Globalization's Role in Communication

With the rise of information and communications technology or ICTs, our world has been shaped into a completely different place where many countries rely on technology and the internet.  As our society moves into an information age, the concept of globalization affects the world before us, connecting cities, provinces, and countries together with no worry about distance or time.  While globalization opens new doors for the possibilites of the world and further advancements in technology, it also acts as a set back to specific cultures national identity.  As I talked about previously, ICTs create an idea of control, as those who possess the knowledge(leading to money) are the ones who benefit most from ICTs.  This can be associated with culture and the lack of national identity that globalization has brought on.  Take for example universities as described in the book by Kevin Robbins and Frank Webster.  They argue with the new found reliance of ICTs, the typical national university is jeopardized as they are "ceasing to be essential to an increasingly transnational global economy."  The idea that universities represent a nation or a nation state is no more with the rise of virtual learning, distance education and information resources.  We no longer need to access the physical library as we have access on our computers.  As we continue to move through the information age, technology will be used more and more , eventually leading to little need in a physical institution.

What is more the rise of globalization and ICTs can affect a countries national identity in other ways, taking the control away from citizens and their day to day experiences with culture, and allowing corporations to define what culture means today.  Take Canada for example, with our proximity to the United States, the borders between our two countries have always been blurred and because of this we have been affected by American culture, and often identified as part of America.  With the rise of technology and globalization, culture products in American are constantly present in Canada such as television shows, movies, magazines, and internet sites.  As to combat the global market and further Americanization, Canada is forced to regulate technology and culture products, in order to keep our Canadian identity.  Culture used to be a way of life, but especially in the Western World, culture has turned into a commodity and a way to regulate how citizens should define culture.  With that being said if we did not have regulation laws in Canada on media sources, our national identity would become completely immersed into American culture.  ICTs are constantly becoming ways to control nations, as the media perpetuates what citizens should think.  As a result we as intellects need to be analytical to media sources, and instead decide for ourselves what we define as culture.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/From+marriage+spills+Canada+Party+hopes+solve+America+woes/7758257/story.html

Information Societies

To say that today we live in an information age we are referring to the simple fact that information can be found and shared easily through different sources of media such as the internet, television, and radio.  The information age or 'information societies' allocate to every citizen a voice, and a feeling of empowerment through freedom of speech.  Though our society has moved into the information age, it was not without criticisms throughout history that got us to where we are today.  In 1951 Innis criticized the use of information and it's correlation to our social, cultural, and economical growth, stating that information was not necessarily right for the well-being of humans.  Years later in 1986 information was subjected to scrutiny by Miles and Gershuny.  They believed that even if the coming information age did positively influence the economics of society, that it would only influence a specific amount of people instead of equally distributing information resources.  In my own opinion I believe there is validity in their arguments. In fact I believe that since human beings acquired knowledge, and with it technology, we have created a society of inequality.  This is because in society those who possess the knowledge hold the power and those who do not have the knowledge are belittled in society.  Though people are able to speak their minds through ICTs such as the internet, it is only those who possess the information resources that are thoroughly benefiting from the information age.  What is more through the popularity of the internet, an 'addiction' to information through ICTs is forming, and though people are able to voice their opinions, the internet becomes a form of control over the user.  Think about it, how do we know if the information we are getting through the internet is valid?  We blindly choose to believe everything ICTs are telling us, which gives the advantage to those who possess the knowledge.  They are essentially telling us what to think, not to mention what to buy through the bombardment of advertisements we are forced to view.  Their is little to no control to the commercial advertising simple because those in control do not see the need as they are benifiting financially.  Though technology and information has on the surface progressed our society, when you get down to it we probably had more freedom for our own thoughts before the post-industrial society.

