Social Media for Social Change

Contexts

Posted on Monday, February 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 am by Ona in research | 1 Comment

Okay, if anything, the links are slightly more helpful in thinking about rules applied to public forums. But most of this post is a small thought I had that applies.

What makes something exotic? Does it depend on the context? Or does it just depend on your context? Before a realization that occured the other day, all my clothes and things were just things I had bought within the United States. I never thought much about them. Then the other day I read the tag of my pants, it said “Old Navy”. I bought them here in the United States. But underneath Old Navy it said “Made in Indonesia.” Old Navy or Gap Inc, had purchased them from a company in Indonesia. I immediately thought that was exotic. Which was alarming, since it was by definition exotic but before I read that, they were just pants from Old Navy. I began to question the origin of a lot of the things bought in the United States, that were really made in other countries. My ashtray bought from the dollar store in Philadelphia, made in China. My shirt bought from H&M in Philadelphia, made in Bangladesh. My digital camera, China. My Febrese was made in Ohio… The point is, why does an origin carry weight? Stepping away from the word exotic which has a clear definition and focusing more on origin, What qualifies something or some one’s origin to be of a higher importance? And how much of that is just a lineage of socially created standards based on contexts throughout history? These are big jumps. There is a large jump from pants from Old Navy being exotic to identifying the reasons behind society’s notion of perception and contextual basis. But in relation to the commons, I was just thinking it is important for us to venture in, as best we can, with an understanding of our context and perspective. I mean, even us question the language that is used in communicating. Depending on your origin, where you are standing or how you are reading or blogging, communication is perceived differently. This notion of perspective and perception when communicating we have already talked about, but over the course of the last few weeks I have begun to pay attention to how people communicate. The noticeable inflection in language and choice of words reflect a given age, origin and context of conversation. Down below, I started gathering situations where blogging has been given a context, also much like we discussed in terms of our project, setting a context or rule base. I hope to tie in this notion of perception or contextual perspective to the verbal games we will play this coming Friday. So ramble on : )

http://budtheteacher.com/wiki/index.php?title=Blogging_Rules
http://michaelhyatt.blogs.com/workingsmart/2005/03/corporate_blogg.html
http://www.globalnerdy.com/2008/12/30/the-air-forces-rules-of-engagement-for-blogging/

One Response to “Contexts”

1. # On February 24th, 2009 at 10:39 pm Jeremy wrote:

   Ona.

   Don’t forget about the geo-political context of textile production. What superficially may seem exotic on the surface (”Made in Indonesia, Honduras, Bangladesh… insert developing nation here”) actually has real material consequences. Our globalized capitalist system, in its never-ending quest for higher and higher profit margins, seeks cheaper and cheaper labor in countries that typically lack decent workers’ rights — guarantees like mandatory breaks, healthy working conditions, and restrictions on child labor. I’m sure you are aware of these issues, but your use of the word “exotic” raises a big imperialist red flag: images of the fin de siècle Western bohemian white man enchanted with the culture of primitive tribes newly appropriated from Africa or the South Pacific, ie. orientalism (read Edward Said for an impressive body of research on this topic).

   That said, I appreciate your questions with respect to context. I mentioned Erving Goffman to you the other day — whose texts I’m only just beginning to scour — and he addresses context significantly in his analysis of human interaction. Here’s a passage from Interaction Ritual that speaks to the social and ethical contexts created by “rules of conduct”:

   A rule of conduct may be defined as a guide for action, recommended not because it is pleasant, cheap, or effective, but because it is suitable or just. Infractions characteristically lead to feelings of uneasiness and to negative social sanctions. [...] Attachment to rules leads to a constancy and patterning of behavior; while this is not the only source of regularity in human affairs it is certainly an important one. Of course, approved guides to conduct tend to be covertly broken, side-stepped, or followed for unapproved reasons, but these alternatives merely add to the occasion in which rules constrain at least the surface of conduct.

   [...]

   Rules of conduct impinge upon the individual in two general ways: directly, as obligations, establishing how he is morally constrained to conduct himself; indirectly, as expectations, establishing how others are morally bound to act in regard to him.

   [...]

   Because obligations involve a constraint to act in a particular way, we sometimes picture them as burdensome or irksome way, we sometimes picture them as burdensome or irksome things, to be fulfilled, if at all, by gritting one’s teeth in conscious determination. In fact, most actions which are guided by rules of conduct are performed unthinkingly, the questioned actor saying he performs “for no reason” or because he “felt like doing so.”