Learning Outcomes

Today, I'm going to reflect on the course learning outcomes, and see if I met them.

1. History

I think I learned a good deal about history from 1500-2000.  In the first posts of this blog, I wrote a great deal about each historical period.  I sometimes got more specific, talking about Marxism, Modernism, and the Gutenberg press (though that post was lost in cyberspace) in later posts.

2. Core Concepts

I also applied history to our digital civilization.  In my early historical posts, I related each period to something contemporary, such as the 17th-Century power struggle and SOPA and PIPA.  I compared Occupy Wall Street to the French and American Revolutions.  As we wrote the eBook, I talked about JFK's fireside chats and compared them to Obama's google+ hangouts.

3. Digital Literacy

I had to do a lot of consuming and research because I didn't know much about many of the digital concepts we covered.  I think I could have done a little better about filtering my sources, though.  Sometimes I just used Wikipedia, but I think as time went on I learned to research through professor's blogs and found new websites that were helpful in our eBook.  As far as creating, google+ and blogging were totally new to me, and I felt like I was taking a huge leap ahead in my digital literacy in that aspect alone.  But, I think I could have done a better job at communicating and connecting with other students in the class.  I often was just in my own little world and forgot that I needed to try discussing with my peers.  I did attempt to write to Senator Orrin Hatch and do a little social proof.  He didn't write back, but I've never tried anything like that before, so that was good.

4. Self-Directed Learning

I definitely learned a lot while researching on my own.  One of my favorite self-directed learning experiences was when I used a Redbox for the first time.  I did something hands-on and it got me thinking about disruptive innovation, and it was a new experience.  

5. Collaboration

The eBook was one of the best group projects I've ever worked on.  Our government group was small, but we all learned a ton as we shared our thoughts and ideas and then added them to our chapter.  Each week, we talked about what we'd done, what needed to be done still, and made assignments.  Also, our history presentation worked well because all of us were passionate about what we were talking about (the 19th Century).  We went a little long because we all loved each of our sections.

The Results / How Digitally Civilized Am I Now?

I’m the kind of person that likes going back to the beginning.  I think it’s easiest to see how you’ve grown from an experience by looking at who you were at the start and who you are now.  I know you’re probably thinking, “Wait, you already did a reflective post on what you’ve learned!”  You’re right, I did.  But this isn’t a post about what I learned.  When this all started, you may remember, this blog was an experiment.  Having never done much in the way of creating or consuming online, I was testing the waters.  Are there that many benefits to contributing to the internet?  Or is it just disconnecting us from the real world?  So this post isn’t about what I’ve learned; it’s looking at the results of my experiment.

One of the reasons I called this blog an experiment was because I was a little paranoid about putting my name out there online.  Years of computer-classes focused on internet safety convinced me every tap on your keyboard led the pedophiles closer and closer to your house.  I’m happy to report that I am not as afraid of creating online, and I have learned that there is a balance between openness and control.  You have a right to keep your information safe.  You don’t have to put your entire life on the internet to create something.  But, if you don’t add your voice online, it will never be heard. 

Many of these posts, you may have noticed, are about the e-book chapter my group was writing about Open Government.  Again and again I encouraged readers to find out about how they can change legislation by looking at blogs and forums and government social media sites, and interact with others interested in making a difference, including government officials.  Our civilization is moving towards the web; that’s where things happen these days.  That’s where grassroots movements start.  If we don’t contribute, we won’t make a difference.  So keep yourself safe online, but don’t avoid creating something great because of fear.

Which brings me to the next question of my experiment: what are the benefits of contributing online?  Already we’ve seen it can cause changes in government.  That also applies to the sciences, arts, business, etc.  We have the world at our fingertips, and we can learn anything we want if we know how to look for it, and then we can transform the world with calls to action. And if nothing else, blogging lets me get my ideas out.  I enjoy creating, and the internet lets me do that in a fast, easy way.  

By the way, I liked blogging so much that I started another one where I teach Spanish once a week.  I haven’t done a lot with it in the last little while (I got busy), but if you’re interested I’ll hopefully start working on it again.  Here’s the link:

 http://weeklyspanish.blogspot.com/

So, blogging has allowed me to create and even help others.  I started the Spanish blog because a friend of mine wanted to learn but I lived too far away to teach her in person.  I hope that she and other people can actually take something from my blog and learn a language.  Cool idea?  You know it.

