So I did not blog at all last month. I suck. Never mind. It isn't as though anyone reads it, and I think I do it more to reassure myself that I can write more than just status updates these days.
Anyway, I actually do not have that much to write about at present. So I think I will use this space to outline a bit of a goal for myself. I think it is fair to say that I feel pretty directionless at the moment. Rather than being depressed about it though, I actually feel kind of free. I had wanted to go straight back into Anthropology next year and do a PhD., but now I'm not so sure, and the realisation that I might not do that has kind of opened a whole realm of possibility up for me mentally.
I think my most likely course of action will be to study a post-graduate diploma in criminology. It would be a very interesting topic for me, and one that could open up a lot of career opportunities. I would probably have to do it through the Open university, or I would have to move to Melbourne. I'm not fussed either way to be honest. I could continue working at Haigh's quite happily if I was studying again.
If I moved to Melbourne I might still work for Haigh's, considering they've 5 stores over there as well.
Another option that my Dad actually suggested, was to apply for a position in Canberra with one of a few government branches. That way I'd have a challenging job, live in a new place, and, should I want to continue study later on, the department might help me to do that.
So that's exciting! Of course I would love to continue my life as it is now, if I were satisfied with that, but I know I will get despondant again, and I need some goals and directions. All through our childhoods we are brought up with the idea of progress and of attaining higher levels, and so living a year with no goal other than to "have a year off" has been kind of odd. But not unenjoyable!
Hm... I think I'm off to go and look into the Open university for a bit...
xoxo
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Kristina Horner, a youtube and wrock celebrity, recently wrote a blog that I found really interesting. Actually, I find most of her blogs really interesting because she is just such a normal person who leads a life that I am occasionally quite jealous of. But anyway, but to the blog - she was discussing the way that she is viewed as a youtube celebrity, and how the fact that she has loads of subscribers and makes videos about her life makes viewers believe that they have the right to comment on her life.
She sums it up well - if she asked what we think, or asked for advice, then we would be entitled to answer and give opinions. But in videos when she is just talking about her tour, or her car, or skymall products, comments about her relationship are uncalled for.
The idea of celebrity is a big mess anyway, in my opinion. But when you apply it to YouTube celebrity, it gets wierder. On YouTube, subscribers get to feel that they know the youtuber, especially if many of their videos fit into the 'vlog' category. I blogged about this before, but this leads to the feeling of a one way relationship that feels more like friendship than fandom. This alone makes the experience of both being a YouTube celeb AND a 'fan'/viewer/subscriber inherently different. Add to this the freedom of any viewer (whether regular or not) to comment on videos without restriction (well, unless it is spam or ridiculously explicit) leads to a space that enables the free performance of both "fandom" and hating.
Think about it - in real life, if you were speaking about something, or performing something, not everyone would come up to you and say "Wow that was great" - only a small percentage of brave people would. Even fewer would come up and say "Oh man, that was horrible" and I doubt anyone would say "Hey you know your boyfriend is like a foot shorter than you? Your relationship is therefore doomed". If they did I am sure they would get a very alarmed look and people would slowly back away from them...
On YouTube however, many more viewers feel inclined to comment because it is a free space. No one (virtually) is going to come up to you in real life and say "You are out of line!". Any resulting confrontation is confined to the computer which you can walk away from. But does that free space entitle us as viewers to use that freedom to comment on anything?
Kristina argues that it doesn't. And I would be inclined to agree. It comes down to respect really. Respect for a person's life with the understanding that just because they are opening their lives up in some small way or performance, does not mean they are now an open and free book for all to comment, scrutinise and change. Of course, in an ideal world we would all understand that and be as respectful to YouTubers as we are to our friends. Naturally, this world is not ideal and I think we will be hard pressed to stop people from feeling they have the liberty to comment on every aspect of someone who they have a relatively small understanding of personally.
The solution? No idea! But with Kristina I believe she is pretty well protected. Her subscribers are pretty loyal, and we tend to shout down (or thumbs down) overly rude or disrespectful comments rather rapidly...
Kristina's channel and blog.
She sums it up well - if she asked what we think, or asked for advice, then we would be entitled to answer and give opinions. But in videos when she is just talking about her tour, or her car, or skymall products, comments about her relationship are uncalled for.
