Bolter's essays raised multiple important questions on the manifestation of culture in the digital world. First of all, is the digital world changing our understanding of culture? Is it changing our approach to writing and the way we interact with each other? Or, on the other hand, was it a change in our culture as it is what incited the development of a network community and a digital "culture"? In order to address this question, it is important to try and understand what a digital culture really is. People, including Bolter, often describe digital media as having more flexible, interdisciplinary, equal, and uninhibited qualities. Something about the free dispersion, and the utter amount of available information, creates a sense of freedom and liberation that contributes to the culture and communities online. People can create communities related to certain topics or ideologies online, so is there really only one culture?
The digital media facilitates interactions between people from different countries, different backgrounds and situations, but who may have a similar interest to explore on a blog or forum. While the internet can create an array of different communities and cultures, there are a few general characteristics that seem common everywhere. The fragmented writing system of hypertext, the diversity of information and ideas, and the often provocative and innovative nature of the medium seem to characterize a certain culture. This culture is either in line with a cultural shift, or in some sense, has caused it. I believe, that on one hand, our culture is becoming much more global, and therefore a medium to provide intercultural communication was certainly warranted. Additionally, people are becoming more inclined to want free and more democratic dispersion of information. I believe that this dispersion of information is making our population more extreme in a lot of ways. The availability of extremist views and ideas can influence people in even a different country to share in those views, thus spreading these views. Additionally, people often feel more comfortable uninhibitedly exploring a different identity online. On social media sites it is easier to criticize or attack someone than in real life, or explore a different identity (in terms of race, gender, etc.), thus blurring our conventional understanding of identity. Something about the way the internet functions can spur more radical and extreme views, allowing for people with certain ideas to unite and increase their ideas in a communal environment that defies place, and also cause a different idea of self--one free from conventions and physical world restrictions (both demographically and moral). Our culture was ready for this shift, which is why technology has been so successful, but have some unexpected consequences resulted? The accessibility of this extremism, and the deception of identity can have some dangerous effects.
Another issue that the Bolter reading brought up in terms of the network culture, is the loss of a distinction between high culture and more common one, or talent and amateurism. Online, it is just as easy to find a Beethoven symphony as it is a youtube video of someone singing a Justin Bieber song. Classical literature and pornography are all on the same medium, so is our generation losing its reverence and appreciation for high culture? Or is the concept of what should be valued being challenged? While I appreciate the accessibility and convenience of everything, I do hope that digital media only allows for more people to appreciate high culture, and does not diminish the value we place on great cultural accomplishments. Ultimately, I believe that the network culture, while the product of a more globalized and liberated culture, has affected our culture just as much as we have affected the functions of the internet, allowing for more extreme views and uninhibited interactions, and a less conventional sense of self. Is it possible to blame the extreme views, and the huge disparity between politics parties in American politics today on radicalization qualities of a digital media? I believe that the modern day blog and other social media sites have certainly allowed for people with these extreme ideas to spread influence on entire communities, thus even affecting our political sphere, and even violent behavior. Nevertheless, can we condemn such free communication just because it may have potentially divisive and violent consequences? The internet has pushed such negative developments in our society, but has also promoted positive challenges of authority and institutions as well, so it is each individual's responsibility to decide if this new network culture is improving or hindering our every day life.
While I am part of the generation of "digital natives", I find myself conflicted between supporting a transition into a digital medium and finding comfort with the consistency and history of print texts. On one hand, I acknowledge the flexibility and innovative nature of a digital medium. It allows for a more interdisciplinary and broad absorption of information. On the other, however, many critics say this can cause attention disorders, and I do certainly notice the fact that dependence on technology is making my generation lose focus and depth on individual texts. But this controversy on mediums ultimately brings up fundamental questions on education, and the nature of learning, that I grapple with as a University student seeking to make the most of my educational experience. Is it more valuable to learn broad interdisciplinary material, that leaves us more well rounded but less informed on a particular subject or to be an expert on a specific field?
The first option actually reminds me of the mission of GLS, giving its students an inter-connected education, that may sometimes appear broad, but provides a basis for future exploration. This is similar to the concept of the Internet, when reading one thing can lead to another, and gives the reader the chance to take initiative and a more active role in attaining further knowledge. This brings me to my next focus on this issue. Digital texts do not just change our relationship with knowledge, pushing us to question how it is we wish to learn, but it challenges our relationship with the text and, consequently, our relationship with the author. When we read, are we supposed to fully immerse ourselves into the words of the author? We chose to read a certain book, often based on the author, so is it natural to be submissive to the intentions of the author? Or should the reader participate more in their reading experience, making their own decisions about where they want the reading to take them? While both options have their validity, it is hard to deny that digital mediums give the author less authority, therefore diminishing the permanent, sacred nature of a text. This is a shame in many ways, how can we admire and esteem talented authors if their works are no longer seen as unchangeable? Is being a talented author still esteemed if, due to the digital text, more people can be authors? While I like the idea of being able to actively participate and control my own interpretation and experience in reading something, and being able to see easily become an author myself on the internet, as the daughter of a writer, I worry that something very special would be lost without the unique respect of an author and the permanent and timeless nature of print texts. I am particularly excited to explore the similarity between the change in reading and writing experiences and the change in our educations, in terms of what knowledge is and how we value it.