Finally, since everything seems to be moving online, and we truly have a digital civilization, what happens to our physical world?  Are we becoming disconnected from each other in our electrically connected society?  I think it depends on how you use the technology.  I’ve said it before, but I’m saying it again: technology is amoral.  You can do great things with it or bad things.  So, some people might be so into their Facebook account that they forget to talk to their friends in person, while others will use Facebook to organize events to get together with friends, or to stay in contact with someone who is too far away to see talk to otherwise. 

I used to think technology was an expensive waste of time.  And there are some things online that I think I can do without for now.  Pintrest, for example, is obviously helpful to some, but I’m not sure I would actually use it for good reasons; I think I would just use it to procrastinate homework.  But, I also see how technology is part of our culture, and if you aren’t participating, you aren’t really a part of it.  Don’t think of the digital world and the real world as separate things, because the digital world makes up the real world.  Culture is reflected in and created by the technology we use.

This has been a successful experiment, in my opinion.  And I'd say I'm a little more digitally civilized now.  But I have a ways to go.

What Have I Learned?

In response to Brandon Robison's post about what he has learned from this class, I thought I should do the same.

1. I have learned that I know nothing about digital civilization.  I still hear words in class that I'm like, "What's that?" and someone explains it to me like it's been a part of their life forever, and I think, "Where do you people hear about this stuff?"  So, I've obviously got more to learn.

2. I have learned about self-directed learning.  I, like Brandon, have had a love-hate relationship with it.  It's become apparent to me that I am very dependent on my professors to hand me information.  The hardest part of this class was knowing where to start each day.  I felt I didn't know enough about the subject to even search for blog topics.  How do you find out about open government if you don't even know it exists?  So, I disliked self-directed learning because I didn't know how to learn on my own.  On the other hand, I liked it because I realized I didn't know how to learn on my own.  I don't want to be forever dependent on someone else's knowledge to increase my own.  I want to be a self-directed learner.  I'm still trying to find out how to do that; it seems to take more time than just listening to a lecture.  Maybe that's why I can't bring myself to hate it: if something makes me stretch, that means I wasn't growing before.  And lack of growth means lack of life.

This is what I need to do.

3. I am more aware of how technology affects me in every aspect of my life.  I used to see it as something that took up money and time, but now I see it is something that influences the culture around me, influences my future work and family life, and even influences science, government, and education.  It is amoral, which means its effect on my life and on those around me depends on how I use it.

4. I have learned that I can make a difference in the world.  Our huge class project seemed so impossible when I first heard it proposed.  A book?  We're going to write a book?  This is going to go down in flames, guys.  I suppose we have yet to have a nice, finished copy, but I've been proven wrong: we can do something amazing, and it can influence other people.  It makes me want to get more involved online, write a blog or e-book or something that challenges others to act.  The internet has given us something empowering and I feel excited about creating.

5. I have found patterns in historical examples that apply today.  We live in a digital civilization, but we've really just inherited what already existed.  We have many of the same attitudes that our predecessors had towards openness and control and finding the balance between the two.  On the other hand, I've also found that we live in a time that is unprecedented.  Never before have we been able to connect in the way we can now, and our influence over others has increased exponentially.  We must, however, learn from the past in order to use this influence for good and avoid the failures of history.

Overall, I'm excited about living in this time-period and the potential we have to make a difference with the tools available to us today.

Napoleon's Balancing Act

Never before has there been such a potential for two-way participation in government.  Of all government systems that have come before, no matter how democratic or free, none have had the benefits that internet access brings.  Communicating with representatives and other leaders has never been easier or faster; information can be spread throughout the country to inform citizens virtually everywhere.  It's unprecedented, really.  So, it's difficult to look to the past for good examples of open government, because there is no comparison to the current situation.  However, it is essential to understand past national leaders and how they ran their countries in order to evaluate success and failures in government.


