The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media by Robert Glenn Howard - 12 views

• 
  #1 Rosalynn Rothstein on 24 Apr 12

   

  http://uolibraries.worldcat.org/oclc/4586482054&referer=brief_results

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://uolibraries.worldcat.org/oclc/4586482054&referer=brief_results" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://uolibraries.worldcat.org/oclc/4586482054&referer=brief_results</a></div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #2 Rosalynn Rothstein on 24 Apr 12

   

  Abstract: "From wikis to blogs, new participatory forms of web-based communication are
  increasingly common ways for institutions and individuals to communicate. The content
  these forms produce incorporates elements of both institutional and non-institutional
  discourse. More than a syncretic pastiche, this content is the product of hybrid agencies
  made possible by these new forms. Terming this content ''vernacular'' acknowledges that
  this hybridity frustrates any reified conception of pure or authentic non-institutional
  discourse. At the same time, the theory of a ''vernacular web'' attends to the complex new
  transformational possibilities of participatory media seem to offer individuals.''

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Abstract: "From wikis to blogs, new participatory forms of web-based communication are <br /> increasingly common ways for institutions and individuals to communicate. The content <br /> these forms produce incorporates elements of both institutional and non-institutional <br /> discourse. More than a syncretic pastiche, this content is the product of hybrid agencies <br /> made possible by these new forms. Terming this content ''vernacular'' acknowledges that <br /> this hybridity frustrates any reified conception of pure or authentic non-institutional <br /> discourse. At the same time, the theory of a ''vernacular web'' attends to the complex new <br /> transformational possibilities of participatory media seem to offer individuals.''</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #3 Mara Williams on 15 May 12

   

  This has been in my to-be-read folder for ages. I've started it a few times, but never finished it. While his arguments about the cases confuse me, I found useful his exploration of the potential tensions between user-produced content and institutionally maintained platforms. Traditional ways of thinking about vernacular online discourse place it in relation to the institutional. Howard sets out two types of vernacular - subaltern and common. He then argues for a dialectic understanding of online discourse, where one is always going between institutional and individual (counter-institutional) expressions. The cases are the weak point for me. However, this may be explained by Howard's disciplinary orientation as a rhetorician. The article's center is the fight about "vernacular," not how specific people and communities express themselves online.
  
  Also, unless I am reading ungenerously, Howard mistakes Dignity USA (a counter-institutional though long standing organization for gay Catholics and allies) with the Catholic Church proper. This distinction seems like a small point at first; his arguments about the blogger adding text could still be considered disruptive. However, it indicates to me that he is not familiar with the community. As someone interested in community-produced media, this wasn't a helpful article.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">This has been in my to-be-read folder for ages. I've started it a few times, but never finished it. While his arguments about the cases confuse me, I found useful his exploration of the potential tensions between user-produced content and institutionally maintained platforms. Traditional ways of thinking about vernacular online discourse place it in relation to the institutional. Howard sets out two types of vernacular - subaltern and common. He then argues for a dialectic understanding of online discourse, where one is always going between institutional and individual (counter-institutional) expressions. The cases are the weak point for me. However, this may be explained by Howard's disciplinary orientation as a rhetorician. The article's center is the fight about "vernacular," not how specific people and communities express themselves online. <br /> <br /> Also, unless I am reading ungenerously, Howard mistakes Dignity USA (a counter-institutional though long standing organization for gay Catholics and allies) with the Catholic Church proper. This distinction seems like a small point at first; his arguments about the blogger adding text could still be considered disruptive. However, it indicates to me that he is not familiar with the community. As someone interested in community-produced media, this wasn't a helpful article.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top