The idea of celebrity is a big mess anyway, in my opinion. But when you apply it to YouTube celebrity, it gets wierder. On YouTube, subscribers get to feel that they know the youtuber, especially if many of their videos fit into the 'vlog' category. I blogged about this before, but this leads to the feeling of a one way relationship that feels more like friendship than fandom. This alone makes the experience of both being a YouTube celeb AND a 'fan'/viewer/subscriber inherently different. Add to this the freedom of any viewer (whether regular or not) to comment on videos without restriction (well, unless it is spam or ridiculously explicit) leads to a space that enables the free performance of both "fandom" and hating.
Think about it - in real life, if you were speaking about something, or performing something, not everyone would come up to you and say "Wow that was great" - only a small percentage of brave people would. Even fewer would come up and say "Oh man, that was horrible" and I doubt anyone would say "Hey you know your boyfriend is like a foot shorter than you? Your relationship is therefore doomed". If they did I am sure they would get a very alarmed look and people would slowly back away from them...
On YouTube however, many more viewers feel inclined to comment because it is a free space. No one (virtually) is going to come up to you in real life and say "You are out of line!". Any resulting confrontation is confined to the computer which you can walk away from. But does that free space entitle us as viewers to use that freedom to comment on anything?
Kristina argues that it doesn't. And I would be inclined to agree. It comes down to respect really. Respect for a person's life with the understanding that just because they are opening their lives up in some small way or performance, does not mean they are now an open and free book for all to comment, scrutinise and change. Of course, in an ideal world we would all understand that and be as respectful to YouTubers as we are to our friends. Naturally, this world is not ideal and I think we will be hard pressed to stop people from feeling they have the liberty to comment on every aspect of someone who they have a relatively small understanding of personally.
The solution? No idea! But with Kristina I believe she is pretty well protected. Her subscribers are pretty loyal, and we tend to shout down (or thumbs down) overly rude or disrespectful comments rather rapidly...
Kristina's channel and blog.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Boyfriend Blabber
WARNING: This post is not very interesting. I just feel like talking about my boyfriend... so... yeh!
Right. Well firstly, my boyfriend is lovely. He is hilarious, sweet, and affectionate. Plus he's incredibly good looking if you ask me, which doesn't hurt either. I know sometimes I let myself get overly dramatic and think that it isn't going to work out. And sometimes I realise that, you know - this is my first proper relationship! What are the chances of it working out? Which leads to freak out blogs and people worrying that things aren't all as chipper as they might seem.
The fact of the matter is though, I think that things as they are, it will work out. And sure, I might occasionally yearn for a passionate affair with someone who is completely not like Nannal but I really don't believe that comes from a place of unhappiness. That is more likely the old "The Grass is Always Greener" truth.
Nannal makes me laugh. He makes me feel beautiful. He makes me feel loved.
If this was even 50 years ago, the chances are that we'd be married now... But it isn't 50 years ago, and it isn't expected that we'll do it, so we won't. And I am actually ok with that. Sometimes I look at other people's weddings and I really do understand why people do it. And sometimes I think about what I would want for myself. But I am perfectly happy to save myself the trouble, and keep us as "basically married" rather than "actually married" lol. I never used to want to get married. I though it was an outdated convention that really had no place in a modern relationship... lol. But I guess my perspective has shifted and I have more respect for these things. So if Nannal suddenly got it into his head that it would be an awesome idea... I'd probably do it. Freaking out all the way, naturally...
That's the long and short of it. I guess what I need to do, is print off all this ... and everything that reminds me of why I love him, and stick it somewhere so when we have a fight, or when I feel all doom and gloom, I can read it and snap out of it. Because he is worth it. We are worth it.
Ok. Enough blabber. Its time for some coffee!
Right. Well firstly, my boyfriend is lovely. He is hilarious, sweet, and affectionate. Plus he's incredibly good looking if you ask me, which doesn't hurt either. I know sometimes I let myself get overly dramatic and think that it isn't going to work out. And sometimes I realise that, you know - this is my first proper relationship! What are the chances of it working out? Which leads to freak out blogs and people worrying that things aren't all as chipper as they might seem.