Napoleon Bonaparte's system of government was paradoxical in many ways.  After the French Revolution, the people demanded a greater level of equality than what they had experienced under a monarch.  Napoleon, on the other hand, wanted to be an absolute ruler.  Therefore, he had to do a balancing act: while granting many liberties that the nation had fought for in 1789--such as freedom of religion, protection of private property, careers open to talent, and abolition of serfdom--he also created a centralized government that had control over education, strictly censored art and literature, prevented trade unions, and oppressed conquered nations.  He spread positive propaganda about himself, and had spies throughout the country that made sure any criticism of the government was stopped.  Napoleon had to keep up good appearances, so although he was a dictator, he built roads and did away with feudalism.  In this way, the emperor of France prevented anarchy and revolution.


There are still laws in France and throughout Europe that incorporate Napoleon's civil code.  The freedoms already discussed made France better than it had ever been before, and they made Napoleon's empire famous.  That is where he succeeded.  His ambition, however, became his downfall when he tried to conquer Russia. 


Napoleon's government had many good points, such as equality and unity, but his desire for absolute power prevented the nation from becoming truly open.  When people's ideas and opinions are censored by the government, information is unreliable.


http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture15a.html

Output/input

This is my section for the government chapter so far.  To see sources, go to the annotated bibliography,

If indeed the American government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, public involvement in government must be ensured.   All US citizens need both to be well-informed and to participate.  In order to do this, US citizens must be able to easily and accurately learn about and comment on government procedures.  Government officials need to be able to share information and ask for input from the public, while the public shares ideas, comments, or complaints with the government.  The system of the United States government was formed with the idea that all men are created equal.  This means that all men and women should have a say in how the nation is run, both locally and at the Federal level.
           This is open government.  It means citizens have the right to have access to the governmental process, including documents and proceedings.  Furthermore, it means the citizens should be able to comment and participate in government processes with ease.  The Obama administration has been trying to increase openness with the public.  The White House’s official website is whitehouse.gov/open, and it has a blog on open government, and also a link where citizens can create and sign petitions.  There's also challenge.gov, which calls itself "the central platform for crowd sourcing US government challenges, contests, competitions and open innovation prizes."  Basically, government agencies can ask for submissions/solutions to challenges/problems and the public can give their ideas.  Unfortunately, very few people actually use the site.

This is a general problem.  Although government officials are taking steps towards openness, the public is not participating.  So, if the American system is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, it must provide a way get the word out and help everyone in the nation get in on the online conversation.

There are several examples throughout history of leaders who tried to increase awareness about Federal procedures.  First are Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats.  These actually started when Roosevelt was governor of New York, and he often used them to ask for help to get his proposed measures passed.  The public then wrote letters to the state legislature in support of these measures.  As President, he gave regular addresses over the radio to reassure the public during the Great Depression and WWII, thereby increasing the federal output of information and reaching a wide audience.  Since then there has been a regular address by the President.  President Obama has moved from a weekly radio broadcast to an audio and video form available online on YouTube and whitehouse.gov.

Although these weekly reports do not reach the entire nation, President Obama's hangouts on Google+ and YouTube videos interface with modern culture.  FDR used the radio, which was popular in his day, and Obama has switched to a medium that more people use.

Other examples come from our nation’s birth.  Thomas Paine’s Common Sense pamphlet argued for American independence from Britain by challenging the monarchical system.  He wrote in simple language that the common man could understand.  Later, The Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, promoted the ratification of the Constitution.  They were printed in three newspapers in New York, and Hamilton encouraged their publication in newspapers outside of the state as well.  Again, we see that when leaders use a popular medium, and write in a way that can be easily understood, it has a greater influence on the public.  Also, government output should encourage the public to act in some way.  Open government is not simply about learning the issues, but having citizens make a change.

           On the other side, an example of increased public participation is the civil rights movement.  African Americans wanted to have their voting rights restored--after the 15th Amendment was passed, laws in the South still prevented many African Americans from voting--and to have a more equal society.  Through non-violent protests they added their voices to the conversation.  Also, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech was televised and had a huge effect on the nation.  Civilians don't always have to share their ideas through technological advancements, however.  The Montgomery bus boycotts sent a message to the government just as much as the televised march on Washington.  When the public are unable to give their voice (such as when there is discrimination or limited suffrage), they will find a way to be heard.
           So, it seems that the government must use a medium that the public uses.  That means it can't limit itself to only Google+ or Facebook.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean creating a new product to be used universally.  Francesca Barrietos and Elizabeth Foughty write, “Government doesn’t need to invent new Web 2.0 tools or be the next Google—it just needs to use already proven tools” (Barrietos, 35).  The public already have many online resources available, but they may not know about them.  Rather than have the government try to come up with some new interface (which always run the risk of bugs in the system), they can use proven, popular tools already in place.  However, they will need to increase awareness about these sites and how to use them in order for them to be effective.

