New Year, More Thoughts on Blogs
Happy New Year!
LJ and I cheered in 2006 with a party at our house (the big empty house makes us a natural target for party-hosting) which went very well. I haven't made any resolutions (I don't like them) but have plenty of good intentions (as always).
So, I just read Matheiu O'Neil's paper Weblogs and Authority which he gave at the Blogtalk Downunder conference last year. I was grabbed by the abstract right away and think that the issues he addresses in this piece are very interesting and important in the discussions around blogging. He asks 'what processes of differentiation and exclusion structure the social dynamics of blogspace?'; considers the tension between issue-driven blogs and the online journals hosted by LiveJournal; and theorises briefly that perhaps this tension stems from issues of gender
At the close of the paper though, O'Neil appears to settle upon a different explanation for the hostility towards LiveJournal from issue-driven bloggers:
While I found the paper really interesting, I was really disatisfied by the conclusion I've just quoted from. First, I think it's problematic to jump from an observation that certain parts of the blogosphere are male-dominated, or at least appear to be so (when you look through the lens of particular ranking systems) to a definition of issue/link-driven blogs as 'male-dominated blogspace'. While I don't refute the domination (again, it depends how you weigh things up), I think it is dangerous to get too comfortable with it. I also disagree that issues of exclusion and control are not acknowledged and referenced in the link/issue-driven blogosphere. Off the top of my head I can think of two instances where this was an issue for discussion: the blogroll debate as evidenced by this provocative and important post from Shelly at Burningbird; and Jessica at Feministing's acknowledgement of comment moderation and deletion. Indeed, the former post is in response to the actions of exclusion and control exercised by those at the helm of the maintenance of the blogging totem pole.
Turning back to the tension O'Neil addresses in his paper: there are reasons why I feel that the gulf of respect exists between some link/issue-driven bloggers and their online journalling counterparts. I don't really think it comes down to the online journallers exposing some kind of seedy underbelly that others would prefer to ignore (though I'm not totally discounting this argument). Rather, I think that there is a socially constructed, and reproduced from offline technologies and genres of writing, hierarchy at play: that which devalues personal writing and priviliges 'important', 'serious', 'public' writing.
I followed a link from O'Neil's piece to an (unused since June 2005) blog. I'm not completely sure if he is/was the sole writer of this blog as there are first and third person references so I can't be sure if these are his, or a co-blogger's, words:
So, being careful not to read (in case it was not written by O'Neil) as a continuation from his conference paper, I think this kind of illustrates what I'm trying to say: that there is a value judgement made upon the writing in blogs, and a large part of that judgement hinges on whether the writing is important or meaningful - with a side assumption that personal, introspective writing is neither.
Any thoughts?
LJ and I cheered in 2006 with a party at our house (the big empty house makes us a natural target for party-hosting) which went very well. I haven't made any resolutions (I don't like them) but have plenty of good intentions (as always).
So, I just read Matheiu O'Neil's paper Weblogs and Authority which he gave at the Blogtalk Downunder conference last year. I was grabbed by the abstract right away and think that the issues he addresses in this piece are very interesting and important in the discussions around blogging. He asks 'what processes of differentiation and exclusion structure the social dynamics of blogspace?'; considers the tension between issue-driven blogs and the online journals hosted by LiveJournal; and theorises briefly that perhaps this tension stems from issues of gender
LiveJournal is predominantly peopled by females whilst the influential political blog subgroup - for example - is predominantly male.
At the close of the paper though, O'Neil appears to settle upon a different explanation for the hostility towards LiveJournal from issue-driven bloggers:
Blogging signifies the extensions of networking and linking, but also that of controlling and excluding; however the second part of the equation is not usually acknowledged in male-dominated blogspace. LiveJournal reveals what lies behind blogging's 'participatory' and 'democratic' rhetoric, and must, accordingly, be ostracized.
While I found the paper really interesting, I was really disatisfied by the conclusion I've just quoted from. First, I think it's problematic to jump from an observation that certain parts of the blogosphere are male-dominated, or at least appear to be so (when you look through the lens of particular ranking systems) to a definition of issue/link-driven blogs as 'male-dominated blogspace'. While I don't refute the domination (again, it depends how you weigh things up), I think it is dangerous to get too comfortable with it. I also disagree that issues of exclusion and control are not acknowledged and referenced in the link/issue-driven blogosphere. Off the top of my head I can think of two instances where this was an issue for discussion: the blogroll debate as evidenced by this provocative and important post from Shelly at Burningbird; and Jessica at Feministing's acknowledgement of comment moderation and deletion. Indeed, the former post is in response to the actions of exclusion and control exercised by those at the helm of the maintenance of the blogging totem pole.
Turning back to the tension O'Neil addresses in his paper: there are reasons why I feel that the gulf of respect exists between some link/issue-driven bloggers and their online journalling counterparts. I don't really think it comes down to the online journallers exposing some kind of seedy underbelly that others would prefer to ignore (though I'm not totally discounting this argument). Rather, I think that there is a socially constructed, and reproduced from offline technologies and genres of writing, hierarchy at play: that which devalues personal writing and priviliges 'important', 'serious', 'public' writing.
I followed a link from O'Neil's piece to an (unused since June 2005) blog. I'm not completely sure if he is/was the sole writer of this blog as there are first and third person references so I can't be sure if these are his, or a co-blogger's, words:
I can't help feeling that, well, not all blogs are great. What has value in being expressed, for the author, may have less for the reader. It takes effort, and honest feedback, to make things interesting...I suppose I'm talking about quality and control.
So, being careful not to read (in case it was not written by O'Neil) as a continuation from his conference paper, I think this kind of illustrates what I'm trying to say: that there is a value judgement made upon the writing in blogs, and a large part of that judgement hinges on whether the writing is important or meaningful - with a side assumption that personal, introspective writing is neither.
Any thoughts?
1 Comments:
The big political blogs do seem very male dominated, both in terms of the writers and the comments/"emailer of the day".
And they certainly look down on personal blogs, but that's because they are doing a quite different thing, I guess - they are news sources and polemicists. I look down on Instapundit.com, because it just seems like a guy linking to news stories he likes and quipping under each one: "Indeed"...
I'd guess that if the view of political blogs was expanded to all global political blogs, women would feature more strongly.
On the issue of blog quality, well, on one level, you are free to like whatever you like. But if O'Neil has the underlying assumption that personal blogs = bad, and personal blogs = women, he should state that in his paper.
I'd also comment that for myself, LiveJournal always seems a bit strange, a bit of a private, secluded world on the internet. Google doesn't find LJ posts, technorati doesn't include LJ blogs, half the LJ blogs seem to be styled the same way. I hadn't noticed the female "domination" - go to some of the groups, like poetry writing rings, and there's a lot of unpleasant status-obsessed men there too :)
Post a Comment
<< Home