Check it out:
http://issuu.com/eriksoderlund/docs/final_-_apple__google__facebook.doc
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Technology and Religion
The great thing about religion for most is the
spiritual bond and community formed through tied to a specific practice. Without
the spiritual faith in the validity of a said religion I believe everyone would
remain secular. There is another side to the divineness and culture of worship
and that other side is community.
Let’s take a deeper look into community. As mentioned
before in one of my earlier blogs Robert Bellah claims that, “community is a cultural theme, which
calls us to wider and wider circles of loyalty, ultimately embracing that
universal community of all beings”. [1]
Meaning ultimately the internet and the advancement of new technology should be
a good thing for community within religion. Anyone can access the bible at any
time without having to actually carry it around with them; they can attend
online mass, meditation, or worship when they are not able to physically be
present due to either geographical location or inability to appear. Sounds pretty
good in the terms of “wider and wider circles of loyalty … embracing that
universal community …”
 |
| Robert Bellah's, Habits of the Heart |
On the other hand, is
technology and this accessibility in fact doing the exact opposite in terms of dissolving
the sense of communal worship. Associate professor of Christian spirituality
and medieval history at the Franciscan School of Theology in California, Darleen
Pryds says, “I am aware of mobile devices being integrated into religious services,
but have found that most people tend to disengage from the experience of
communal worship, and there is a nervous, excited energy that pervades the room
and takes over,” which is the exact opposite mental state many religions aim to
produce. [2]
“Even the people who think they [are great multitaskers] aren't paying as much
attention as they think they are. And how do you develop supplication when the
very way you are communicating is so fragmented?” explains Dudley Rose,
associate dean for ministry studies at Harvard University’s Divinity School.[3]
 |
| Fragmented communication? |
In terms of Bellah I believe
the advancement of technology and new media has created a sense of universal
community, impossible in the past. People are able to do real time worship
through watching live feed sermons, meditations, or pray with a live podcast
from Mecca. However I believe there is something to be said about the
spirituality communal worship brings the individual physically surrounded by
their peers. When I was younger and went to church frequently, the one thing
that kept me coming each Sunday was the divine interaction with the church
itself as well as the congregation. When people broke out into unanimous psalm I
was overcome by the beauty of it. This communal experience alone was the only
thing keeping my faith alive in the hope of some sort of spiritual experience.
 |
| Köpings Kyrka, the lutheran church from my youth in Sweden |
 |
| Inside the church |
[1] Robert Neelly Bellah and others, Habits
of the Heart, (California:
University of California Press, 2008), xxxiv
[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38126658/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/technology-changing-way-we-practice-religion/#.UyIQz_ldXwI
[3] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38126658/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/technology-changing-way-we-practice-religion/#.UyIQz_ldXwI
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Mass Globalization of Information
“Accelerating a Vacuum” is a section from chapter
four of Jaron Lanier’s book You are Not a
Gadget, describing the effects progressing technology has on what he calls
low and high bandwidth human expression. Low-bandwidth expression like
newspaper-style reporting and music has already met the disastrous fate of
“free culture”, whereas high-bandwidth expressions like movies are well on the
way, argues Lanier.[1]
In the section “Accelerating a Vacuum” he makes
strong claims how advertisement is killing the promotion of artists,
journalists, and musicians by the manipulation of advertisement robbing the
truth and beauty of these mentioned art forms.[2] As
a counter I would like to claim instead that is because of the advancement of
technology and mass globalization of information which is not actually killing
these forms of art, just adding more competition in the various fields.
As a matter of fact we have citizen journalists who
are able to report at anytime from anywhere, through new media devices,
targeting an extreme mass of people online. This is thanks to new technology
and I argue is not killing the art or beauty of journalism, instead mass
promoting it and making the market more competitive.
An online sensation such as Justin Bieber, is a contest
to the power of technology. Though controversial, Bieber is someone whom
through promoting his talent with the use of new technology was able to reach
success. The advancement of technology and “free culture” has allowed for the rise
of this pop star I believe.