Conversely, the public must have an easy, simple way to share ideas with the government or they will have to resort to more drastic means.

           Another problem is that people simply aren’t sure how to share their ideas.  They want to add their voice to the conversation, and even to make a difference, but they don’t know how.  There are several online government forums and social networking sites that can help with this, including govloop.com, govcollab.wikispaces.com, collaborationproject.org, govsocmed.pbwiki.com, and others.   There are many blogs that give opinions on current legislative policies and movements, and also ideas on how to get involved.
           For example, one blogger on govloop.com has proposed an idea for how to decrease corporate influence during elections and in legislative measures in a post titled “Nationwide Grassroots Project Will Amend U.S. Constitution to End Corporate Power in Elections.”  In this case, this blog is not necessarily communicating directly with government representatives, but telling the public to send messages to Congress members to order a convention.  The author has a purpose and a proposed means of achieving that purpose.  She tells her audience simply what they can do to create a change by interacting with government officials.
           That's an excellent example of how to increase open government participation.  Have a goal and a way to achieve that goal.  Teach simply and give clear direction.  Really, that's a good way to increase participation in any area.

However, as helpful as these social networking sites are, if no one knows about them or where to find them, the site may as well not exist.  In order to really increase participation and collaboration in government, we must educate people on how to do it.  If the public is going to participate online (which, as mentioned, means both consuming government output, and then commenting on that output and connecting with government officials), the public must be informed about how to participate.

           There are several ways to achieve this.  Perhaps there could be advertising on billboards, magazines or newspapers in order to get those who are not participating online to go online.  Or, maybe classes might be offered in public schools and in community programs to help those who don't know how to use internet resources to become familiar and comfortable with using them.
           Many high schools already require classes such as US Government and Citizenship for graduation.  One learns about the Constitution, basic Federal procedures, the voting process, political parties, and so on in these classes.  It would be very simple to include a brief section about websites and other ways to stay connected with the government in a class like that.  It's already mandatory, so every graduating student will have passed through it, and if there was just the smallest part dedicated to teaching about where citizens can find out about government procedures, what resources they have available to learn about how to get involved, and ways they can contact representatives, it would influence an entire generation of citizens.  Furthermore, a class like that could be offered at the college level, or at community centers.
           Although we are not “engaged in a great civil war,” the words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address are still true.  We must “highly resolve that… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  In order to do so, we must increase open government participation.  This means using a digital communications medium that is easy for citizens to use and access, and educating the public on how they may better participate in the online conversation.

Open Government: An Annotated Bibliography.

Open Government: An Annotated Bibliography.

I did most of my research through simply typing key words into the Google+ search bar and BYU's Harold B. Lee Library search bar.  One or two sources were found by looking at the sources I already had (Kim Hart, for instance, was found on Tim O'Reilly's Google+ feed).  Our group asserts that through two-way participation in government (that is, the government shares information with the public, and the public comments on and critiques that information, and even collaborates with leaders to improve government), democracy can be improved.  The below sources give some examples of how the government has been influenced by the online public, how to improve and build open government participation, and what may happen in the future, all of which are relevant to our section.

Further Reading

Kim Hart.  "Pols Fear 'SOPA backlash.'"  Politico.  2012.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73802.html  This article comments on how technical industries were able to stop legislation (specifically, killing the SOPA/PIPA initiatives).  Grassroots and business movements can have a powerful influence on government, especially when done in mass, which is more possible now than ever before.  [Found this article on Tim O'Reilly's Google+ feed.]

