Today's class was really helpful for me since Boler's article was a bit over my head. The powerpoint - saying exactly what his views on new and old media were, were really useful for me. I disagree with him as well that debate and deliberation require consensus. I think confrontation and conflict inspires interesting and interactive politics. They are one in the same, there is no politics without debate and conflict, (Boler would definitely disagree with this statement). However, like I said in my last blog post why does there really need to be such animosity and conflict? Don't all these arenas for communication (facebook, twitter->trolls, myspace and twitter) just show that people are engaged and that they care? Our focus seems to focus on the conflict because that is what our society thrives on. Why can't we just be satisfied that we are taking part of something and engaging in intellectual thought, and put "sides" aside?
-Anna-
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
interesting point. Are you saying that our society thrives upon conflict or that we thrive upon the focus of conflict...although similar i do see a minor difference between the two. I wasn't in class today so my response might make little sense here, but i'll try.. I do think there are people who are satisfied with the fact that we are taking part in something but i think there are others who reminisce about the way participation used to be. Although the current participation may be more suitable for our generation, it seems as though there are still groups of people who consider our so called participation not good enough. Is this the conflict you are talking about or no? What do you mean by sides? I am intrigued.
-adrienne
Adrienne, let me try and explain myself, (or try). Essentially I was saying that our society thrives and focuses on conflict and confrontation. (Think of it in terms of even popular media (magazines for instance-we prey on celebrities flaws and competition with eachother). In our society we like opposing views, we like to disagree with eachother and push eachother to new limits.
The idea you raised about individuals feeling like they are participating in the political arena is an interesting one. However it is not what I was referring to. We were talking about in Boler's article how he thought we needed consensus in politics these are the "sides" I was discussing that we think there needs to be two opposing sides. My point was ,why do we need this to stimulate political discussion? Isn't the fact that we are all just talking about current events show that we in fact care?
I hope that helped you, rather then confuse you more ( I have a tendency to do that) it was a very informative class.
-Anna-
i appreciate the feedback. i'm still a bit confused, am i even on the right track..? are you saying that as long as we are engaging ourselves / participating it doesn't matter if a resolution (agreement ) is reached ..that it is the act of participating that is important, not so much a consensus?? I mean if we always arrived at a consensus then whhat would be left for us to debate about? If we can't reach a consenus doesn't that in itself inspire more confrontation and conflict? or did i just make this all even more confusing??
-adrienne
Without conflict there can be no compromise. If we mindlessly agree online then it feels pointless. I agree that by disagreeing, it can facilitate discussion.
On a side note, have you read Georg Simmel where he discusses conflict?
Adrienne, I'm sorry to still confuse you, maybe I am not clear myself which could be the problem. My point was that participation is undermined. Our society places so much emphasis on "sides" and conflict between opposing groups we forget to acknowledge that people care.
-Anna-
Post a Comment