When the Private turns Public

Social media is an opportunity for us as individuals to be part of a global community, giving us a chance to have our own voice and feel as though we are more than just one in a billion.  Through social media, such as Facebook and MySpace, we are able to document our lives or as Ander Albrechtslund describes “[cyberspace] offers the opportunity to construct an identity beyond bodily presence.”  As we move into a technological age where social media is common for all individuals and organizations, we struggle with our online versus our offline identities, and how they connect with our public and private personae.  In Albrechtslund’s article, Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance, he discusses the prominent use of social media and how its presence in society affects individuals’ right to privacy.
Albrechtslund states that persistence, and ‘the invisible audience’ can characterize social media.  The idea behind social media being persistent is simply that what you post will never be erased; it will instead stay with you to be later judged by ‘the invisible audience’.  The ‘invisible audience’ not only includes your friends and family but potentially everyone who has access to the Internet.  When reading a post in Hana’s Blog titled, Social Media and the Fine Line between Public, Private and Personal, she explored the same concept, that once you post something online you are never able to retract it.  She also described her own experiences with social media, stating that she is very conscious of what she is posting and how it will be perceived in the future. Unfortunately, not all of the population is so careful in their posting, as adolescents post their lives and experiences online with little thought to their privacy or the implications their comments and photos can have.  Organizations and employers now have access to their employee’s past, and with the organization’s image on the line, people’s online past can negatively impact their offline future. 
As a recent example in the news today about the effects of privacy on one’s public and private persona, we can look to the tragic death of Amanda Todd.  Amanda was a girl who, like many of her age of 15, was starting to explore her womanhood and unfortunately leaked a topless picture of herself to a male online.  The photo was then circulated online and as a result, she endured cyber bullying, which ended with her taking her own life.  Her tragic situation is one of many examples of adolescents whose actions at the time were seemingly harmless, but later came back to haunt them in a way that could not be escaped.  Her online public persona became what everyone knew of her and as much as she tried, it followed her offline self.
 We are often uneasy about the amount of surveillance the government places on social media and individuals’ social relations, political views and religious beliefs that are easily accessible Facebook or Twitter.  The government uses surveillance to control the online users but also to protect.  In the case of Amanda Todd, surveillance of social media was helpful in locating and identifying those who contributed to her cyber bulling. As social media rapidly becomes a part of Western culture, the government needs to use their control to educate adolescents about the implications of social media and the importance of privacy settings. While we may not enjoy the idea of our privacy being compromised, with social media the only privacy you have is what you do not share online.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/life/technology/facebook-culpable-amanda- todds-death

Personalities Online and Offline

Is the presentation of self and the online persona the same? Or do you pretend to be someone else? Does it make you into that person?

As much as we try to consider the two the same, the presentation of ourselves and our online selves is not quite parallel.  In all fairness people want to be perceived in a certain way and through online media, people are finally able to construct themselves how they want the public to perceive them.  You can be anybody you want to be online which empowers people, giving them a chance for their thoughts and opinions to be heard.  This can sometimes differ from how they are offline.  I do not think people are necessarily pretending to be someone else, but theres a difference between writing your opinion online about a specific issue in the public sphere and standing up and speaking out to a different kind of public.  People use social media to hide their insecurities while displaying their positive features and ideas.  No one posts online 'for themselves' because that defeats the purpose, we post online so other people will notice and consider what we have to say, so obviously what we say is targeting what we think people want to read.  We all want the option to be the best versions of ourselves and through online social media, I think people strive to show the world that version.  Although it may seem that we 'become' the people we are online, I still believe it is the other way around.  We are who we are but through social media, we are able to display ourselves and our lives exactly how we want the public to perceive us.  Our online selves are the sugar coated version we want everyone to remember.

Media Controlling Culture

As our society continues to progress in the technological era, our media has more and more control over society.  After reading the article Rethinking Convergence/Culture, it is evident how our culture in the present is rooted strongly in ‘new media’.  With such control, the media can now relate messages to the masses and subliminally or not, we are affected by these messages.  For example the article brought up the issue of gender relations within the media. Gender stereotypes are re-enforced through advertising, television, and movies keeping men and women confined to the media’s perceptions of how men and women should act.  Companies such as Dove that support a healthy body image for women, are owned by the same company as Axe for men, which portrays women as typical “bombshells” in skimpy attires.  This shows how media is controlling our social culture for a profit.  In the blog post Is there a Downside to New Media? social media is outlined as a new form of media that gives the voice to the people allowing them to give their opinions and respond to others; an 'open ended conversation' with the public. In another blog post entitled Why New Media? Emily Young addresses this emergence of social media and questions it’s relevance. She claims that people are able to express themselves freely but most have nothing of importance to say that will make an impact.  While people are completely entitled to their opinion I can’t help but agree with her, if half our new media is controlled by corporations trying to make a profit, and the other half comes in the form of the masses’ uninformed opinions then what solid truth is coming from media?

http://jodirubin.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/our-media/

http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/prints/axe-deodorant-lawnmower-6014105/

http://astudentsperspectiveonpr.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/is-there-a-downside-to-new-media/

http://emilykathrynyoung.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/why-new-new-media/

The Californian Ideology

After reading The California Ideology I just had a few thoughts about technology and the Western world. The Calfiorian Ideology is supposedly a new wave of democracy, creating various ways in which people can express their opinions online for the world to see. Its unfortunate though that the only opinions we see on a day to day basis is of those in California, Hollywood, and the large corporations that control our technology. Our media is essentially being used as a way to rule the masses, a new way which targets every person in our society. We all have access to incredible amounts of technology but at our own loss as we are constantly needing to keep up with it. The western world however benefits from technology to a point where we cannot live without it. So is technology being accessible to all moving us forward or holding us as a whole back?