Ok, the problem I've been having lately with this paper for my ENGL 295 class... the one about immigrant and native identity, and how that relates to digital media, and how that relates to literature... is simply that I feel completely overwhelmed. There is TOO MUCH to talk about. I always try and tackle too much, and perhaps sometimes that my ideas come out as much less powerful than if I'd just stuck with one thing. Have you, my fellow classmates, run into the same problem with this second paper?
That being said, I'm going to scratch looking at language, interactions, and identity (see Friday's post) and just stick with identity. I want to argue that the immigrant/native paradigm is very accurate for the digital world because new media allows the "native" children of immigrants to choose how they will construct their identity, which often incorporates their parents' immigrant identity into a new multi-cultural identity. See "Children of Immigrants Form Ethnic Identity at Early Age", as well as some of the articles on the side of that page. Some digital "natives" really are tech savvy, but many others don't have all skills in all areas. They incorporate their immigrant parents' identity. I also want to talk about how the immigrant metaphor was a handy metaphor to describe the digital age, because we are used to coming in contact with it in literature. The Joy Luck Club is a good example of immigrant "choice" and the mixture of identity.
So, problem: is this "too much"? Another problem: this goes a little contrary to my thesis for my first paper (see here for a description). That's ok, right?
Showing posts with label digital immigrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital immigrants. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
About Real-Live Immigration
Ok, so today I've been reading a little bit in the book Born Digital: Understanding The First Generation of Digital Natives. This book argues that digital natives do NOT consider themselves to have an "online" identity and an "offline" identity: instead, identity is something that can be blurred from one "space" to another "space". Digital natives also have a wide network of casual connections to other humans. And digital natives consider information to be malleable. Digital technology allows them to easily manipulate the things around them.
Ok, all of this information is really interesting and all that, but now read this article. This article in the NY Times talks about the generation gap in the immigration debate (and now I'm talking about immigrants from other countries...not digital). It argues that younger generations are much more accepting of immigrants than older generations. WAIT A SEC: BRAINWAVE. What if it is the digital age that has taught digital natives to actually identity with real live immigrants? I mean, look at the parallels! Comfort with fluid identity, human connections with a wider variety of people, inherent desire to manipulate the world around them... Digital natives thrive in a multicultural world because technology has taught them to! Interesting!
I'm still working on what it means that a group of kids labelled as digital "natives" are ACTUALLY more prone to accept real-world "immigrants"... Any thoughts on why the reversal of the metaphor is significant?
Ok, all of this information is really interesting and all that, but now read this article. This article in the NY Times talks about the generation gap in the immigration debate (and now I'm talking about immigrants from other countries...not digital). It argues that younger generations are much more accepting of immigrants than older generations. WAIT A SEC: BRAINWAVE. What if it is the digital age that has taught digital natives to actually identity with real live immigrants? I mean, look at the parallels! Comfort with fluid identity, human connections with a wider variety of people, inherent desire to manipulate the world around them... Digital natives thrive in a multicultural world because technology has taught them to! Interesting!
I'm still working on what it means that a group of kids labelled as digital "natives" are ACTUALLY more prone to accept real-world "immigrants"... Any thoughts on why the reversal of the metaphor is significant?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants
So, this blog is being set up for my ENGL 295 class at BYU. We've talked in class about how important it is so get your academic ideas out in the digital world. I've been thinking this is a really good idea. I like the idea of having a blog where I can sort of "publish" my academic ideas (is that a bit nerdy? I don't really care). I mean, how frustrating was it last semester when I wrote that very good paper about The Eternal Feminine archetype in Western Literature and I really had no record of my thought processes, besides a few scattered Word documents on my laptop? So, that's the story of this here blog, and I hope this here blog proves to be worthwhile (as well as the fulfillment of an assignment for Dr. Burton).
