The Problem with Bloggers 1 : nationcentrism
preliminary observations and conclusions
All this talk about blogging and the internet bringing people together is true when it comes to bringing together people with pre-existing similarities as opposed to creating new ones.
What I have observed this past few years, as far as trends go, is that bloggers
tend to comment on whatever you have to say given the fulfillment of 3
conditions:
1. That it is about local issues or issues directly impacting on local
interests,
2. That it is not 'academic' and
handles issues, trivial or otherwise, superficially.
* ‘academic’ - which is a term of dis-endearment emerging from many bloggers’ own (verifiable) intellectual and perspectival mediocrity and which is probably used to allay, via the scornful use of the term, any feelings of inadequacy engendered by another's relatively analytical perspective.
3. That it is about personal
experiences and interests that people, whatever part of the world they are
from, share, and which is perfectly illustrated by, amongst others, the
popularity and cross-national responses to those answering Vox's ubiquitous and
self-centred 'QOTDs'. (as opposed to QOTWs)
With regards to the first point,
…the implication is clear – ‘if it ain’t about us, it ain’t happening’.
This gross self-centredness and nationcentrism on the part of bloggers thus leave only one avenue via which they may, metaphorically-speaking, link arms across the waters – pursuit of similar interests. When we leave out global blogger participation on significant, albeit ‘local’ issues, what we are left with is assimilation to those whom are perceived to be in the forefront of what’s ‘cool’ and ‘hip’. When we take on board the fact that much of the world’s media takes its perspectival cue from its American counterpart; that many ‘blogawards’ of significance are disbursed by the west; and many ‘blogawards’ of local origin, like the media, take its cue from the former, what we are left with is a world that is indeed ‘becoming smaller’, but which is becoming increasingly monoculturalised as well. Of course, many in the west might disagree with this, but as they get their information about other cultures from the perspectives of westernised ‘others’, the saying, ‘s/he who knows no better will know no better’(ed), applies.
Anyone traversing the multitude of blogs out there may study this phenomenon for themselves so long as they look for the indicators as opposed to imbibing whatever is being proffered by fairy lights and fanfare. The following questions may serve as a guideline,
1. how many blogs publish articles on issues that do not directly impact on their own local/personal interests?
2. how many comments about local interests are from ‘foreigners’ whose own interests are not directly impacted upon by these interests?
3. Where comments are submitted by
‘foreigners’ on issues pertaining to the interests of others, do they basically
use that opportunity to speak solely about their own similar local situations or do they address the issue
itself. Are they more inclined towards
the former or the latter?
Findings, with regards to the above, may indicate the kind of ‘coming together’
that is taking place that may in turn suggest that whilst the world may be ‘coming
together’ via the internet and blogs, the minds of the individuals comprising
this ‘world’ is also becoming increasingly polarised in significant ways whilst uniting in insignificant ones.
We are, to a significant degree, defined by the plane wherein we unite as this affords us validation by the sheer numbers or significance of selfsame others. In the context of the above, this bodes ill for the development of bloggers into intelligent, globally conscious and conscientious cosmopolitans.
blogging bloggers uk internet blogs usa malaysia hong kong singapore india philippines taiwan australia venezuela society sociology psychology culture
Comments
Wow! I guess I'm one of those unintelligent people you speak of:( I'm sorry for you that you're not having luck connecting with people via blogging. I can only speak for myself when I say that I'm not into the local scene (I get enough of that at home) and I'm not into myself so much HOWEVER I have to be able to relate to what you're (or anyone) is saying in order to comment on your blog.
There are so many differences with the people in MY neighborhood. I enjoy the differences. I learn from some of them. These are the things I look for. Can I learn from you or can I relate OR are you interesting. It's really that simple. I guess I haven't taken the time to analyze the whole "blog" scene as well as you have.
That is conjecture, shellakers.
So do I. However, i do find that whilst there are sub-generic differences between them, generically, many are similar in that very few speak insightfully on relatively insignificant issues, or speak, or do so insightfully, on significant issues. It's not what 'bloggers' do but what they fail to do that is of interest. If you have 'analysed' blogs to a significant degree as you claim, you would have realised that, amongst others, the popularity of the 'qotd' indicates some generic similarity (deficiency?) amongst a significant proportion of bloggers.(the very same people who claim the right to vote, rally around on geopolitical issues when it impacts upon them in disagreeable ways, but constantly fail to take their global citizenship seriously by paying a significant proportion of their blogging time to discuss related matters that serve as the basis upon which things later become disagreeable.)
Thank you for your thoughts.
I've noticed that most of my blogs are pointless, but there are occasionally the ones that are amazing and I really want people to read them. Read my blog people! Wait, no, don't. :)
Now that's cute. I think that can be a good thing actually. Entitling an article before writing it does have the potential of imposing a particular direction for one's thoughts as opposed to leaving it open for the development of ideas that might just come up whilst one is writing. I suppose this is the freedom one can enjoy and take advantage of whilst self-publishing as it can give rise to a host of ideas which can be explored in their own right in future articles.
I do not begrudge people starting, amongst others, 'personal' or 'information', blogs. I do, however, find something amiss when a disaster occurs beside me and I keep on about (what thus becomes) some trivial issue. What i mean is that our self-absorption does have a tendency to imply that nothing matters other than ourselves and this, frequently, serves as the basis for future disasters.
