derived from one essential element, or critical factor if you will. Eveything in culture has one underlying element to it which "caused" it.
     Articulation and Assemblage talks about how everything in culture is intermingled with technology and that it is integrally connected to th e context within which it is developed and used(Slack, Wise p112).  This is very different from the expressive causality standpoint in that there is no "critical element" explaining everything in technology.
     I personally tend to agree with Articulation and Assemblage.  When I get into my truck to drive to wherever I need to go, I dont think that I am doing it because of an underlying reason of efficient transportation, rather I am doing it because society has made it easier for me to transport myself and whatever else I have with me.  There are too many elements in technology today to all be explained by one critical factor.  Everything is brought together and related through the society that made them which is just as intermingled.

Why Networks Matter

This article did a great job of really contextualizing the effects networks have on all of our lives, and by all I mean globally.  I always knew that networks were important in terms of connecting with friends, joining special interest groups, etc, but I never realized the magnitude of its significance.  Using the arguments and support posed in Castells’ article, I tend to agree with his assumption that networks are the “underlying structure of our lives.”

This makes sense, especially when considering the potentially uninhibited reach the internet has on the world and its people.  In other words, networks know no boundaries.  This lack of borders facilitates globalization.  The downfall to this is that although there are no explicit borders, there are limitations to its reach based upon access.  Castells acknowledges that not all territories are able to be actively connected to this social network.  I attribute this to financial limitations; however, there may be other reasons.  Nevertheless, these people may be at a disadvantage, unable to contribute to the globalized influences, “shaped and ultimately dominated by the logic, interests and conflicts of this network society.”  The disadvantaged territories, in other words, have lost their voice; the democratic control is tarnished.  Although I am not directly impacted by such shortcomings, I would be interested to know what globally normalized concepts and practices would be different had everyone had the opportunity and access to partake in social networks?

Moreover, Castells’ discussion of space was very interesting to me.  He referred to the media (all types) as the “public space of our time.”  Previously, I had always thought of public space as room available to be used up by something or someone—tangible space.  It is interesting to think of public space, especially cyberspace, to exist without being tangible.  It goes to show that not only are there no boundaries to social networks, but there are also no boundaries to the amount of information being processed daily through these networks.  Its space will never be filled.

Globalization

I found this chapter of the Slack & Wise book somewhat disconnected from the other readings we had done in the past until I spent some time thinking about exactly how globalization and networking are linked. Now I think that there is a pretty strong connection, and I see why these reading were paired. First off, the Slack & Wise piece was very broad, talking about globalization in its most generic terms. I think the process described in the chapter has been going on in one form or another since the beginning of culture. In the eternal quest or society for more influence, homogeny seems to be the goal. Take for example, the Roman empire, or even Alexander the Great before then. These were forces that tried to rule the greater part of the world even without the sophisticated communications technology of today. Globalization is the process of cultures' influences spreading outward on a macro level.

The readings outside of the book were focused on identifying and describing networks and their role in cultural affairs. Similar to the idea of globalization put forth by Slack & Wise, this networking theory seems very generally crafted to describe a process happening all throughout human history. This is a bold thesis but is argued well in the Castells piece. I think that it's good to take a broad cultural and historical view on a topic that seems so novel as globalization and networking.

Globalization...

     After reading today’s assignment in Culture and Technology, I found that the concept of globalization and antiglobalization, to be very interesting and a very big issue in our society. I had no idea that is was as large and growing issue as it seems to be. Although I feel if I had to choose a side to agree with more, I would choose globalization- to an extent.

     Globalization to me sounds as if it is a good thing for certain aspects of society, such as the developmental, progress and convenience. Although I feel that “development” is the factor that I agree with most. Slack and Wise explain that globalization has helped the development of technology and the advancement of it in “underdeveloped” or “developing” worlds, to help them grown and become more modernized. (pg 185) But, with that being said, I feel that, like it says in the book, more attention needs to be recognized in the aspect of culture. Development is good, when certain important aspects are given attention to. Yet their explanation of globalization became clearer after reading the five “scapes”.    

     The five scapes, or landscapes ad Slack and Wise call it, help explain the globalization further. The five landscapes, are, ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, and ideoscapes. All five have to be considered when making advances in development, such as the placement of people, production, the movement of technology, money and the political aspect of the culture. While each landscape seems to build on each other or relate in one way or another to further globalization and the advancement of technologies in different cultures. 

