In my opinion, I think that language is evolving rather than
devolving. Social media can be used to oppose that standpoint, sure. However, I
also think that it can be used to back the evolution of language. As Postman
referenced many times in Amusing Ourselves
to Death, the telegraph changed everything, especially in the United
States. That single piece of technology sparked something new in the lives of
the Americans: efficiency.
Postman uses the telegraph with a negative connotation, but
I think that this thing, which started somewhat of a technological revolution,
should be more than just approved of. The telegraph enabled people to
communicate more quickly with people near or far; a message from London to New
York could be sent in minutes, making the world seem in a way smaller and more
connected. Yes, Postman agrees with my last statement, but he speaks of the
effects of this invention pessimistically. In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman does not even acknowledge the
positive outcomes that the telegraph had on both politics and business. For a
very extreme example, you can consider the Battle of New Orleans. Which, for
those of you who didn’t pay attention in American History, the Battle of New
Orleans was the last battle in the War of 1812. Some are you are probably
thinking, “Yeah, I remember that”. But, did you know that the battle was
completely unnecessary? The Treaty of Ghent, the peace treaty signed between
the Americans and British, was signed two weeks before the battle even took
place. The memo didn’t get to Andrew Jackson in time, since messages took so
long to travel at the time. Lives and time could have been saved if the
telegraph were used at this time. As ridiculous as it is, Andrew Jackson was
still accredited with the victory and his reputation as “war hero” led him to
his presidency the following election.
Obviously now there are even quicker ways of communicating,
and I personally think it is for the better. Like the telegraph did to the
world, academic social media can make a class feel more closely knit. Students
and teachers are able to be more personal with the use of these sites. This is
what Postman predicted and feared. But I say it is for the better. Technology
and social media is convenient and efficient. They act as a “classroom away
from the classroom”. Things that don’t fit into class time can be brought home,
and seen anywhere as long as you have Wi-Fi and its password. Social media is
highly valued in today’s society, especially among the teenagers. I think the
use of media and technology in a classroom actually encourages this generation
to participate. As of right now, language is evolving, and things can only go
up from here. I think the only issue could be the possibility of being consumed
by the technology and media that we use. Postman and I can agree on this one;
as long as we are aware, things should play out for the better.
Great history example! Improved--and faster--communication is definitely not a bad thing in my book. It's perhaps the nature of that communication that's more the question. One example I always think of is publishing. Everyone can publish whatever is on their computer. They can do so tomorrow. Don't even bother to edit--Amazon doesn't care. The law of averages states that a few gems that somehow didn't get past the traditional-publishing gatekeepers (and trust me, they're not easy to get past, even when you've made it once already). But along with those few there's now a sea of clutter for the potential book buyer to wade through. Does it matter that people are publishing on non-fiction topics when they are not actually experts? Does it matter that students (not here, but lots of places!) are using Wikipedia as an academic source. I'm about half tempted to assign a hack-Wikipedia project. The results would be very interesting!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow I see how you can argue how language is evolving! In my post, I discussed the decline in quality and detail of the information conveyed in language as the speed of communication increases. However, after reading your post, I can understand how quality of language may not be as important as having the information quickly. Relating back to your historical example, I can imagine that for Andrew Jackson, it would have been simple enough to receive a radio signal saying, "The war is over. Do not engage." The message would have been lacking in details, but I suppose information lacking in detail is better than no detail. Like you said in your final sentence, "as long as we are aware, things should play out for the better." Certainly, if Andrew Jackson were aware of the new treaty, unnecessary violence could have been avoided. With this perspective, it is hard to deny that language is devolving. I'm sure Mr. Jackson was notified at some point about the treaty and its specific clauses, but to him, that language would have been worthless despite its detail because it was too slow. Perhaps the quality and length of public discourse is declining, but at least there is a medium in which information can be conveyed to the public so we don't start pointless battles.
ReplyDelete