Week 1: A Closer Look

From this week's readings, I found myself particularly intrigued by the articles that focused on the possible decline of print literary and the lasting effects this would have on society especially academia. Latham, for example, presents an especially interesting argument about the positive implications that a digital world can have on cultural studies. His chief argument is that the emergence of the Internet allows scholars to change how they think about learning. Unlike the linearity of traditional reading, research on the Internet ensures a fluid process of learning that would be impossible with just print. Digital learning offers a world of possibilities that is never static and identical, but instead is dependent solely upon the guidance of its user. Thus, the authority of learning is transformed from the print to the individual. Digital technology ensures a wider range of accessability more independent of power structures that is often prevalent with traditional print. Students and scholars are no longer hindered by the limitations that prevail in print media, but instead are granted freedom to search and learn through a vast web of choices.

Latham argues that digital technology plays a major role in expanding the cultural studies fields because it opens up a world of possibilities that otherwise would have been difficult to obtain or impossible to find. Thus, instead of viewing digitial technology as a symbol of doom and a tool of destruction, individuals should begin thinking of a digitized world as a door into a cultural landscape that before could only be thought of as fantasy. We, as scholars, need to embrace this continually changing reality and learn how to exist peacefully by using it to advance our sensibilities. However, it is important, Latham contends, that the world wide web is not perceived as simply a time-saving tool, but instead it recognized for its infinite possibilities, its ability to change scholarship, and its influence on shaping reality.



I find Latham's argument to be particularly compelling because it is similar to my ideas of digital technology's role with activism. My current research interests are concentrated on digital social activism. In particular, I am studying the ways in which the Internet is producing a new form of social advocacy that is no longer defined by face to face interaction or physical results, but instead is more interested in creating communities and diaologuing with other advocates regardless of location. Often it seems, critics aruge that this cannot be defined as activism. My argument is that it is activism and cannot be understood by simply using traditional activism's definition. Instead, we must redefine activism to include digitial technology. We must embrace the possibilities that is ensured by digital technology. We must rethink the purpose and goals of advocacy. We must understand that society is changing into a digital world, and that transcending physical boundaries is a powerful consequence for the digitization of our world.
Latham and I can agree that digital technology should not be feared, it should not be avoided, it should not be invisible. Instead, digital technology should continue to flourish in our world, it should continue to shape our realities, and it should continue to influence the way we learn.