Globalization and Networks

I believe that globalization isn't anything new to the world. Yet it has clearly become more prominent and acceptable. The example that Slack & Wise starts out about the different religions and cultures is particularly interesting. To me it shows how even with technology taking over people's lives, religious morals and beliefs are not lost. Perhaps this can be a transition into why anti-globalization is a bit extreme. Vandana Shiva, argues that globalization is dangerous and especially detrimental to women. However, I can't help to think of where the world would be without globalization. I think that many people complain and look for reasons to try to change the way things are. Yet they don't look at what they are doing every day, and how hypocritical they are.

The quote about power residing in networks I also found very interesting. Although it may be contradicting my view on globalization, I do somewhat agree with this. Perhaps because Castelle gives a convincing point. Yet, everything and everyone weather they think so or not are a part of a network. Networks become their own societies. It just so happens that now they are technological, which makes them more globalized. "Networks matter because they are the underlying structure of our lives"-- This is what Castelle says at the end of his article and I think that it is completely true. Without a network, and knowledge of the structure it is almost impossible to be sucesful in our lives.

Don't Subject Our World to the Blender

Of the ideas expressed in the globalization reading, I found the idea of different parts of globalization or “scapes” to be very interesting.  Each scape represents an interesting piece of the puzzle of progress.  More than building blocks, they weave together a complex web of interconnected supports.  Technology and media help define each other by each spreading the control and power of the other.  Though that can be seen in a negative light, there are many positives to this.  Technology supports health, safety, food, and communication, which then supports media.  Media helps spread the word of technology and its positives which generates more funding from the finance “scape”.  The finance and media thus fuel the idea of the technology “scape”.  These three would be no where without the “ideascape” providing the very essence of progress for them.  The spread of ideas allows for the advancement of communications and technology.  None of these would be available if not for the “Ethnoscape” and the spread and intermingling of different people from different cultures.

            This “ethnoscape” is also the key to whether globalization is a good thing or bad thing.  Ethnoscape is about intermingling of people and their language, culture and ideas not the diluting of different people and cultures.  We must acknowledge that different cultures may approach progress differently as India has in the example at the beginning of the article.  It shows a different outlook on the meaning and relevance of technology in one’s culture.  If we must progress we, the human race, must do it while preserving culture and the diversity of our planet. Different cultures provide new outlooks and ideas that others may not be able to see as easily based on different ideals and cultural webs.   Americans often use the analogy of a melting pot to describe America.  Truthfully, the world is a melting pot.  We must not let it become universal mush however.  Each ingredient, each culture has a flavor of its own and the melting pot is only at its best when each ingredient is allowed to keep most its original flavor.  Just don’t stick us in a blender or we’ll be right back where we started.  

Networks & Globalization

I found that the readings shed new light on what I thought connected the world. I have always known that the world was connected by a network of different people and leaders, but I did not think that every level of politics has its own network that spans all over the world. The constituents have their own network and so does businesses and lobbyists. After that, all of Congress has their own network with other American politicians, then the President and other world leaders. Through various webs we are all connected, and as more people are able to go into the network, the more complicated the webs become. 

With globalization's help, these networks will spread all over the world. Anti-globalist will try to stop it but its a futile cause. With progress of technology comes the desire from all people's to have it. Technology does cause homogenization of culture but people have apparently made their choices and that doesn't matter as much as checking Facebook to them. There is no end to the spread of technologies as they become more available to everyone, for example many tribes in Africa use cell phones to keep in touch with each other. Before the use of cell phones and the internet. Also almost everywhere in the world an American will be able to find at least one brand name they recognize, such as McDonald's. I experienced globalization first hand when I went to Europe in 2008 and was expecting to hear Spanish music in Spain, but I heard literally the same music I would hear on any American pop station, I was disappointed to know that I may never experience true foreign culture.

Globalization and Networks

When reading the two readings the one thing that struck me the most, was the fact that I had not really thought about any of this. Whatever is, just is. I am taught not to question anything, just to except it. But now that I have thought about it, in Castells piece, the idea that "network society expands on a global scale...networks know no boundaries" is rather creepy to me. I know that this concept is amazing in the way that it connects people faster and so on; but does anyone else find it weird that we have a "network society" as opposed to a... I don't know... face to face society. Even more so, doesn't it creep anybody out that this makes it so much easier for anyone, and I mean anyone, to stalk and find people. Although, he is right when he says, "networks are the underlying structure of our lives." It has always been that way. I just don't think that having a society and networks all online is completely healthy. When Castells says that "networks are the Matrix," does the movie "The Matrix" spring to mind for anybody else?

