Social MEdia: The New Age of Communication, or the New Age of Exclusion?
In this piece, the laws and restrictions of modern communication, mostly circulating around the internet, are examined and analyzed. Many argue that the discourse of social media users is an extremely exclusive one; one must be born in a certain time frame to truly understand the culture, actions, and purpose. Yet many users of these sites do not fit that description, and may be using them for reasons other than what they were invented for. Mary Louise Pratt uses several terms in her work, The Art of the Contact Zone, that are defined and used as tools to investigate the topic of communication as a whole. Bringing in the theories of Mary Louise Pratt, essay looks at how different cultures use this resource, and whether or not it helps or hurts the overall communication in modern day society.
Communication is everywhere. Whether it be online, face to face, written, verbal, visual â we are always communicating with one another. It is imperative for human existence, and has been a part of culture since the very beginning. First, there were cave drawings and verbal stories passed down from generation to generation, then letters rode into town by horse drawn carriages, and now we have come all the way to where we are now: social media. Online communication is by far the most used in todayâs culture, and social media methods that people connect through the web. In Marie Louise Prattâs work, The Art of the Contact Zone, she talks a lot about communication between different groups of people, and and defines transculturation as âprocesses whereby members of subordinated or marginal groups select and invent from materials transmitted by a dominant or metropolitan cultureâ (110). In the modern day world, especially regarding communication, how is this relevant?
Whether people like it or not, one of the most dominant cultures in society currently is social media. People now have been forced into using it even if it outside of their comfort zone.
For example, talk shows such as Conan, Jimmy Kimmel Live! and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon all have Youtube channels, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts. None of these talk show hosts actually run these social media sites, however. They hire âsocial media consultantsâ to run these accounts.
But why? What is the point of having social media if it isnât genuinely run by the person whoâs account it is? That is the point behind social media, to connect with people. But in these cases, people arenât connecting with the people they think they are. They do this because those hosts need to stay relevant. There is a whole audience who they are trying needing to reach, and they wouldnât be able to if it werenât for their connection through those sites.
Also, these people donât necessarily use social media in the same way the people who created this culture do. Youtube channels of these talk show hosts always have the same format: introduction, short segment (usually under five minutes â anything else is hard to convince someone to sit through), and ending. This ending consists of the host popping up on a pre- recorded screen saying something along the lines of âIf you liked this you should check out our channelâs other videos to my right!â, and then links to those videos. Youtube has recently also put in a feature that is similar to Netflix in that you donât have to click on a new video for one to start playing, a video that is relevant to the one you just watched will automatically start in ten seconds or so if you donât click away.
So is this transculturation by Prattâs standards or not? These people are taking aspects of the social media culture and using them for their own purposes, so hypothetically it would fit into that category. But whether or not it is effective is up in the air, and perhaps that makes the difference. The dominant culture of social media is run by the people who created it, and even though the people outside of that culture (in this case the hosts, who even hire people to provide them with an online presence) are using some of the same aspects of it, some may claim that they arenât using it in the same way. While they are using it for purely advertising and marketing purposes, the dominant culture is using it for what they created it for: the ability to share and connect with people around them.
In Elizabeth Daleyâs essay, Expanding the Concept of Literacy, she talks about something similar. She believes that âthe multimedia language of the screen enables modes of thought, ways of communicating and conducting research, and methods of publication and teaching that are essentially different from this of textâ (35). In short, she wants media to be emerged into the classroom. This is certainly an example of transculturation, but is it a good thing? Yes, she is taking something from one culture and trying to bring it to another culture. Some say that this integration would bring great things for both media and the classroom environment, while others say that the traditional use of texts is the best way to go. In every situation that transcutulration plays a role, there will be a battle between the sides. This is something that is not going away, and people just have to realize that, and fight for what they believe in.