The fact of the matter is though, I think that things as they are, it will work out. And sure, I might occasionally yearn for a passionate affair with someone who is completely not like Nannal but I really don't believe that comes from a place of unhappiness. That is more likely the old "The Grass is Always Greener" truth.
Nannal makes me laugh. He makes me feel beautiful. He makes me feel loved.
If this was even 50 years ago, the chances are that we'd be married now... But it isn't 50 years ago, and it isn't expected that we'll do it, so we won't. And I am actually ok with that. Sometimes I look at other people's weddings and I really do understand why people do it. And sometimes I think about what I would want for myself. But I am perfectly happy to save myself the trouble, and keep us as "basically married" rather than "actually married" lol. I never used to want to get married. I though it was an outdated convention that really had no place in a modern relationship... lol. But I guess my perspective has shifted and I have more respect for these things. So if Nannal suddenly got it into his head that it would be an awesome idea... I'd probably do it. Freaking out all the way, naturally...
That's the long and short of it. I guess what I need to do, is print off all this ... and everything that reminds me of why I love him, and stick it somewhere so when we have a fight, or when I feel all doom and gloom, I can read it and snap out of it. Because he is worth it. We are worth it.
Ok. Enough blabber. Its time for some coffee!
Monday, July 6, 2009
Non-cyst-based-news
In other less gross news...
Last night while trying to get to sleep, I stumbled across a show on ABC that showed that battle of the native Aboriginal people of the Yorke Peninsula to preserve their sacred ground from development. It was a very emotional program actually.
You see, all along the coast line there are areas where Aboriginal people lived and died. Thus there are many areas where they were buried. Just like a white cemetery, this ground is special and sacred to them. And it should be special and sacred to us too, because this is our land as well now. But developers don't seem to be able to fit their plans around the local people.
In one case, crushed bones were found where a development had gone ahead despite the claim of local Aboriginal people that the land was a sacred site. There was a water hole, which typically means that there will be burials around the area (any where that people gathered on a regular basis is bound to be a place where people will also die). And despite the claim that the area was significant, and an archeologist's claim that it was also archeologically significant, the develpment went ahead. Lo and behold - human bone fragments were discovered.
Its just shocking. For the Aboriginal people, there is such a connection between the land and the human. Dream time stories illustrate this with the easy shift between humans and animals into landscape. When an Aboriginal person dies, and they are buried, they do not disappear. They are returned to the land that they came from. That spot, that land is sacred. It is the person, just as the person is the land. Life and land are sacred because they are the same thing.
So imagine what it would feel like to watch that land where your ancestors have been buried, being torn up. Being dug up. Being disturbed, changed, desecrated. It was hard for me to watch, and I can't even fully understand what they must be feeling.
So I changed my mind. One of the first things I would do with $90 million would be to buy sacred land and make it protected. To make it a park or something that belongs to the local people.
All sacred sites should be heritage listed. Why aren't they? I mean, if you can heritage list a building that was built 150 years ago by someone who arrived here on a boat, surely you can heritage list something that was made thousands of years ago by generations of people who were born and died in this country, for this country, with this country.
I don't want to go on about it, but it strikes me as something that is incredibly important, but is overlooked by virtually everybody. The cultural landscape of the aboriginal people is hard enough to define as it is. It is hard to preserve. But how can you maintain it even ideologically without the land that is integral to it? That inspires it? How? What is important to one person should be respected by another. That's as simple as I can put it... And how can we keep denying that?
Last night while trying to get to sleep, I stumbled across a show on ABC that showed that battle of the native Aboriginal people of the Yorke Peninsula to preserve their sacred ground from development. It was a very emotional program actually.
You see, all along the coast line there are areas where Aboriginal people lived and died. Thus there are many areas where they were buried. Just like a white cemetery, this ground is special and sacred to them. And it should be special and sacred to us too, because this is our land as well now. But developers don't seem to be able to fit their plans around the local people.
In one case, crushed bones were found where a development had gone ahead despite the claim of local Aboriginal people that the land was a sacred site. There was a water hole, which typically means that there will be burials around the area (any where that people gathered on a regular basis is bound to be a place where people will also die). And despite the claim that the area was significant, and an archeologist's claim that it was also archeologically significant, the develpment went ahead. Lo and behold - human bone fragments were discovered.
