Changing the World One Click at a Time?

I think based on recent events like the Black Lives Matter movement it has been proven that social media plays at least a part in how change is introduced in our society. Given the scope and reach of the media, there are few alternatives that would allow the same number of people to be exposed to the same information. Social media like Facebook and Twitter have the ability to rapidly share information, accurate or not. The speed that news is now spread is epidemic-like because society today has an incredible emphasis on using social media. Since there are so many like-minded people, it becomes a lot easier to influence a great number of individuals. It can be used to mobilize people by sharing information and ideas, but the trouble with social media (and the internet) is that people are free to hide behind their screens. While it has the capacity to send the message “Get out there, go do something!” most of the time I feel it is just an outlet to talk about ideals, not to actually take action. In order for true social or political change to take place, the battle must be won through our physical society and not the online communities that form. The good news is I feel social media does have the capacity to be much more beneficial and as current movements have demonstrated we are moving in the right direction. The women’s march is a good example of the media spreading awareness and asking for a call to action. The call to action is what I believe is missing in many cases because this is what distinguishes simply sharing an opinion online, and actually going out to make a real difference in the world. In earlier times of social and political change, this was the only way to do things, in many ways social media has made us lazy and unmotivated. It’s much easier to post a strongly worded status update then to get in the car and drive down to the local community march. Overall, while I feel social media has the ability to mobilize and empower people, we are still a ways away from being able to effectively use it. 

Are Small Schools Better?

            Several studies in recent years have found the merit in choosing smaller schools versus larger schools. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein of New York City have begun the process of disbanding larger high schools in favor of separating them into smaller school. For students requiring special attention, it is extremely difficult to provide every child with a superior education if there are not enough faculty to support the student population.

At my school I am lucky to have a small student to teacher ratio. At some schools ratios can be 50:1 or more which makes it nearly impossible to be able to form meaningful relationships with every student. Some of the relationships I have formed during my education have provided me with invaluable mentors and opportunities I would never have sought out without their encouragement.

Education is a pivotal pillar in our society and significant funding and thought should go into our education system. I agree that smaller schools are more effective because it is simply not feasible to reach every student if you have a population of thousands or tens of thousands of students. I find it extremely important to make sure every student has the opportunity for an education and the structure of the institution can have an enormous effect on student success.

The benefits of having a smaller classroom mean teachers can take more time to individually assess and assist students. Having hands on instructors who are able to connect with students will provide a far superior experience. I think access to resources like tutors or meeting with teachers before or after school are imperative to allow children the opportunity to truly learn and understand the world around them.

More places in the United States should evaluate the sizes of their schools and classrooms to ensure they are actually educating a large audience, not just filling seats in a classroom. Larger high schools may offer additional classes, such as in Naperville, IL schools, with an average of 3,000 students or more, have classes like Latin and Mandarin. In California and Texas some high schools are as large as 7,000-9,000 students. So while these classes might be available at larger schools, if less students are graduating and receiving a thorough education are these options truly even options?

 Having a larger school might provide greater opportunities for students. However, the benefits of having smaller, more intimate classroom and school sizes are apparent. Do your research when you are looking at high school options or moving to a new school district. The graduation rate between smaller (less than 5,000) and larger (5,000 or more) schools is significant with small school having around 15% higher graduation rates.

When determining what the best choice for you and your education is, I implore you to keep these success rates in mind. Next time you have the choice between a small school with a lot of faculty support or a massive complex where you are lost in the crowd, think of these success rates. The choice is yours, but the research is clear; you are much more likely to be successful in a small school with more individualized opportunities. 

Op-ed

For my op-ed pieces, I will argue that small school classroom sizes are more effective than larger institutions. I will also describe the benefits and defend the practice of flex-time and work from home solutions in the corporate world.  

Blog prompt #4: Is Polarization a Bad Thing?

Is Polarization a Bad Thing?

One of the issues Ronald Jacobs and Eleanor Townsley address in their book The Space of Opinion is the popular fear that the sort of partisan narrative and views aired cable opinions shows are contributing to polarization:

To the extent that these kinds of narratives reinforce the partisan political identification of viewers, and to the extent that they encourage those viewers to see the opposing party as morally weak or even evil, then it becomes more difficult to organize a public dialogue built around mutual respect, trust or openness.