Joanne Caddy, Christian Vergez, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.  Open government : fostering dialogue with civil society.  OECD Publishing.  2003.  http://books.google.com/books?id=CH8DehH5lmcC&hl=en  This book discusses open government in general in several countries.  One of the chapters includes a really good panel discussion about why citizens should participate in open government, and how to build open government.  One of the arguments is increasing awareness about the issues, which requires the government to share credible information.  [Found this book on the BYU Harold B. Lee Library website by typing Open Government into the search bar]

Francesca Barrientos, Elizabeth Foughty.  "Web 2.0 in Government."  Interactions. 16.5.  Oct. 2009.  http://delivery.acm.org/  This article explains some of the risks involved in open government (such as security problems), but also suggests ways on how to resolve these through collaboration between Web 2.0 leaders and policy makers.  One of our sections is on how open government will affect the future, and security risks are one of the things we will have to face.  Also, the authors suggest that government officials use communication tools that are already available instead of inventing new ones.  This goes right along with our argument that government officials must use technology that everyone is already familiar with.  [Found this article on the BYU Harold B. Lee Library website by typing Open Government into the search bar].


Thought Leaders

Tim O'Reilly - (http://radar.oreilly.com/gov2/) Founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media.  Computer book publisher, conference producer, internet activist.  O'Reilly has several links in his Google+ feed and the above website about open government. [I found O'Reilly by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.]

Alexander Howard - (radar.oreilly.com/alexh) Government 2.0 Washington, D.C. Correspondent for O'Reilly Media.  Also writes for Huffington Post.  Very involved in writing about open government, on his blog and for O'Reilly Media. [I found Howard by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.]

John Moore - (govinthelab.com)  Founder and CEO of Government in the Lab.  Moore is devoted to open government and the above online magazine includes writers from around the world who provide information about politics and government.  Lots of great articles on the above site about open government.  [I found Moore by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.] 

US Government and Citizenship Class

This week I'm mostly searching for more current open government sites and more examples of historical events that increased government participation.

It kind of reminds me of the
Subway trademark.

I found this blog post on gov.loop.com.  Whether or not I agree with the author's opinions is irrelevant.  What's important is that this woman has proposed an idea for how to decrease corporate influence during elections, and in legislative measures in general.  nationwide-grassroots-project-will-amend-us-constitution  In this case, this blog is not necessarily communicating directly with government representatives, but telling us to send messages to our Congress members to order a convention.  The author has a purpose and a proposed means of achieving that purpose.  She tells her audience simply what they can do to create a change by interacting with government officials.

That's an excellent example of how to increase open government participation.  Have a goal and a way to achieve that goal.  Teach simply and give clear direction.  Really, that's a good way to increase participation in any area.


I am more and more convinced that in order to really increase participation and collaboration in government, we must educate people on how to do it.  I found govloop.com itself after someone showed me this online slideshow http://www.slideshare.net/.  Without someone else helping me, I wouldn't know where to start.  If the public is going to participate online (which, as I've mentioned, means both consuming government output, and then commenting on that output and connecting with government officials), the public must be informed about how to participate.

When I was in high school, I took a mandatory class called US Government and Citizenship.  I learned about the Constitution, basic Federal procedures, the voting process, political parties, etc.  And, hey, I took that class online!  How easy would it be to include a brief section about websites and other ways to stay connected with the government in a class like that?  It's already mandatory, so every graduating student will have passed through it, and if there was just the smallest part dedicated to teaching about where citizens can find out about government procedures, what resources they have available to learn about how to get involved, and ways they can contact representatives, it would influence an entire generation of citizens.  Furthermore, a class like that could be offered at the college level, or at community centers.

So far, education sounds like the best route.  The slideshow linked above explains that we move from education to observation to broadcasting to participating to building relationships to collaborating.  The first step is to educate.

Hindsight is 20/20

I just want to clarify that when I talk about increasing participation, I mean both ways: the government gives/shares information or asks for input from the public, and the public shares ideas, comments, or complaints with the government.

Continuing with the question, how do we increase participation in open government, I decided to take a look back at history.  The fist thing that came to mind was FDR's fireside chats.  I found out these actually started when Roosevelt was governor of New York, and he often used them to ask for help to get his proposed measures passed.  The public then wrote letters to the legislation in support of these measures.  As President, he gave a regular address over the radio to reassure the public during the Great Depression and WWII.  I didn't realize that since then there has been a regular address by the president.  Obama has moved from a weekly radio broadcast to an audio and video form available online on YouTube and whitehouse.gov.  In this case, Roosevelt increased the federal output of information and reached a wide audience.