Its just shocking. For the Aboriginal people, there is such a connection between the land and the human. Dream time stories illustrate this with the easy shift between humans and animals into landscape. When an Aboriginal person dies, and they are buried, they do not disappear. They are returned to the land that they came from. That spot, that land is sacred. It is the person, just as the person is the land. Life and land are sacred because they are the same thing.
So imagine what it would feel like to watch that land where your ancestors have been buried, being torn up. Being dug up. Being disturbed, changed, desecrated. It was hard for me to watch, and I can't even fully understand what they must be feeling.
So I changed my mind. One of the first things I would do with $90 million would be to buy sacred land and make it protected. To make it a park or something that belongs to the local people.
All sacred sites should be heritage listed. Why aren't they? I mean, if you can heritage list a building that was built 150 years ago by someone who arrived here on a boat, surely you can heritage list something that was made thousands of years ago by generations of people who were born and died in this country, for this country, with this country.
I don't want to go on about it, but it strikes me as something that is incredibly important, but is overlooked by virtually everybody. The cultural landscape of the aboriginal people is hard enough to define as it is. It is hard to preserve. But how can you maintain it even ideologically without the land that is integral to it? That inspires it? How? What is important to one person should be respected by another. That's as simple as I can put it... And how can we keep denying that?
Oh that old Thyroglossal Cyst...
Today I discovered that the lump that magically appeared on my neck yesterday morning is called a "Thyroglossal cyst" (please note that I would not have remembered this if it had not been for the wonders of wikipedia...). It is a cyst that grows along the membrane that connects the tongue to the thyroid. Apparently there are ducts there and sometimes they get all cysty - as many other parts of the human body do too...
The wierd thing about this though, is that it is a lump under my chin, on my neck, that makes me look a little like I'm a frog, or that I've suddenly developed another chin... or more accurately, that I am growing a golf ball from my neck.
Yes it looks wierd... but that is not all. You see, since it is connected to my tongue, whenever I move my tongue, it hurts. "But how often do you really move your tongue Amanda?" Well, kind non-existant-questioner, the answer is - A LOT.
You move your tongue to swallow, to eat, to drink, to talk, to cough. To absent mindedly lick your lips (which becomes less absent minded when you think "OW!").
Naturally, what with this lump being in my neck, it also hurts when I let my head fall forward. As it turns out, I do that a lot when I'm trying to sleep ... which means that it is a lot harder to fall asleep...
Oh man... what an odd malady.
But don't worry it should go away within 4-6weeks...
BUGGER!
The wierd thing about this though, is that it is a lump under my chin, on my neck, that makes me look a little like I'm a frog, or that I've suddenly developed another chin... or more accurately, that I am growing a golf ball from my neck.
Yes it looks wierd... but that is not all. You see, since it is connected to my tongue, whenever I move my tongue, it hurts. "But how often do you really move your tongue Amanda?" Well, kind non-existant-questioner, the answer is - A LOT.
You move your tongue to swallow, to eat, to drink, to talk, to cough. To absent mindedly lick your lips (which becomes less absent minded when you think "OW!").
Naturally, what with this lump being in my neck, it also hurts when I let my head fall forward. As it turns out, I do that a lot when I'm trying to sleep ... which means that it is a lot harder to fall asleep...
Oh man... what an odd malady.
But don't worry it should go away within 4-6weeks...
BUGGER!
Saturday, July 4, 2009
90 Million Dollars
Oh my. Every week huh Amanda? Try once a month you slackarse. :-P
Anyway. Lately everyone has been discussing what they would have done if they had been lucky enough to win the $90 million OZLotto that went off last Tuesday... so I thought I would share my thoughts.
First off - GET RID OF DEBT! That's my first goal whether I win money or not. I have debt and I don't like it. So the first thing would be to pay off my credit card, my car loan, and my HECS.
Next thing: a permanent investment. Buy a house to live in. That is also in the cards for ordinary savings... but I think if I had a ridiculous amount of money to spend, the house I envision would be just a tad different. Still, I don't think it would be palatial or anything. Just roomy, and really, really well constructed and designed.
