For me writing is therapeutic (although I do seem to forget that it is) and putting together a posting and commenting on other postings sort of keeps me in the habit of writing. But I’m not sure that that alone would be enough. I could write (and occasionally do) in private. I could send more emails. What is so compelling about writing a blog?
This question was further highlighted to me only the other day. A good friend of mine could not understand why I ‘wasted’ my time writing a blog. “Hardly anybody reads them”, he said, he’d been listening to a Radio 4 programme about blogs and it had obviously been a bit negative. I was quite surprised how strongly he felt about it. Why did he and others feel so negative about blogs and … why do I write a blog?
Sometimes I write and it’s a bit like graffiti, sort of “I’m here world”. Other times it’s because I’ve got to get something off my chest or I’ve felt strongly about something – although I often don’t finish these postings, I seem to have lots of scraps of postings waiting to be picked up. But more often than not I write about my observations or what has amused me – I don’t particularly write for a response but I do look forward to one … and of course, that response is a connection.
What is so refreshing about this connection is that we often have no access to the normal sensory cues that trigger prejudice – I’m sure Clarice brought this up in an earlier post or comment. We can communicate freely with another human – well, I think they’re human (shudder)… not even that prejudice exists!
So I write my blog because I like to communicate … that’s a fairly human need so I don’t see why anybody should get upset. So why be negative?
I think that we are used to associating the audience one has with power. As people move up in status or maybe I should say ‘celebrity status’ they gain a wider audience. This wider audience allows their message to be heard, their ideas to be propagated or their products to be sold. I believe the blogosphere effectively short circuits the celebrity status and gives many people a platform to say whatever they like and ‘they haven’t even earned it dear’. It’s the same jibe celebrities often make of reality TV celebrities. Somehow our world believes that a columnist, actor, singer, games show host etcetera all have the right to a greater audience because … they are celebrities. The blogosphere judges blogs purely on content alone, content that has not been edited, content whose only bias is that of the author’s. This might be seen to erode the power base of those that tap into their audience for gain, for good or for bad. The blogosphere becomes a threat, so it is ridiculed. Of course, it could also be that it is ridiculed because it is not understood.
But if those that ridicule or are negative about blogs really stop and think, they will see that the expansion of the blogosphere is positive – people all over the world are starting to write! Writing what they feel, fear, believe, see, hear … unhindered communication. Writing in sentences, playing with words – but most of all, thinking and (I say it again) communicating. So the blogosphere is making people ‘think and communicate - that can’t be bad ;-)
4 comments:
What a fascinating post. I think blogging is a mixed bag - I've alluded to an aspect of it that annoys me in a post on my own blog.
It doesn't really matter to the blogger that the audience is small or non-existant. At least it doesn't really matter to me. Otherwise people with small or no audiences wouldn't blog. But they do. (Gimme a high-five!)
On the other hand, blogging gives you access to a potentially very large audience - the carrot of this potential reward might have something to do with the compulsion for some people. But I think you're right, that it's not just about power or glory, it's about connection and communication. The promise of only a very few readers/comments/connections that you otherwise wouldn't have had is quite compelling.
I've had some very interesting conversations and debates on people's blogs, with people I would probably never have met in real life, and I would guess, the blog exchanges are of a type and quality that you probably wouldn't get if you did meet these people in real life.
It's purer in many ways than real life communication, partly because as you say, the cues to prejudice are removed, but also because, I think, the context of blogging is different from real-life communication in another way as well. In real life communication, the Gricean maxims apply, so the conversation is limited accordingly. On blogs however, these maxims are loosened somewhat, notably in that because your audience is self-selecting, you and you alone get to determine what is relevant to post about, what aspects of your truth you want to post about. The co-operative principle of communication is radically different in the blogosphere, and while this does give rise to a lot of navel-gazing (and often hateful) clap-trap, it also opens up vast vistas of communication that otherwise would have been so constrained that they may well have not been possible. You can post on your blog about stuff you maybe wouldn't feel confident or comfortable boring (or intriguing) a person in your social circle with.
People being mean to you in cyberspace is also less wounding than a negative response face-to-face. It is less personal if you've never met the person, and it can be deleted. So this is another liberating factor of blogging.
It is a different way of communicating and connecting, which has benefits to those who engage in it beyond those existing in established media. I didn't hear the radio4 programme (though I will seek it out), but I suspect much of the negativity comes from people who insist on viewing blogs within older paradigms of communication, in which context, I can see how blogging would seem pointless and pathetic.
People who diss blogging do so because they don't "get" it, so their worldview is threatened, and also perhaps they are not comfortable with their own human needs for connection and attention...?
Just a few thoughts, sorry it's so long :-)
ps If you and I didn't have blogs, and we were to meet in real life, what's the likelihood that we would have anything like the communication-type that our blogs permit?
I think some people just don't seem to feel or understand the need to reflect on life, the universe or what colour socks your neighbour was wearing when they put the rubbish out this morning. I, myself, do. :)
Have only just come across this post which I found very interesting as is Clarice's comment. I think a key advantage of blogging is that you can, if you wish, give a thought through piece or reply, as long or as short as you please which in a face to face conversation you would not do. This is partly because there is no time to think for long when conversing with someone and when talking to someone most people are anxious not to hog the conversation or elicit boredom, it has to be a give and take communication so one tries to keep comments brief which often leads to some superficiality.
Post a Comment