I think another example is the civil rights movement.  African Americans wanted to have their voting rights restored and to have a more equal society.  Through non-violent protests they added their voices to the conversation.  Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech was televised and had a huge effect on the nation.  Civilians don't always have to share their ideas through technological advancements, however.  The Montgomery bus boycotts sent a message to the government just as much as the televised march on Washington.  When the public are unable to give their voice (such as when there is discrimination or limited suffrage), they will find a way to be heard.

So, it seems that the government must use a medium that the public uses (President Roosevelt used the radio, which was a common means of communication in his day, while President Obama has moved to the internet), and the public must get their message across in a way that is noticeable.  One example of this is the recent Kony 2012 video.  Although controversial, it is certainly getting a lot of attention.  If the government is to reach the entire nation, it must communicate through a medium that everyone uses.  That means it can't limit itself to only google+ or only Facebook.  And the public needs an easy way to share ideas with the government or they will have to resort to more drastic means. 

All in all, we need something universal: something everyone can access to receive and share information.  The only trick is to maintain individualism at the same time.

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

I am almost hesitant to quote Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address because it is to beautiful it feels irreverent to use it in a blog about digital communication, but the other part of me loves it so much that I can't resist quoting it.  So, for a moment forget the subject of this blog and just think of the significance of these words.  Lincoln said in this address that the men that had fought and died at Gettysburg had already dedicated that ground, and all that he and the rest of America could do was increase their "devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln, more than anything, was dedicated to the American cause: "A new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."  He could not allow that nation, that experiment in democracy, to fall.

Here's where I shift to digital civilization and feel irreverent.  If indeed our government is of the people, by the people, for the people, we need to ensure that the people are involved in the government.  We need all of our citizens to be well-informed and to participate.  We may not be engaged in a great civil war, but if our civilians are not involved in the government, our nation isn't truly democratic, and the American experiment fails.

Open government means citizens have the right to have access to the governmental process, including documents and proceedings.  Furthermore, in my opinion, it means the citizens should be able to comment and participate in government processes with ease.  whitehouse.gov/open is the White House's official website, and it has a blog on open government, and also a link where citizens can create and sign petitions.  There's also a link to challenge.gov, which calls itself, "The central platform for crowdsourcing US government challenges, contests, competitions and open innovation prizes."  Basically, government agencies can ask for submissions/solutions to challenges/problems and the public can give their ideas.  Unfortunately, as far as I have seen very few people actually use the site.

This is a general problem.  Although government officials are taking steps towards openness, the public is not participating.  Another example is President Obama's hangout on google+ and weekly reports, akin to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's fireside chats.  Although this is a great example of openness and connecting with the nation, you need to have access to these hangouts and reports.  I didn't even know how to find these and I have a google+ account.  Once again it goes back to the digital divide.  Even those who have internet access may not have all the resources they need to truly participate in open government.

So, if we're to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people we need to find a find a way to get the word out and help everyone in the nation get in on the online conversation.  Perhaps this means advertising on billboards, magazines or newspapers in order to get those who are not participating online to go online.  Or, maybe we should offer classes in public schools and in community programs to help those who don't know how to use internet resources to become familiar and comfortable with using them.

Whatever we do, we need to reach everyone, not just a few people.  Democracy includes everyone.

The Master Switch

I just started reading The Master Switch by Tim Wu and I'm already really excited about it.  Wu explains in the introduction his idea of "the Cycle."  Basically, throughout the 20th Century, new information technologies were created and a utopian, optimistic view of how the innovation could affect the future follows. 

After a while, the flaws and limitations of the invention are revealed, and consumers are disappointed.  A mogul then comes along and takes control, improving but also monopolizing the industry.  This happened with AT&T with the telephone industry, NBC and CBS with radio broadcasting, Hollywood studios with film, and others.  Often government organizations aided in this monopolization, like the Federal Communications Commission helped NBC and CBS shape the television industry.

Over time, however, these monopolies are broken up.  It can be caused by a new innovation coming along, or, ironically, by the federal government which had actually aided in centralizing the industry.  The internet is a huge example of an innovation that disrupted several industries, opening up communication lines that had been closed and controlled for so long.

