After reading Kima Jones’, "Writers of Color Flock to Social Media for a New Way to Use Language,” Erin Zammett Ruddy’s, "Facebooking: Why I Didn't Post this Photo to Facebook" and "Hashtag Activisim in 2014: Tweeting 'Why I Stayed,'" I find many similarities, yet also glaring differences between each author.
I found Kima Jones to have very strong views. She expressed her concern for the equality of “writers of color.” Jones writes “... unless we write towards the universal human—which, of course, is code for white person—our work would not be understood, or read or taught.” Albeit, I am not a “writer of color,” I think she is wrong. I think writing provides unbiased equality for anyone.
Erin Zammett Ruddy’s was an enjoyable read. I found it ironic that her honesty about not Facebooking was coming from a blog post (very similar), but also accurate. I actually found myself agreeing with a lot of what she is saying. However, if people can't express their "not as good" lives on Facebook, where would they go?
Audie Cornish speaking with Bev Gooden, creator of the hashtag #whyIstayed was interesting as well. I think Bev’s story is a great representation of how vast and powerful social media (specifically twitter) is becoming. In addition, the “social media revolution” has created opportunities for people to express themselves through writing and imagery.
Whereas the topics each author address aren’t the same, I think each had intentions along the same vein. Each have published stories regarding movements that have happening- or are happening. I think these three articles provide us examples of how influential writing can be.
Harris would attribute each author to being a part of a different community. Jone’s niche is civil right’s writing, Ruddy appears to be a daily blogger and Cornish draws attention to “hashtag activism.” Each belong to their own niche’s yet they all fight for a specific cause. Each are writing to increase awareness on their respective issue. Although Harris discredits forums to being a “community,” he proceeds to explain “while community loses its rooting in a particular place, it gains a new sense of direction and movement.” I think this sums up the three articles for this week’s blog. The articles are different in reason, yet united in intent. Harris’ article stresses “our aims and intentions in writing are thus not merely personal, idiosyncratic, but reflective of the communities to which we belong." We must learn then, to write well. Our communities, then, will learn to better understand and accept others as a result.
Your comments about Jones' article makes me think about a really interesting distinction: The difference between writing itself and what happens to it once it is read. I think the argument Jones is trying to make is not that writing doesn't allow for equality--I think you're right, it does because it is inherently what you make it--but it it can lose it's equality once it becomes part of a community. That is, once readers are involved, then so are biases. I think the point Jones is trying to make is that her writing, as a Black author, often doesn't have the opportunity to be read by a larger readership because publishers are less interested in writers of color than they are in "mainstream" writing. Twitter, though, allows her and other writers to find a new discourse community to join--one that is more interested in her work (and therefore allows her to make better arguments to publishers that they should publish her work in the traditional way).
ReplyDeleteYou draw on the quote from Harris about communities loosing concrete place but gaining a "sense of direction or movement." I'm still unsure, though, how you see that played out by the articles we looked at. Are you thinking they gain their direction from being in virtual spaces? What is it, that you see as drawing these three discourse communities together?