      While these patterns are certainly problematic and justify much of the public concern that has been expressed about the growing influence of the cable news networks, we think it would be a mistake to simply condemn the newer formats. The audience for cable television's opinion shows has different levels of knowledge and media engagement than its general news audience...(Jacobs and Townsley 238).

What do you think? Are the "newer formats"-- the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, The Daily Show, The Rachel Maddow Show, etc.-- contributing to political polarization and a breakdown of dialogue and mutual respect across America's various ideological divides?  

            I do not think the political polarization that is present in our society today was nonexistent in the past. I think because of the surplus of public forums it is easy for people to seek out only opinions they want to hear (confirmation bias). Thus the political polarization, in part, has always been part of society. Now that there is a slew of different ‘new format’ shows, radio podcasts, etc. which use a satirical and sometimes exaggerated view. Since we have so many ways that enable us to be narrow-minded, it is no surprise that the increase in popularity of these types of media certainly influences the breakdown of discussion and trust that is needed for effective dialogue.

Or, does such programming actually raise the level of knowledge and the political engagement of its audiences?

            In some ways I can see that this programming could be beneficial to society in terms of gaining awareness. The issue, however, lies in the way the media portrays situations, especially politics at this time. While it could engage people more, I think the distinct bias for more of these media platforms makes it clear that it is not necessarily raising public knowledge (effectively).

Could the popularity of such shows actually be good for democracy?

            The shows are popular because they focus on mocking our culture or using skits to try and understand the world around us. I see the benefits of this, and acknowledge that giving the public information that is easy to understand is better than receiving no information at all. 

Blog Prompt # 3: Expert Commentary, Academic Feilds and Intellectual Diversity

In your view, what academic fields or disciplines (Sociology, Psychology, Economics, Political Science, English, History, etc.) are most well represented in the media and which tend to be less common or invisible?

I think economics and politics are certainly very well represented in the media because they are consistent topics of controversy and conversation in our society. Politics especially is constantly in the news and media; it is almost inescapable. Given the current political climate, the media has latched onto the drama surrounding the election and its aftermath so it has received an enormous amount of media attention. To an extent sociology is a large portion of the media as well. Though it is not always as direct or prevalent, social movements like black lives matter are strongly rooted in the sociology of our culture.

Also, how diverse are the intellectual or philosophical perspectives of the majority of commentators in the media? Are there certain perspectives that are over-represented in discussions taking place in the media? Are there perspectives that are under-represented or even stigmatized and actively scorned?

Due to the massive platforms on social media, be it Twitter, television, radio, etc. there are certainly many different perspectives out there. As we discussed in class, those with the strongest voices, however, are often intellectuals. I think there are equally as many philosophical perspectives out there to make the media as a whole an extremely diverse sphere. Right now I feel the most over-represented topic in the media is definitely politics, including the presidential election and the scrutiny our president is under. I think the media is saturated with negativity and pessimistic perspectives from some media platforms and representatives. Just as there are things that are over-represented there are also things being ignored and given less attention. I think the main reason for this is because there isn’t enough room, there is too much attention given to politics and negativity that there’s isn’t ample opportunity for other topics to receive more media attention. 

Comment 3

http://namiki-public-discourse.blogspot.com/2017/04/public-intellectuals.html

Namiki, I completely agree former first lady Michelle Obama is definitely a public intellectual. She has brought a lot of issues to the surface, like her child-health initiatives, and her passion seems contagious. She has represented the country with dignity and grace and she not only shares her ideas with the world, she does so in a respected and articulate way.  She certainly shows a great deal of humanity and the messages she sends about her ideas are very strong.

Blog prompt 2

Blog Prompt #2: Who are the leading public intellectuals of our day?

In class this week, we will be discussing the concept of the public intellectual. As part of that discussion, we'll be talking about Posner's notorious list of the most influential public intellectuals in the American media. For this week's blog, I'd like you all to write a short post identifying the few thinkers and writers you consider to be the most significant or note-worthy public intellectuals of the present day and why. In class, we will spend some time discussing people's suggestions. Later this week, I'll post my own list. But for now, I am curious about who you identify as our leading intellectuals....

