April 10, 2006

Overall, many of the changes happening with B2B blogs can be a good thing. Technological changes are complex expressions of agency, and benefits are certainly accompanied by disguised assumptions which soon become normalized patterns of behavior.

Part of my interest in studying social software in the B2B segment involves taking a critical look at the assumptions and normalized behaviors that come about as the result of new communicational practices.

The danger of technology lies in the transformation of the human being, by which human actions and aspirations are fundamentally distorted. Not that machines can run amok, or even that we might misunderstand ourselves through a faulty comparison with machines. Instead, technology enters the inmost recesses of human existence, transforming the way we know and think and will.

While this is expressed perhaps in more negative terms than it needs to be (the "danger" of technology is always balanced by what Rivers (2005) would call the openness to being that technology enables), it is true that technology alters our ways of knowing and thinking in irreversible ways.

These shifts in epistemic stances are particularly pronounced in the use of technologies that manipulate language.

If the manipulation of numerical data by computers fundamentally changed how we construct knowledge in the sciences, the manipulation of language by technology had a similar effect for other disciplines.

For example, Heim describes the impact that the word processor had (is having) in the humanities, and in everyday uses of language:

If it has already transformed the epistemic stance of the natural sciences, the computer is transforming the humanities as well.

The word processor is the calculator of the humanist, giving its users the power to manipulate written language in new ways. Just as the printing press altered culture and scholarship soon after its invention, so too the computer automates the composition, storage, and transmission of written words.

And if the computer affects all written communication, will it not in turn affect the way in which we regard and use language in general -- not only when we sit at the word processor but also, by aftereffect, whenever we speak and listen, perhaps even whenever we think?

Current technosocial practices involving the written word, such as blogging, are transforming the way we use language. Some of these transformations are sure to be beneficial. But there is also a whole set of practices being normalized that merit a more critical approach. These practices are the result of communication unfolding in an environment controlled by an economy based on attention. Some of them are listed below (I am sure they have been listed somewhere else):

Rankism: The development of information networks dictates that some nodes (usually, those who have been around longer) acquire more importance than others. Contrary to the hype, the blogosphere is not very 'flat' or democratic. The way for newer bloggers to gain attention is through the recognition granted to them by more established bloggers.

Self-censorship: The way for bloggers to gain attention is to write about topics that are considered popular. I am aware that my posts on tagging, for example, are read more than my posts on philosophy, and I am tempted to generate more posts on topics that will be linked to and discussed.

Technocratism: At least in our field, technology is the premier topic that gets people's attention. If you discuss the latest technology, you get more attention points.

Quantitivism (not sure if that's even a word): Blogs must be fed regularly. Experts tells us that to ensure the success of our blogs we must post frequently (perhaps even when we don't have something meaningful to say?). Numbers matter. A blog is judged by its number of subscribers.

Opinionism: A recent report noted that while the number of bloggers is increasing, the number of reporters (people actually gathering news) is diminishing. While the report probably ignores the fact that some (a minority) of these bloggers are acting as reporters, the truth is that blogging is contributing to a culture where attention is gained by how well we express our opinions, not by how sound our research is.

Will these behaviors impact our use of language (and reasoning) beyond blogging? How?

All of us are probably guilty at one point or another of the behaviors described above, but I am not trying to argue that blogging as a whole is an anti-social practice. Like others, I feel that blogging has contributed to my personal, academic and professional development.

Most importantly, however, blogging (and other practices involving social software) has contributed to a newfound sense of social involvement.

Heim writes about Virtual Reality: "Rather than control or escape or entertain or communicate, the ultimate promise of VR may be to transform, to redeem our awareness of reality."

Similarly, I think the promise of social software is to redeem our awareness of the social.

This promise is realized in part through the discovery of how new technosocial practices open our being to the benefits of collaboration.

But it also involves a careful examination of the behaviors that tend to get normalized in the process.

If in a monetary economy the accumulation of wealth tends to lead to abuses and imbalances, the same thing is probably true in an economy that rewards the accumulation of attention.

Source: Line 56