When you control the mail, you control... INFORMATION!

Unfortunately, the Cycle inevitably restarts with whatever innovation it was that decentralized communication.  Wu points out AT&T's uncanny ability to come back again and again and monopolize new industries.  No matter how amazing or promising the invention, information technologies always get caught up in the Cycle and someone takes sole, or nearly sole charge of it.  And those who own the industries control information.  Wu quotes Fred Friendly of CBS and says, "Before any question of free speech comes the question of 'who controls the master switch.'"  Wu further explains, "We sometimes treat the information industries as if they were like any other enterprise, but they are not, for their structure determines who gets heard."

Wu's concern is that the internet as we know it, open and wild and full of free speech, will eventually fall into this same Cycle.  If one corporation has control of the internet, the information we consume will be filtered.  He states, "It is an underacknowledged truism that, just as you are what you eat, how and what you think depends on what information you are exposed to."  By the way, I just want to point out that that totally goes along with my Tweethis.  Anyway, when there's a monopoly on a communication industry, the consumers will have their minds changed due to the information they are given.  We need a decentralized, open internet to allow people to get the truth.  Otherwise, the person who controls the master switch will also control our society because they will control our information and therefore what we think.

I'm a little more accepting of openness now.

The Cultural Control Gap

Let's step back in time 12 years.  It's the beginning of Web 2.0.  Blogs, wikis, social networking sites, video sharing sites, and other interactive webpages started coming into existence.  How old were you?  It's actually a really important question.  The older you were, the less likely it is you have since taken advantage of such sites.

That statement of course doesn't apply to everyone.  There are many older people who use Web 2.0, and there are many younger people who don't.  But I believe if you were under a certain age when the internet became more open, you are probably more open now.  We see it very commonly in society.  The younger generation shares more online than earlier generations.  It's because they grew up in a world where openness was prevalent.  Those who didn't grow up with the ability to share information so easily would probably be more wary of so much of their private life being broadcast in the public sphere.

This goes back to my tweethis.  Culture is reflected in and created by the technology we use.  Web 2.0 increased connectivity, participation, and openness, and the young people who grew up with it are so used to it, it's part of their way of thinking.  It has created their culture.  On the other hand, those who didn't grow up with this technology may shrink away from it, or try to exert more control.  They wish to protect themselves online, and they may put up more safeguards to prevent their information from being accessed.  The younger generation enjoys the openness and often doesn't see the danger in it.

In the end, we can have two extremes: those who share too much, and those who don't participate due to fear.  We also, of course, have those in the middle who have learned to connect while still sensibly controlling the amount of information shared.  This moderate middle is what we have to shoot for.  Our culture is rapidly becoming more and more open, and we need to participate in order to keep up with it.  However, if we don't keep a check on that openness, we will have problems down the line, personally and perhaps as a nation.  Control doesn't have to mean the absolute power of SOPA.  It's using your common sense about the information you share online.

Understanding Modernism

At the beginning of the 20^th Century, there was a literary/social movement that still influences our culture today.  This was the Modernist movement.  Modernists were all about re-assessing the way we look at the world. 

To fully understand Modernism, we need to know what came beforehand.  I already talked a great deal about the Victorian Era in an earlier post.  In the United States, Realism was the literary style of the latter part of the 19^th Century.  It tried to represent life truthfully.  Mark Twain wrote Regional Realism, in which he spelled words differently to get across a variety of accents from the South.  Realists tried to include many details into their stories, even ones that didn’t really matter in the plot.  Real life has details that don’t mean much, like the design on the rug, how many birds are in the sky, but they are there nonetheless and Realists wanted to include them in stories that were supposed to represent reality.  Many will say Realism is depressing because, in order to be truthful, many Realists felt not every story should be happy, since life isn’t always happy.

Modernism, on the other hand, sought to be even more real than Realism.  The latter had included physical details, but what about the unseen?  What goes on in the human mind is just as real, and perhaps even more so, than the physical world.  Although I disagree with much of Freud’s theories, psychology had a huge effect on Modernism and on literature today.  Writers like William Faulkner represented reality by getting inside the protagonist’s mind.  All five senses were written of, and thought process made its way into literature.  And that means thoughts the way we actually think them.  Thought is not linear or chronological.  One second we can be thinking about dinner and then we’ll remember something we have to do beforehand.  And different people think differently. 