In order to be classified a public intellectual I feel one must first and foremost be an agent of change. A public intellectual serves as a member of the community who is influential and uses their intellect to help others. One person I feel is a strong representation of this is former President Barrack Obama. When he was originally elected his campaign focused on the thing he was trying to accomplish; change. Despite opposition President Obama always carried himself with grace and dignity, and, in my opinion, delivered on that promise of change. Obviously, President Obama was a very public figure, but he always spoke with conviction and eloquence while representing our country. For the most part his ideas were logical, he could clearly articulate an argument and his authenticity was unprecedented in our political offices. Given the impact the former president has had on our society, it is clear his ideas will be an integral part of American history. His ability to connect with others and insight change in our world serves as a reminder that the public intellectual can come in every size, shape, or color. 

Blog Prompt 1

Blog Prompt #1: The Contemporary Public Sphere

Most writing about the public sphere tends to focus on the ways that contemporary public life falls short of the democratic ideals that theoretically inform it. Thus, Habermas bemoans the structural transformation of the public sphere in the era of welfare state social democracies, the decline of rational debate and the deterioration of the media from organs of public opinion to agents of propaganda. Nancy Fraser points out the way that the norms of the bourgeois public sphere as an ideology continue to obscure and legitimize class, gender, and racial inequality. By contrast, Catherine Squires argues that critics -- like Dawson-- who say the Black public sphere is in decline are ignoring the diverse and lively discourse taking place in the rich variety of Black public spheres.

What do you think about the health of public life and the public sphere -- or diverse public spheres-- in contemporary America? 

Contemporary American public spheres contain both beneficial and toxic traits which make up our modern communication system. With the invention of the internet and social media, sharing information is as simple as it has ever been. While it gives the illusion that everyone can participate and share ideas, is that truly the case? The diversified public spheres that we've created have certainly played a crucial role in the way our society has progressed but is the availability and constant stimulation of social media diluting the real purpose of public discourse? Online platforms such as Facebook give the appearance of expressing yourself but are your ideas really being heard?  With the availability of these public spheres, I fear we may be losing touch with what it means to truly engage in intellectual discussion and discourse without the mask of a computer screen.

Do you think online platforms like blogs and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) that consume so much of our time and attention are functioning as public spheres, perhaps even as subaltern counter public spheres of various kinds?

Social media provides us with a platform to share ideas, opinions, and communications with one another but its excessive availability makes it counterproductive in many ways. The internet provides a blog for every topic, a niche group for every idea, and it can bring together like-minded individuals through shared values. While this can certainly be beneficial, it also provides people a place to complain instead of taking action. Think back 100 years ago, if something annoyed you, you couldn't simply take out the tiny computer in your pocket and send a message to 1000 of your friends so they could commiserate with you. Instead, if you had a legitimate problem or concern, you had to do something about it. The internet allows us to be passive, to express our ideas without truly expressing them, and to argue for the sake of arguing.

And, if so, are the multiple public spheres flourishing online a good thing or is this multiplicity/fragmentation helping to promote increased political polarization and conflict?

The fragmentation of these niche groups and communities online is positive in that it allows us a place to express ourselves and connect with others, however; it gives individuals a reason to continuously have something to fight for, something which divides us from others, and increases conflict. When you identify with a certain group it typically means you are rejecting the ideals of another and this is preciously what social media allows us to do. The internet indulges us as we watch the world behind the rose glass we have created, and instead of coming together as a whole and debating issues, we take to social media- where we usually surround yourselves by those with like ideas anyway. The fragmentation of so many groups only breeds conflict and I believe we should focus more on the things we have in common, instead of focusing on our differences

Comment 1

https://publicdiscourse-carolineb.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-1-contemporary-public-sphere.html

Caroline,

I think you bring up some really interesting points about how social media and technology have affected our public spheres. Your analogy of the adults shouting over each other, attempting to share ideas was very insightful and raised an excellent question of who should be assembling all of this information. With the vastness of our internet, it's no surprise that our surplus of information has become both helpful and harmful to our society. With its widened availability, social media allows a platform for anyone and everyone to be able to voice their opinions on any given topic. The disorganization that this public sphere allows us can lead to misinformation and misunderstanding which ultimately makes our communication as a society less effective. Without a gatekeeper to sift through the endless messaging, no communication can really take place. Instead, it becomes a group of people talking over each other, without hearing other ideas, or actually advancing a discussion. Moreover, while the internet and social media play an important role in sharing information and opinion; do these benefits outweigh the toxicity it has injected into our society?