If we finally take a look at where the money is
going as Lanier suggests, he is right, towards advertisement. However I do not
agree with the reason being because of the demise of truth and beauty through
the rise of manipulation. Once again I would cast my view on the mass
globalization of information. We are advertising on a much broader platform in
today’s world thanks to the advancement of technology. Therefore with the
increase in size of the markets demand there must also be an increase in
supply. Simple economics.
Is the Internet Killing Journalism?
There has been a definite shift in all news media in
past couple decades. Because of the way the internet is evolving and has
evolved, written news media and television news seems to be dying out. Not only
are these different types of media dying out, but also the professionals
involved are losing their jobs and their professions as a whole are dying out.
This all caused by so called “citizen journalists”, seemingly making the internet out
to be a “bad guy”. But is it really? Or is the internet just revolutionizing
media? Internet the way we see it today is definitely revolutionizing the
world of news media.
In the past the way we used to get our news was
through morning papers and/or through television. Even though the news might be
same no matter what paper you read or channel you watch you still only get one
news media outlet’s story. Now if you wanted more opinions or a different
telling of the story you would either have to subscribe to more papers or order
more news channels. What is revolutionary about the internet is that you have
it all with just one click of your mouse. Video, text, pictures it is all
available right on your computer screen. Not only do you have that but also you
can easily go from one telling of the story to the next, by just clicking on a
different site. This definitely puts any written or televised news to shame.
With the internet as well you get outside sources to
tell the story other than just the huge news corporations. “Citizen
Journalists” and other amateur writers who may have caught a different side of
a particular story share it through blogs, social networks etcetera. This is a
completely new way to get news and in this way we can read or hear about things
that aren’t greatly emphasized by the big news corporations. A great example of
this is in Clay Shirky’s book, Everyone is a Media Outlet. Senator
Trent Lott holds a speech at former senator and presidential candidate Storm
Thurman’s birthday celebration. Lott says, “When Strom Thurman ran for
president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country
would have followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all
these years, either.” Because the major news corporations didn’t feel like this
was an important enough event to cover, they did not think it was important to
report anything from the event. What was said in this speech though was leaked
over the internet through blogs, and this ended up being pretty catastrophic
for Lott.
With this type of news sharing there is a lot of
doubt as to if the stuff we read can be accurate or not. It is, as Clay Shirky
describes it, “mass amateurization” instead of professional journalism. Is this
really a bad thing though? Even though professional journalists are checked and
edited on what they write and say, it is still edited upon the opinions of the
corporation. This may not always be accurate as well. The only difference
between a “citizen journalist” and a professional journalist is education. This
does not mean that people who tell us about a certain event, which do not have
an education, are inaccurate.
Internet, “Mass amateurization”, and “citizen
journalists” are what is revolutionizing the world of news media and will
continue to do so for many years to come. Just like there was a shift from news
media being delivered only through written newspapers and magazines to being
able to get it on television, there is now a shift of all the above to the
internet. Will the internet kill the profession of journalism? I do not believe
so, instead it will broaden the profession to make it more global and
intelligent
Friday, March 7, 2014
Friday, February 28, 2014
Does Friendship Have Limits?
This is a response to Friendship Has its
Limits by Erin Biba. The article is about how our social interactions
have changed and become more impersonal because of “friending” via Facebook and
the internet. The studies that were mentioned in the article said it was not
possible to maintain a relationship with more than 150 people at one time.[1]
These studies had probably been conducted and proven upon a median or average.
It is my belief this is wrong. I believe you can have over 150 close friends
and that your friend-count on Facebook can in fact be accurate.
The average person gets up in the morning, eats
breakfast, and goes to work. They will see their family, neighbors, and
possibly a clerk or someone at a coffee shop on the way. At work they see the
same co-workers, a lot of the time; same customers, and then leave for home. My
point being, the routine of an average person is one of the reasons people become
bored with their life or the continuity of things. If you were to now ask this
person if they had 150 close friends, the answer would most probably be no. Does
this person have a friend count of 150 or higher on Facebook? Probably, however
that is only one person in an average survey.