What I'm working on now is a research paper about the Digital Native/Digital Immigrant metaphor that is being applied to new media, social networking, and really technology in general. I did a previous paper studying what I labeled as the "Immigrant Dichotomy" in two American short stories. The first story I analyzed was Abraham Cahan's "A Sweat-Shop Romance," written in 1895. Basically, this story is not meant to present immigrants as a flat social group, but rather presents two types of immigrants: those who deal with American society based on an Americanized social identity, and those who deal with society based on an ethnic identity. The culmination of the story is when a character basically chooses that she will live her life based on her ethnic identity, and therefore gains more self-respect. The second story I studied was Jhumpa Lahiri's "This Blessed House," where the immigrant dichotomy is embodied in a married couple. In the end, the husband bows to his wife's desire to deal with society based on an Americanized social identity, but the story leaves you with the idea that the marriage is empty, and really quite devoid of inherent respect. The implication of this is that perhaps modern American society should deal with allowing immigrants the choice and the opportunity to incorporate their ethnic identity into their dealings with society.
Now that my class is focusing on new media and the digital age, I really want to superimpose the Native/Immigrant dichotomy onto new technology. Actually, this has already been done for me, because this metaphor is widely used to describe kids who perhaps grow up with a sort of "inherent" knowledge about digital media, and their parents, who have to learn the language of technology, and therefore are immigrants. Now, I think the thesis I am going to be working on is that the digital native/immigrant dichotomy is really quite misleading or even incorrect in describing how people deal with technology. Here's why:
1. Immigrants used to be the ones who would define their newly "Native" children. Now, Native children tend to define their parents' status as an "Immigrant." Why? This is inconsistent with how the metaphor has been treated.
2. Natives usually do not easily "speak the language" of digital media. Some types of technology they may have a good grip on, but many times they lack skills in many areas. In this way, perhaps we are all Digital Immigrants: we incorporate parts of the New society, but also tend to shun the things we don't necessarily understand. It's like Chicano Spanish: immigrants use the English they like, but cling to Spanish. Some people seen as "Natives" will use the technology that they like...but they don't necessarily "know" everything.
3. Overarching question: is comparaing digital media to something like language a valid metaphor? Do we learn these kinds of skills in the same way that people learn languages? Is saying that digital immigrants will always have a digital "accent" comparable to how other immigrants retain some of their social identity? Maybe not.
What I'm working on now is a research paper about the Digital Native/Digital Immigrant metaphor that is being applied to new media, social networking, and really technology in general. I did a previous paper studying what I labeled as the "Immigrant Dichotomy" in two American short stories. The first story I analyzed was Abraham Cahan's "A Sweat-Shop Romance," written in 1895. Basically, this story is not meant to present immigrants as a flat social group, but rather presents two types of immigrants: those who deal with American society based on an Americanized social identity, and those who deal with society based on an ethnic identity. The culmination of the story is when a character basically chooses that she will live her life based on her ethnic identity, and therefore gains more self-respect. The second story I studied was Jhumpa Lahiri's "This Blessed House," where the immigrant dichotomy is embodied in a married couple. In the end, the husband bows to his wife's desire to deal with society based on an Americanized social identity, but the story leaves you with the idea that the marriage is empty, and really quite devoid of inherent respect. The implication of this is that perhaps modern American society should deal with allowing immigrants the choice and the opportunity to incorporate their ethnic identity into their dealings with society.
Now that my class is focusing on new media and the digital age, I really want to superimpose the Native/Immigrant dichotomy onto new technology. Actually, this has already been done for me, because this metaphor is widely used to describe kids who perhaps grow up with a sort of "inherent" knowledge about digital media, and their parents, who have to learn the language of technology, and therefore are immigrants. Now, I think the thesis I am going to be working on is that the digital native/immigrant dichotomy is really quite misleading or even incorrect in describing how people deal with technology. Here's why:
1. Immigrants used to be the ones who would define their newly "Native" children. Now, Native children tend to define their parents' status as an "Immigrant." Why? This is inconsistent with how the metaphor has been treated.
2. Natives usually do not easily "speak the language" of digital media. Some types of technology they may have a good grip on, but many times they lack skills in many areas. In this way, perhaps we are all Digital Immigrants: we incorporate parts of the New society, but also tend to shun the things we don't necessarily understand. It's like Chicano Spanish: immigrants use the English they like, but cling to Spanish. Some people seen as "Natives" will use the technology that they like...but they don't necessarily "know" everything.
3. Overarching question: is comparaing digital media to something like language a valid metaphor? Do we learn these kinds of skills in the same way that people learn languages? Is saying that digital immigrants will always have a digital "accent" comparable to how other immigrants retain some of their social identity? Maybe not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