On top of that I would buy a house for Nannal (just so we're even), and two investment properties to rent out. Then a house for my sister, pay off my parent's mortgage, Nannal's parent's mortgage, and buy them both a holiday house wherever they want. My nephew would probably also get a house, but I imagine it would be an investment property.
Speaking of Charlie, I would put aside a fair bit of money for him too. Say, $1,000,000? Why not - he's my nephew!
Oh and my friends would naturally all get huge amounts of money.
I was thinking I could probably pay for all of my friends to come with me to some exotic location for a week or so. We could have the most exciting cocktails, get facials all day and do whatever the hell it is rich people do on holiday.
But all that would probably make me feel a little guilty. And having that much money is a bit ridiculous so I would give some to charity. Which charities? Well, that's the question. There are SO many of them! But off the top of my head, probably Childfund, World Vision, Red Cross, Amnesty International, The Wilderness Society, The Cancer Council ... a charity to do with disabled children ... downs syndrome... all things that are close to my heart and are underfunded by Governments.
The funny thing is, even doing all that, you would probably have so much money left over!
Lets see:
My debt (and this is mainly uni so don't judge me): $33,000
My House: $800,000
Nannal's house: $600,000 (can't be as good as mine :P)
Investment properties: $800,000
Teeni's house: $400,000 (given she lives up north, that's practically a mansion)
Charlies house: $400,000 (one in the city)
Parent's mortgages: $100,000
Holiday houses: $1,200,000
Charlie's money: $1,000,000
Friends (20 of them ish): $10,000,000
Trip to Hawaii or something with 15 people: $1,500,000
Charity: $9,000,000
What's that? Like less than $26,000,000!!
Oh I'd make scholarships, and regular donations to this that and the other. I'd probably invest in shares. I'd probably try and fix up some old family heritage houses. I'd go around the world - comprehensively!
I'd build a school.
I'd build the best goddam orphanage any kid has ever seen in Romania because that shit is just not on.
And still I'd have millions left over. Its enough to make you cry at the absurdity of it.
Anyway. Lately everyone has been discussing what they would have done if they had been lucky enough to win the $90 million OZLotto that went off last Tuesday... so I thought I would share my thoughts.
First off - GET RID OF DEBT! That's my first goal whether I win money or not. I have debt and I don't like it. So the first thing would be to pay off my credit card, my car loan, and my HECS.
Next thing: a permanent investment. Buy a house to live in. That is also in the cards for ordinary savings... but I think if I had a ridiculous amount of money to spend, the house I envision would be just a tad different. Still, I don't think it would be palatial or anything. Just roomy, and really, really well constructed and designed.
On top of that I would buy a house for Nannal (just so we're even), and two investment properties to rent out. Then a house for my sister, pay off my parent's mortgage, Nannal's parent's mortgage, and buy them both a holiday house wherever they want. My nephew would probably also get a house, but I imagine it would be an investment property.
Speaking of Charlie, I would put aside a fair bit of money for him too. Say, $1,000,000? Why not - he's my nephew!
Oh and my friends would naturally all get huge amounts of money.
I was thinking I could probably pay for all of my friends to come with me to some exotic location for a week or so. We could have the most exciting cocktails, get facials all day and do whatever the hell it is rich people do on holiday.
But all that would probably make me feel a little guilty. And having that much money is a bit ridiculous so I would give some to charity. Which charities? Well, that's the question. There are SO many of them! But off the top of my head, probably Childfund, World Vision, Red Cross, Amnesty International, The Wilderness Society, The Cancer Council ... a charity to do with disabled children ... downs syndrome... all things that are close to my heart and are underfunded by Governments.
The funny thing is, even doing all that, you would probably have so much money left over!
Lets see:
My debt (and this is mainly uni so don't judge me): $33,000
My House: $800,000
Nannal's house: $600,000 (can't be as good as mine :P)
Investment properties: $800,000
Teeni's house: $400,000 (given she lives up north, that's practically a mansion)
Charlies house: $400,000 (one in the city)
Parent's mortgages: $100,000
Holiday houses: $1,200,000
Charlie's money: $1,000,000
Friends (20 of them ish): $10,000,000
Trip to Hawaii or something with 15 people: $1,500,000
Charity: $9,000,000
What's that? Like less than $26,000,000!!