No matter where you stand on the issue, this process of transuculturation greatly affects the communication process. Taking these two different generations, for example. Yes, it may be a generalization to say that all these late night talk show hosts are from the same generation, but technically speaking, they are. None of them were part of what I will refer to as the âinternet generationâ, meaning that they were all born after that technology had started advancing. So no matter what, none of them will ever truly be a part of that discourse. But this process that Pratt defines in her work gives the chance for them to try and become of this group by taking aspects of its members and trying to make them their own. But does it work? Is this process harming or hurting the overall communication between these generations? -
What first must be considered is the goal that these shows truly have in mind when getting onto the social media platforms. Do we really think that they are on there for the purpose of communication with a section of their fan base they otherwise would not be able to? Or is it purely to gain more popularity, viewers, and subsequently higher ratings? I think it is pretty clear that the idea that these hosts are reaching out to their fans for the sake of communication is outruled, seeing as the vast majority of the time they arenât even the ones posting as their social media personas. So considering that this seems more like a marketing ploy that anything else, it would appear as though this does more harm than hurt as far as communication goes. It boils it down to its most primitive form: like when youâre talking to someone, but not listening; just waiting for them to stop to you can talk.
But another term that Pratt uses in her essay is autoethnography. In short, this is a space in which two things can come together and be understood by a group of people that otherwise would not be able to understand it. One prime example of this is still in the realm of visual media, but has migrated from the small to the big screen: film. In the 2015 Oscars, there were many extremely accomplished films represented, and nearly all of them had something to say on an issue that otherwise would have been less known by the public. While everyone may have a knowledge of these topics (some of the ones that came up were Alzheimers, Lou Gehrigâs disease, and racism), film has a way giving someone a whole new take on whatever it may be. Incredible films are made every year that create a sort of portal that connects the audience to a time, place, situation, or experience that they could have never experienced. Yes, people can read about it and learn about it in written text, but films have a way of bringing in a personal side of things that engulfs the audience into the moment and allows them to be in the situation rather than learn of the situation.
Another way to look at this situation is from the perspective of James Paul Gee, author of the essay: What Is Literacy? In his work, he defines several terms, one of which is discourse: âa socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially member of a socially meaningful group or âsocial networkââ (73). This definition could not be more fitting for this circumstance â he even uses the term âsocial networkâ, which is essentially what this group of young people is. We have created our own network, and it is one that is rooted in social activity. People tend to have an obsession of not only knowing what everyone else it doing, but making sure that everyone know what they themselves are doing as well. Gee states that one cannot make any changes to a discourse unless he or she is a part of that discourse, because that is the only situation in which someone has enough knowledge of the group to criticize it. Yet, once someone has criticized a discourse, they relinquish their membership of it. So is auto ethnography the answer to this paradox? A space where people can come together, even not in the same discourse, but learn about one anotherâs worlds and try to understand it as best they can?
In the world of social media, this idea can be tested: people come together from every background to share similar, or different ideas. Youtube, the same platform on which famed people have made a home for a varied type of show promo, is one of the largest examples of this. The site has over 1 billion users, and the highest subscribed user is named PewDiePie, whoâs claim to fame is making videos of himself playing video games out of his basement. People donât have to be famous or even have any sort of skill to be able to click âuploadâ and share with the world what theyâre thinking. There is no hidden secret to becoming popular, or gain subscribers. It is merely communication at work; people will click on what they find interesting, comment, and so forth.
So this theory of Prattâs does seem to enhance communication in a way. Youtube is a center for everyone to upload whatever they wish. Yet, this is the same example in which her theory seemed to be disproved. For while Youtube is the home for many creative and intriguing people, it is also the hub of formulaic videos that do not adhere to the true spirit of the site. It seems as though no matter how wonderful (or not so wonderful) social media can be, the generation gap will always bring people farther apart rather than together.
The idea of having transculturation and autoethnography present in this aspect of society is valid, yet the execution doesnât equate. No matter what, social media is an exclusive society. It is just one of those discourses that no matter what you do or how hard you try, you just canât be a part of it unless you just are. It can be compared to different cultures in the geological sense â I was born in America, so no matter how many years of Spanish I take, or how many times I travel to Spain, I will never be a native. I will never understand why nouns are male and female, similar to how my parents will never understand why screaming goats in the middle of a Taylor Swift song is hilarious. This âinternet generationâ invented what was funny in that space, we created all these platforms for creativity, so were are the ones who define what we like and what we donât. That is something that any generation born after this development will never be able to grasp onto. And itâs not something that that discourse would ever allow â itâs like our own secret language; people can come hang out with us, but they will have no idea whatâs happening. So overall, social media, even with the great strides it has made in making communication easier for people of all ages, seems to have created the generation gap an even harder obstacle to overcome.