Let’s take a look at a pro soccer player. My friend
Emir Bajrami plays professional soccer in Europe and I’ve known him since I was
a kid. His friend count is currently 3,428. Does he have 3,428 close friends he
can call on a whim? I don’t think so. Does he however, have 150? I would most
definitely have to say yes. People that do a lot of things, go to a lot of
places tend to meet and start relationships with a lot more people, common
sense. I myself have played hockey on five different teams in the last two and
a half years. That alone is 125 teammates combined between the teams. Can I
call anyone of these 125 guys up and have a heart to heart, or ask for a place
to stay when I am in town? Absolutely yes! I spend every day for months with my
teammates and develop a very close relationship with each and every one of
them. That is an aspect that brings a team together. I would definitely
consider all of these guys close friends of mine.
It is definitely true that I have a closer
relationship with a few very close friends and do not talk to 150 friends
everyday day. If that is what constitutes having a close friend then I can’t
say I have any. There is a very large grey area as to what you can consider a
close friend though. In the text Erin Biba says, “Your real friend would call
you in tears to pick her up from a car accident”. Does this define who a close
friend is? If so I definitely have over 150 close friends, and I am pretty sure
there are more people out there that do as well.
To me a close friend is someone you feel very
comfortable with and you always have a good time with this person. You can tell
them anything without them judging you or ridiculing you, they are someone who
will always have your back, and they can take your mind of stuff, and relax
you. I would agree that not everyone has an accurate friend count on Facebook
but that kind of is what Facebook is about too though, connecting with people
from your past. It is possible to maintain a relationship with more than 150
people at once? Call me naive, but I believe one hundred percent yes! It is
possible, and it is equally possible that someone’s friend count is true to the
number.
[1] Erin Biba, Friendship Has its
Limits, http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/friendship_limits/,
2011
Generation Why!
After reading Zadie Smith’s, what seems to me,
attack on everything Facebook I was very intrigued by one point she makes. “Shouldn’t
we struggle against Facebook?”[1] is
a question she poses near the end of the article. Explaining how we are trapped in the world and
mind of its creator Zuckerberg, mindlessly shifting our lives towards a virtual
one by the hands of the puppet master. She
continues, “Yet what kind of living is this? Step back from your Facebook wall
for a moment: Doesn’t it, suddenly, look a little ridiculous? Your life in this format?”[2]
obviously I take a step back and consider it. However, what I find is not in
concurrence with what Smith is saying; quite the contrary actually.
I believe Facebook does connect people in a fun,
interesting, and self-gratifying way, yes, but more than just so. For those out
there with less charismatic traits or cunning linguistic skills in person, I feel
Facebook has created sort of an ice-breaker in the area of social interaction. Though
perhaps face-to-face interaction has suffered somewhat as an effect of that, I would
argue that Facebook is not solely to blame. As Smith argues her point of ways to
reach out to people a far can happen by using other platforms such as e-mail
and Skype,[3] I argue
they are just as much to blame for our lives transcending into a virtual world
as Facebook is. Also I would counter by saying, Facebook is more fun.
I could care less about a film such as The Social Network in the way they
portray Zuckerberg, accurately or inaccurately. If I wanted a more accurate
picture of the man and what he has accomplished I would use the greatness of
the internet. Be that as it may, I must say, that I am thoroughly impressed of
how big Facebook is. The way in which a 19 year old was able to create such a
massive online world, sustain it, and keep growing through entrepreneurial
ventures (ex. WhatsApp); is truly an awe inspiring feat, worthy of all possible
praise.
[1] Zadie Smith, Generation Why?, The New York Re, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation-why/?pagination=false,
Online.
[2] Zadie
Smith
[3] Zadie
Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)