Posts tagged ‘Bruno Latour’

Knight, A. (2013). Reclaiming experience: the aesthetic and multimodal composition. Computers and Composition30(2), 146-155.

“So extensive and subtly pervasive are the ideas that set Art upon a remote pedestal, that many a person would be repelled rather than pleased if told that he enjoyed his causal recreations, in part at least, because of their esthetic quality.”–John Dewey, Art As Experience

new york lightsRecent scholarship points to the rhetorical role of the aesthetic in multimodal composition and new media contexts. In this article, published in Computers and Composition: An International Journal, I examine the aesthetic as a rhetorical concept in writing studies and imagine the ways in which this concept can be useful to teachers of multimodal composition. My treatment of the concept begins with a return to the ancient Greek aisthetikos (relating to perception by the senses) in order to discuss the aesthetic as a meaningful mode of experience. I then review European conceptions of the aesthetic and finally draw from John Dewey and Bruno Latour to help shape this concept into a pragmatic and useful approach that can compliment multimodal teaching and learning. The empirical approach I construct adds to an understanding of aesthetic experience with media in order to render more transparent the ways in which an audience creates knowledgeor takes and makes meaningvia the senses. Significantly, this approach to meaning making supports learning in digital environments where students are increasingly asked to both produce and consume media convergent texts that combine multiple modalities including sound, image, and user interaction. 

Leave a comment

Drawing from contemporary social theorists Bruno Latour, Pierre Bourdieu, Michel de Certeau, Karin Knorr Cetina, Jyri Engeström, and Ulla-Maaria Engeström, we can look at how people connect through shared objects. The argument here is that the object is the thing that links people together.

For example, people come to Delicious to share bookmarks, people come to YouTube or Vimeo to share videos, and people come to Twitter to share links and status updates. As a result, social networks consist of people who are connected by these shared objects  (in these cases: the bookmarks, the videos, and the updates). According toEngeström, “The social networking services that really work are the ones that are built around objects.”*

Yesterday, we put this to the test in my social media course. My class is currently reading Clara Shih’s The Facebook Era: Tapping Online Social Networks to Market, Sell, and Innovate. I adapted her “Reciprocity Ring” description into an activity on social objects (pages 58-61). Shih’s “Reciprocity  Ring” builds from Mark Granovetter’s 1973 theory of The Strength of Weak Ties among users of social networks. (However he’s not mentioned in her book).  Granovotter’s research questioned the idea that the amount of overlap in two people’s social networks corresponds directly to the strength of their relationship. Instead he focused on the power of weak ties. According to Granovetter: “emphasis on weak ties lends itself to discussion of relations between groups and to analysis of segments of social structure not easily defined in terms of primary groups.”

In our class exercise, we were interested in how a social object, in this case a status “request,” brings people together.

  1. Each student wrote their name and a “status request” on a yellow Post-It Note. Some examples of student’s requests included an umbrella, a ride home, a babysitting job, a futon, an internship.
  2. Students placed their requests in a circle.
  3. Students surveyed the requests. When they could contribute to a request, they wrote their name and how they could help on a new Post-It Note. Students placed their contributions below the original requests.
  4. Students then connected (with string) each object to the person who offered a contribution.


This exercise makes visible how the social object, here the status request, mediates ties between people. People were not interacting directly with other people in this exercise. People were interacting with the social object, the status request. This exercise demonstrates that social objects are persuasive in nature and prompt participants to perform activities. These activities are relational in nature. The more interactive the social object, the more opportunities for connection.


4 Comments
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 393 other followers