Faulkner wrote a book my dad and I love called As I Lay Dying.  It’s about a family whose mother has just died and they are on their way to bury her body; however, it’s told completely in internal dialogue.  Each chapter is a different family member’s point of view.  Every now and then the characters speak to each other, but the rest of it is only what the character is thinking about.  The youngest son, Vardaman, tries to come to grips with his mother’s death by associating her with a dead fish.  One chapter of his internal dialogue has only one line, “My mother is a fish.”  We might think this Modernist book is a little confusing, but in actuality it is more realistic than many literary works that came before.

While trying to characterize life in a more realistic, psychological way, Modernists also accepted the fact that we can never really represent truth correctly.  A famous painting by a Surrealist/Post-Modern artist, René Magritte, shows a picture of a pipe and underneath in French it reads, “This is not a pipe.”  It’s true.  It is only a painting of one.  And moreover, the word “pipe” itself is just a bunch of letters, which are only scribbles on a page assigned certain values.  Who is to say that this object should be called a “pipe”?  Modernists are often ridiculed for being confusing and meaningless or doesn’t look like anything.  The point isn’t that it’s impressive or even that it looks just like the real thing.  The point is to make you think about the fact that everything we call reality is only how we perceive it.

Many of my friends dislike Modernism all the same, but I think, “If you enjoy contemporary literature, you have to at least appreciate the Modernists, because their influence is still rampant in our culture.”  We would not have the society or literature we have today if it weren’t for the Modernists.  Give me any book told in first-person or third-person omniscient, and I’ll tell you that the author is getting inside the human mind, which the Modernists did more than anyone, and therefore the author is relying on a tradition started by the Modernists.  You may not understand them, but you think just the way the Modernists did.

My Tweethis

As I reach mid-semester, it's time to figure out what my tweethis is for my blog.  Let's look at what each post's main idea has been.

How digitally civilized am I? -- I'm a little behind on the times.
The Renaissance -- Humanism and social networks are studies of who we are as people.
The 17th Century: A Power Struggle -- When there is change (in religion, government, crime, or technology), there is an assertion of control, which must be balanced with openness.
18th Century: The Enlightenment -- The spirit of freedom predominated in the 18th Century due to an open exchange of ideas.
The 19th Century -- The gap between the castes grew larger in this century, just as the digital divide continues to grow today.
20th Century: Change and Decay -- Humans adapted and flourished despite the ravages of one of the worst centuries of mankind.
Redbox: My Epic Journey -- Digital innovations might eventually do away with the need for cash.
Ode to Gutenberg -- Gutenberg's press changed civilization forever.
Open Access: I don't get it -- Open access would certainly increase production and discovery, but it may not be financially possible.
Why do we create? -- The internet increases our ability to create and share more than ever, though the difficulty of getting our work seen remains.
Occupy Wall Street and Peaceful Revolution -- The Occupy Wall Street movement is primarily internet-driven and is similar to the French Revolution in that it is decentralized and unorganized.
Marx's (and Engles') Communist Manifesto -- Marx's and Engles' dream of a class-less system isn't possible in our imperfect world.
Internet Memes: Who we are -- Internet memes have the potential to change society for the better.

I can see several themes running through my posts.  1) Culture is reflected in and created by the technology we use.  2) No matter what disruptive innovations come, humans will adapt.  3) Change is inevitable.  4) Technology is amoral, but the people using it can create moral or immoral products.
 
There are a few other themes, but those are the ones that I think of when I look at the posts as a whole.  I think I like the first one the most.  The Gutenberg press changed civilization forever because it made mass production of information possible, creating a culture of openness and participation.  Eventually this culture led to the production of Web 2.0 which further encourages that culture.  If Americans are lazy (we'll concede that they are for my purposes) is it caused by the many technological advances that allow us to do less and get more, or does our laziness cause us to create these advances so we can get more for less work?  Our culture is reflected in our social networks and internet memes (what we say and do online), but those social networks and internet memes also contribute to our culture (what we do because of the things we see online).

So that's my Tweethis.  Culture is reflected in and created by the technology we use.  I'm excited to keep going with it.