I do not always think in terms of "what can this technology do for us? and How will it effect others? and What can we gain from shipping this over seas and enslaving children and steeling peoples lively hoods?" I think more in the way of "do they even want this technology?" So when it comes to globalization, and the question of whether it is good or not, I don't really know. It depends on the situation. But what I do know is that in the piece by Slack and Wise on page 185 when they say, "Those advocating development often ignore the specific contexts of the reception of the products and knowledge, ignore local conditions, and ignore local knowledge," not once do they mention ignoring the wants and rights of those people. That's not right. And you know what else isn't right? The fact that we take away someones food for our own gain and the fact that boycotting companies that use child labor is even an issue. What on earth is our world coming to?

Globalization

            I found the chapter on globalization in Slack and Wise to be interesting.  It got me thinking about our society and our dependence on countries that most of us will never see.  Furthermore, it got me thinking about our lives without a global economy.  However, there are two specific parts of the chapter that really stood out to me.

            First, Slack and Wise quote Paul du Gay on his thoughts of globalization. Du Gay says, “The concept of globalization has achieved such widespread exposure, and has become such a powerful explanatory device and guide to action, that it sometimes appears almost unquestionable” (p.185). I agree with this statement because I feel that it has become this large push for companies to be global in order to compete in the economy.  Yet I am still confused at this large demand for globalization.  Although I do understand that there are ways in which we can rely on other countries for exports and vice versa, but it is very hard to see our own economy and our own local businesses hurting because so many companies have gone overseas for cheaper materials and labor.  This leads me questioning the intentions of our business and ultimately the effects that it is having on the rest of the world

            Secondly, Slack and Wise a landscape metaphor to discuss globalization. They say, “Because they continually contradict each other, globalization will never become a process of homogenization” (p. 186).  This statement pretty much directly contradicts a study that I had read for another class. I cannot recall the exact specifications of the study, but it was about the way music has become homogenized through a meshing of styles. Although they were not specifically referring to music, I think it serves as a pretty strong example.  I don’t think it’s possible for cultures to be mixed and for no crossing over to occur.  Maybe no crossing over will take place in the beginning, but over time I think it’s plausible for cultures to adapt and change based on what they’ve witnessed/ learned of others. 

Globalization of What?

On the subject of globalization, I personally tend to be more for it than against it, though this naturally relies heavily on what exactly it is that is being globalized.  For example, I am heavily in favor of spreading computers, the internet, and other related technologies to every single corner of the world.  This is because I believe it can do a great deal of good for many countries out there, and help them become connected to the rest of the world.  However, as another example, I am fully against the globalization of something like government.  Under no circumstances will I ever find it acceptable to place the entire planet under the rule of a single government body, as it will be destined to ignore the needs of a great deal of people (the form of government would not matter either, as even in a democracy there is always a minority which does not get what it wants any time there is a debate/conflict).  Thus, this brings me to my point:  I do not believe there should be one single term for “globalization,” as it can mean many different things.  Whenever I see the term globalization used, especially if used negatively, I always find myself asking:  Globalization of what?  After all, I’m sure most, if not all, people can agree that there are some things that would be great to spread to a global scale while there are others that would not be.

                What always amuses me in discussions of globalization, however, is the fact that there are actually anti-globalization groups.  As I have always seen it, such groups are futile in the grand scheme of things.  If one were to stand back and look at the entire issue as a whole, I do not see how someone could reasonably believe they could “stop” globalization.  Such anti-globalization groups usually claim that they are fighting to prevent a take-over of smaller, weaker cultures and governments by larger ones (usually Western governments and ideals).  Yet, this is exactly my point.  If the world’s largest, most powerful, and influential governments and corporations are attempting to do something, how can someone even reasonably believe they have a chance of doing anything?  While even I will admit that this can be a somewhat depressing view, it is also a realistic one.  Just think about it.  If the world’s most powerful corporation or government really wants to do something, it is going to do it.  Not to mention, most anti-globalization groups, as Slack and Wise mention, seem to completely ignore the idea of technological globalization.  Which, once again, raises my original point:  Globalization of what, exactly?  How can they claim to be “anti-globalization” if they do not mention, or perhaps even support, the globalization of technology?  Perhaps, then, instead of fighting against this seemingly unstoppable force, they should put their time, energy, and money into improving the process, working with it to make it better (similar to how Castells mentions creating counter networks to fight the original networks).  If you are worried about the effects of something out of your control, then you should spend your time improving whatever that may be to ensure that it has minimal negative impact.  After all, (unless you happen to be an immovable object) fighting against an unstoppable force will get you nowhere.