Blogs are generally public and thus serve as reinforcers to others of how we should view things, if at all. If , for instance, all i can speak of is eating and shopping whilst people are dying of starvation around me, what i am implicitly saying is that the latter is relatively unimportant. And if many amongst us do the same thing, many new entrants into the 'blogging' world are also 'told' to not bother much about anything other than what my dog had for breakfast this morning - which seems to be the case this past couple of years. The standards the masses of today abide by becomes the standards that pen in the masses of tomorrow.
I'm not saying that we should all get globally analytical only. I am saying that we are global citizens whether we like it or not because what happens in another part of the world resonates through our own and vice versa. This imposes a responsibility upon us by virtue of our possession of a digital soapbox. Our failure to bother with anything other than qotds or the disasters that strike our 'home' ground, for example, basically promotes global irresponsible citizenship whilst we are the first to complain and engage in, amongst others, 'wars on terror' when the consequences of our prior apathy and self-absorption comes-a-calling. As blogging has become prominent and 'bloggers' are getting noticed, it is incumbent upon us to be more than a mere market for products and money-making opportunity for companies like Vox to make a bundle and a half from.
Blogging, in fact, if not in law, is the first experiment in global citizenship. For the first time, hands from all sectors of society and from diametrically opposite parts of the globe are reaching out across the waters. Space, in other words, has been folded. We should make this space mean something more other than what we are accustomed to in our minuscule worlds.
We can choose what to write - personal or informational - but whether others choose it or not, the focus of most amongst us serve as examples of what they ought or ought not to concern themselves with. This, whether we intend it or not, will determine not only what products are to be produced but how many millions more are going to die in a myriad of circumstances that continue because of our apathy. We ought to strive towards a balance. We do so when it comes to 'work', 'employment' and 'fun', how about global citizenship? The consequences are far greater if we don't.
Cheers Nicebeet.
I think that it is not inherently wrong to work within the context of you local events. In fact if you live in China, North Korea, or other blacked-out regimes you experiences might explain to people why they need to care about the rest of the world. It is simple journalism to attempt to localize all news and events. However since you are now writing for the world we must relate the local, global. However not all bloggers are journalists, so they may be forgiven. The internet is a tool where everyone is given free reign to produce the content they like, and like 90% of the people, 90% of the content is insipid.
My point here is that the 'freedom of choice' must be exerted in consideration of the milieu within which one is involved in - be it by choice(i.e.work) or default(i.e.global citizenship). In other words, we have to acquire as much of all relevant information as possible in order to do our 'jobs'(global citizenship, work, relationships, etc) well. This is that which makes 'freedom of choice' responsible.
I'm inclined to agree. What I find most interesting is how this insipidity has come about.
One might also say that this is preceded by mistaking a tv for a computer. One is led to think that one is the active agent by being 'empowered' to 'flip' through channels, when it is more true to say that one is only able to select from a limited stream of choices. When one lets the former work on one, it works through one when one gets on the latter.
Whle I think that TV is an extension of Cinema, and there's nothing wrong with it as long as one recognizes it as passive entertainment. I though try to find good writing where ever I can find it, but as I live in the United States there isn't much on TV that isn't talking down to people. That is the real problem with the United States in general. The media seems to be under the impression that Americans are idiots, and treat us as such. Of course there are people that stupid here, after all we have turned Paris Hilton on the world. I for one, in the spirit of global harmony apologize for that one.
It's not that they were meant to be as such, its just that when people are treated as idiots from their early years, they generally tend to become exactly that for want of intelligent input. General and gross idiocy(and this is an understatement) here is promoted by overt bigotry on the part of the media, promotion of one culture/language over others, enforced 'mother tongue' policies, (mainly) american programmes being aired (as opposed to British ones), segregation of tv channels by language and race, state-controlled newspapers, etc. Over time, the consequences are inevitable, and the people do, indeed, become idiots. Though, I'm sure, it is not as bad as that in the US, albeit not significantly better.
You need not 'apologise' for the US. Do as I have done and realise that you are a product of other influences as opposed to a purely national one. That is why i always say, when asked for my nationality, that I am 'despite singapore, not because of it'.
Embrace your Cosmopolitan personality. Your views certainly show that you are one, if not in law, most definitely in fact.
It was a tounge in cheek joke about the horrid celebrities we thrust upon the world. One of the largest issues with the culture of media, is that is tailored to who the advertisers want. It is why so much US media seems to be aimed at teenage girls. They just happen to be the desireable audience to sell to right now. Mostly because for years of selling soda and beer, there's not many men left to sway to one product or another. Advertisers in America have done too good a job, even the intellgensia seems to be wrapped in certain brands with a fervor on par with religious zeal.
That is a most interesting idea. Hmmm....
Perhaps one of the reasons why it is 'aimed at teenage girls' is that this creates consequential markets. What i mean is, when girls are transformed into a particular product, men, who generally go after girls, may themselves feel the need to access other products that will bring about a goodness-of-fit between them and girls. For instance, when fashion is sold to girls, it will require men, who want to impress girls, to avail themselves of other products that will make them viable mates.