Oh I'd make scholarships, and regular donations to this that and the other. I'd probably invest in shares. I'd probably try and fix up some old family heritage houses. I'd go around the world - comprehensively!
I'd build a school.
I'd build the best goddam orphanage any kid has ever seen in Romania because that shit is just not on.
And still I'd have millions left over. Its enough to make you cry at the absurdity of it.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Community Online
Slack slack slack I have been. But really, when all you do all day is a variation on surfing the web, trying to find a job, cleaning, cooking (watching too much masterchef) and watching TV/DVDs, what is there to blog about?
I guess with my increased viewing of the News I could comment on the big stories, like the Iranian elections, the Air France disaster, and the horrible things happening in many parts of the world, but really, I don't think what I have to offer could contribute very much since my understanding of the situation is based mostly on snippets seen on biased news stations.
However, I have made a decision. I will blog at least once a week. I will even try to blog about something interesting. I know... bold move.
So for the first attempt at something interesting, here is my take on:
Community Online
This is a topic I could talk your ear off about. It is a major point in studying the Internet from an Anthropological perspective, as well as generally interesting for any one who regularly uses the web.
For me I find the concept of community online at once both attractive and confusing. When you are part of an online community, there is no doubt that there really is a sense of community. However when you are not part of an online community there is a sense of disbelief that such a sense could occur.
For example, I was part of an online community of viewers/participants in the LonelyGirl15 phenomenon. I actually came to it fairly late, but was around for the last 2 seasons. In watching regularly, and being an active part of the forums, it was easy to identify myself as part of the community. We solved problems together, we knew eachother's names. We knew eachother's quirks and biases. However it took intensive involvement to feel like a real part of this community of fans.
On the other hand, nowadays twitter is becoming massive. A lot of people talk about the ways that twitter is interactive and social, but for me, as someone who follows many people, but only has advertisers following me (I guess they think that I will be so grateful that someone cares that I'll buy their product...), twitter is more like television, or news headlines. I am updated constantly on what people are doing. I can reply to what people are doing, but I never hear anything back. It is entirely one way for me. It isn't that way for everyone though... for example several of the people I follow are friends (online and off) who tweet, retweet and reply to eachother. They sometimes have entire conversations via twitter. But for someone who is really only following because I am a fan of these people and the creative work, I am not really a part of the community.
The begs the question - what is community?
Oh and what a question. Anthropology has tried to answer this question so many times, and before the internet community usually suggested vague links to do with common interest, and common geography. For example I live in the Barossa Valley and people talk frequently about the community here.
With those vague guidelines I guess community online makes sense. Common interest is obvious - you can be part of a community on YouTube that vlogs about certain things, or a group online in favour of something, part of a fandom etc. Common geography in a less traditional sense makes sense as well. While we are definately not all in the same physical location, we generally converge on particular sites. For example there are You Tube communities, LonelyGirl15.com, Harry Potter fans at leaky-cauldron.org, or mugglenet.com. Groups of people with common interests often form their own sites with forums that they can interact on and discuss the topic or topics that bind them.
But with online communities, more so (I think) than offline communities, there is a heavier emphasis on participation. While I am part of the Barossa community, I don't really do anything. I shop in the Barossa and I live here, but I don't participate in community events really. Whereas online I would not count myself as part of a community unless I was involved. I would have to at least join the site, at least read some forums or articles etc., in order to feel that I was part of a community, and in order for others to feel that I was too.
I guess with online communities that emphasis on participation is needed because unless you participate, no one actually knows you exist. In the Barossa community I am counted in because I live in the Barossa. I have an address in the Barossa and people (if they look hard enough) know where I am. Online if I just lurk, so to speak, no one knows I exist, and I can't be a part of a community if I effectively don't exist to the other members.
So I guess that is the sticking point... Interaction. Involvement. Interest. Ooooh. Three I's... isn't that convenient?
