individuals take are often influenced by a larger source in life. A main cause for a change in

Transcription

1 Estevez 1 Sabrina Estevez Lindsey Whitmore Expository Writing 355:101:NF Midterm February 22, 2017 Every aspect of a society is shape by a given cause. In other words, the actions that individuals take are often influenced by a larger source in life. A main cause for a change in society and in individuals is technology. The advancements in technology over time is the main aspect of life that is responsible for the changes within public culture. A public culture is the what makes up a community and the standard way of living. Public culture relates to the common resources or actions that individuals take and turn into the norms of their environment. The authors Cathy Davidson, Jonathan Lethem, and Maggie Nelson, provide essays that base their overall purpose on technology and their effects on public culture. Davidson s essay, Project Classroom Makeover and Lethem s essay, The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism closely relate due to how they shar similar viewpoints on the topic. However, Nelson s essay, Great to Watch, introduces a different perspective that contrasts the idea developed in the other two essays. While Davidson s Project Classroom Makeover and Lethem s The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism present unity in public culture through their perspectives on technology, Nelson s Great to Watch displays a division in public culture though her own view on technology. Davidson maintains a consistent, optimistic view on technology and how it has a positive effect on public culture. The culture or lifestyle represented within Davidson s piece connects to education. She focuses on how education is continuously evolving over time as technology

2 Estevez 2 evolves as well. Throughout her essay, she explains how the use of technology can transition the process in which students get an education. She shows how the strategies that students develop through technology eventually becomes a normal habit. She clearly exemplifies this concept through including, a lesson in institutional unlearning, in breaking our own patterns and trying to understand more of the intellectual habits of a new generation of students and providing a unique space where those new talents might flourish. Instead of teaching, we hoped to learn, (Davidson, 50). Within this quote, the evolution in which students gain knowledge is presented in order to show the positive effect technology has on education systems. Additionally, the unity in the culture lies in the concept of this evolution to occur. Davidson emphasizes her optimistic approach on technology and the power it has to positively affect individuals when she mentions the fact that students become masters at making good use of the resources they are provided with. She explains, Interconnection was the part the students grasped before any of us did. Students who had grown up connected digitally gravitated to ways that the ipod could be used for collective learning. They turned the ipods into social media and networked their learning in ways we did not anticipate, (Davidson, 52). This quote stresses the concept of having the ability to make positive use out of technology in terms of getting an education. With this continuous use and level of comfort that develops, the use of technology for this overall purpose becomes a normal process and is included in society s culture and daily lifestyle. Lethem supports the idea of technology unifying public commons as well. Similar to Davidson s approach, Lethem gives off an optimistic view towards this concept. He mainly elaborates on the way technology is used to develop a variety of aspects of society. These developments then become the reason behind the importance of having technology in the environment. He implies that technology is the platform for its own distribution. In other words,

3 Estevez 3 once technology has a positive effect on one thing, it will continue and spread universally to have the same effect repeatedly. When Lethem states, Even as the law becomes more restrictive, technology is exposing those restrictions as bizarre and arbitrary, (217) he shows that technology can overpower something else that is commonly viewed by the public. In this scenario, the public has something else to depend on. Their dependence on technology evolves to a greater sense which calls for the unity it brings in the public culture. Also, Lethem presents, They re not just an inventory of marketable assets; they re social institutions and cultural traditions that define us as Americans and enliven us as human beings, (222). Within Lethem s essay, he provides his idea of the public commons. Public commons are the collective resources that humans have access to in their lives, whether it be materialistic or not. With this quote, he shows that with his explanation of the public commons defining humans, his overally topic and view on technology can relate back to this idea in terms of how it has the same effect on people. It can define a culture in terms of the way it is put to use by the individuals within it. Through Lethem s approach towards technology and its continuous positive use, the unity within the public culture of a society is drawn. Nelson take a pessimistic approach on technology due to her belief that it causes a division in public culture. Nelson s overall judgement on technology relates to the thought that it is the cause of why and how individuals act, think, and feel the ways they do. She believes that multiple sources of technology influence individuals to do or think a specific way when being involved in any given situation. She primarily presents this influence through, if executions were made public, the torture and violence would be unmasked, and we would be shamed into abolishing executions, (Nelson, 300). This statement clearly supports the idea that with the representation of something, through technological resources, people would be strongly

4 Estevez 4 influences to begin or stop an action that is demonstrated to the public. This divides the original culture that the public would previously have before being aware of new viewings like the one presented in this statement. Nelson provides the same viewpoint through, Insofar as image flow isn t going away any time soon, it certainly makes sense to try to harness the powers of YouTube for all kinds of social causes as well as for entertainment, (304). Through the exposure to images anything relating to the visuals, Nelson argues that the concept will alter individual views that people have on their own. The influence in this statement shows her powerful perspective on how this concept will not vanish at any point in time. Therefore, her approach on the situation shows her believe of its negative effect to change the culture of a society through the thoughts of the individuals within it. Nelson attacks the idea of technology through her perspective of how it negatively divides public culture. Bibliography Davidson, Cathy. Project Classroom Makeover. The New Humanities Reader. Richard E. Miller. Kurt Spellmeyer. 5 th Edition. Cengage of Learning Print. Lethem, Jonathan. The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism. The New Humanities Reader. Richard E. Miller. Kurt Spellmeyer. 5 th Edition. Cengage of Learning Print. Nelson, Maggie. Great to Watch. The New Humanities Reader. Richard E. Miller. Kurt Spellmeyer. 5 th Edition. Cengage of Learning Print.

5 Estevez 5 Grade: Pass Sabrina As you move towards Paper 3, think about how you can develop what I ve highlighted in green towards the next essay. These pieces demonstrate some good analysis of the positives of collaborative new media sites use these as a basis for then setting up your claims about how Nelson s perspectives differ. The section I ve highlighted in yellow notes something you ll want to work on. Be sure that your thesis clearly answers the WHY or HOW question of the prompt here, you re saying that yes two authors help us see unity and one helps us see division, but I want to know more about HOW / WHY and the specific argument you ll make right up front.