More analysis would be easier if I actually made an effort to research the specific ways that people define community in anthropological texts and elsewhere, but I feel that most people don't go on definitions that theorists have made over the last 100 years. Most people do what I do, and define them based on their experiences. "When is the word community most used in the context of my life?" is a more useful question than "What does the Oxford Student's Dictionary (now with colour!) say about community?" or "What did that man 40 years ago say about community?".
Aaaanyway. That went on for a lot longer than I planned. But at least I can say I've done something this morning. ^.^
xo
I guess with my increased viewing of the News I could comment on the big stories, like the Iranian elections, the Air France disaster, and the horrible things happening in many parts of the world, but really, I don't think what I have to offer could contribute very much since my understanding of the situation is based mostly on snippets seen on biased news stations.
However, I have made a decision. I will blog at least once a week. I will even try to blog about something interesting. I know... bold move.
So for the first attempt at something interesting, here is my take on:
Community Online
This is a topic I could talk your ear off about. It is a major point in studying the Internet from an Anthropological perspective, as well as generally interesting for any one who regularly uses the web.
For me I find the concept of community online at once both attractive and confusing. When you are part of an online community, there is no doubt that there really is a sense of community. However when you are not part of an online community there is a sense of disbelief that such a sense could occur.
For example, I was part of an online community of viewers/participants in the LonelyGirl15 phenomenon. I actually came to it fairly late, but was around for the last 2 seasons. In watching regularly, and being an active part of the forums, it was easy to identify myself as part of the community. We solved problems together, we knew eachother's names. We knew eachother's quirks and biases. However it took intensive involvement to feel like a real part of this community of fans.
On the other hand, nowadays twitter is becoming massive. A lot of people talk about the ways that twitter is interactive and social, but for me, as someone who follows many people, but only has advertisers following me (I guess they think that I will be so grateful that someone cares that I'll buy their product...), twitter is more like television, or news headlines. I am updated constantly on what people are doing. I can reply to what people are doing, but I never hear anything back. It is entirely one way for me. It isn't that way for everyone though... for example several of the people I follow are friends (online and off) who tweet, retweet and reply to eachother. They sometimes have entire conversations via twitter. But for someone who is really only following because I am a fan of these people and the creative work, I am not really a part of the community.
The begs the question - what is community?
Oh and what a question. Anthropology has tried to answer this question so many times, and before the internet community usually suggested vague links to do with common interest, and common geography. For example I live in the Barossa Valley and people talk frequently about the community here.
With those vague guidelines I guess community online makes sense. Common interest is obvious - you can be part of a community on YouTube that vlogs about certain things, or a group online in favour of something, part of a fandom etc. Common geography in a less traditional sense makes sense as well. While we are definately not all in the same physical location, we generally converge on particular sites. For example there are You Tube communities, LonelyGirl15.com, Harry Potter fans at leaky-cauldron.org, or mugglenet.com. Groups of people with common interests often form their own sites with forums that they can interact on and discuss the topic or topics that bind them.
But with online communities, more so (I think) than offline communities, there is a heavier emphasis on participation. While I am part of the Barossa community, I don't really do anything. I shop in the Barossa and I live here, but I don't participate in community events really. Whereas online I would not count myself as part of a community unless I was involved. I would have to at least join the site, at least read some forums or articles etc., in order to feel that I was part of a community, and in order for others to feel that I was too.
I guess with online communities that emphasis on participation is needed because unless you participate, no one actually knows you exist. In the Barossa community I am counted in because I live in the Barossa. I have an address in the Barossa and people (if they look hard enough) know where I am. Online if I just lurk, so to speak, no one knows I exist, and I can't be a part of a community if I effectively don't exist to the other members.
So I guess that is the sticking point... Interaction. Involvement. Interest. Ooooh. Three I's... isn't that convenient?
More analysis would be easier if I actually made an effort to research the specific ways that people define community in anthropological texts and elsewhere, but I feel that most people don't go on definitions that theorists have made over the last 100 years. Most people do what I do, and define them based on their experiences. "When is the word community most used in the context of my life?" is a more useful question than "What does the Oxford Student's Dictionary (now with colour!) say about community?" or "What did that man 40 years ago say about community?".
Aaaanyway. That went on for a lot longer than I planned. But at least I can say I've done something this morning. ^.^
xo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
