For the second half of the week, I picked a couple of readings more or less “blind,” because there really has not been a lot of critical essays specifically about YouTube in writing studies. The first one I suggest we discuss is the one from the December 2009 CCC, Brian Jackson’s and Jon Wallin’s covering the “Rediscovering the ‘Back-and-Forthness’ of Rhetoric in the Age of YouTube.”
First off, a link to that (in)famous “don’t tase me, bro” video:
It was a pretty crazy scene, don’t you think?
I think Jackson and Wallin bring up a lot of great points about something that both Wesch and Juhasz more or less dismiss as either an example of how YouTube comments are ineffective or inane. Their analysis of this particular incident suggests otherwise. I also like the suggestions they have at the end of this article about how this might all fit into a writing class, though to me, I got a completely different idea for an assignment: it might be quite useful to have students pick a YouTube video like this one and do an analysis along the lines of what Jackson and Wallin are doing here.
There’s a lot of other stuff to talk about with this essay too, of course. But I want to actually make a few observations not so much about the content of this article as to its form, observations that might be on your mind too since you’re all working on finishing up the first part of the annotated bibliography, thinking about your research project for this class, and hey, maybe even thinking about the writing project at the end of the MA program!
First, note that Jackson’s and Wallin’s essay is actually a study that is both qualitative and quantitative in the way that they are examining these comments. Second, note that Jackson and Wallin do a lot to explain their interpretive framework and methodology– maybe even too much. But this work is important, especially when we get to the real meat of their analysis about this video.
Third, I think this is an example of a study/project that I have referred to as a nice and focused study as opposed to the “big shaggy dog” project that is all over the place. After all, Jackson and Wallin are focusing in on a single video and its comments. They are using this video and the theoretical framework regarding argumentation to make a larger argument of course, but they stay focused.
In short, it’s a good model.
Now, I’m not saying I’m expecting this level of detail and development with your projects for this class– and actually, given that your projects for this class need to be based mostly on library research, your projects will look a lot more like the first parts where they are explaining what they mean by “back and forth” dialectic. I’m not even saying you or even for the MA project that you’re eventually going to have to do will be this detailed and/or polished. But the basic model here– a focused and narrowly defined study that attempts to make a larger point– is indeed a good way to think about both your research project for this class and the MA project beyond.
Jackson and Wallin’s ideas get me excited…not necessarily because they’re new (because they’re not) but because I’m a huge fan of debate. Having competed in public speaking and debate for several years during my undergrad education, I found that this activity was by far the most memorable and most valuable part of my education. The activity prepared me for thinking, writing, and communicating in ways that my undergrad English courses couldn’t compete with. The “back and forth” of the activity was ever present. The speaker’s and audience’s ideas and opinions were always at the forefront of the experience.
With my experience, I completely agree with the suggestion that, “our teaching of argument would benefit from crosspollination with argumentation, or more specifically with dialectic.”
While I think there are incredible similarities between more antiquated forms of debate and the new online forums, I wonder if people have opinions on the differences in these two forms of argumentation. Can YouTube replicate what Plato so advocated for when it comes to spoken rhetoric?
Andrea, you bring up a good question. Of course, I’m sure Plato didn’t have the internet on his mind when he was mentioning the dialectic; but, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this comparison. My opinion, at the moment, is that while the internet can establish a form of the dialectic, it lacks the “presence” I think Plato thought essential for conversational truth-seeking.
I wonder the same thing, Brian. Of course, that sense of presence is getting more and more tangible with things like online discussion, YouTube, etc. I wonder, for example, about things like the telephone or, even more interesting perhaps, Skype.
Anyway, I too was in academic debate as a high school student and for the first part of college, and I agree Andrea. I sometimes thing that’d be a better way to set up a section of first year writing, but that’s another story for another time….
I’d love to hear that story though! I’ve always thought that spoken and written communication need to be merged somehow…
I want to hear your ideas about this sometime.
Wow. I have to admit that I have never seen that video in full. I simply saw the end part on the news of the kid shouting, “Don’t tase me, bro!” It was slightly disturbing watching it. I am not sure if he was purposefully egging on the police with all of his shouting and such, or if he honestly felt like he was being treated unfairly. Either way, it was quite extreme on both sides and, thus, disturbing.
I must say that I appreciate what Jackson and Wallin are saying in this article about how online discussion promotes good debate skills and the sharing of opinion. Even so, I couldn’t help being distracted by the thought of how annoying some of these comment forums can be. Occasionally I will click on the comment section of such things as online news articles and find that instead of actually discussing the story, it is a back and forth discussion of how horrible either democrats or republicans are and how Obama is a communist. Really?! Healthy debate is often impeded by these people who take the discussion forums as their own extreme soapbox and totally lead what could be a good debate astray.
Now, I am not a YouTube person– I just have never gotten into it. So, the comments that fly around there might actually pertain to video being shown. Even so, I was just wondering if anyone else feels like this ability to share opinions is being hurt by those wanting to go off on their own political agenda and not discuss the topic at hand?
I think you bring up a good point, Ashlee, but I don’t think it hurts the ability to share opinions. Yes, there are always going to be those who post comments that are off-topic/inappropriate just because they can, or they simply don’t have anything better to say. But, this is not something born out of YouTube or even the internet. Argument, in the classic sense, is inherently combative. And, people will do what they need to to “win,” even if that means ignoring something important and focusing on something trivial. Heck, politicians do it everytime they’re interviewed. I might be looking at the question a little differently than you were when you posed it, but that’s just been my experience.
Ashlee, I definitely get frustrated with viewers go off on tangents or post completely unproductive comments. And Dave, what you say about the art of debate and argumentation makes a lot of sense: “people will do what they need to to ‘win,’ even if that means ignoring something important and focusing on something trivial.” I didn’t think about that in this context.
I guess I just wonder how we can teach these things in a broader sense? How can we pump up the rhetorical standards of our comments (and writing for the web more generally) in such a way that the site remains open and democratic, but also keeps the discussions on-topic and “shitstain”-less. Moderation is one way, of course, but that doesn’t really jive with keeping the site user-run. It’s impossible to keep out all of the trouble-makers, but I worry less about them actually and more about the people who just don’t think at all about the rhetorical aspects of what they write on the web.
IDEA: As a class, let’s make a masterpiece of a YouTube video with tips on how to write effectively for the web and make it go viral and get millions of viewers, so everyone sees it and incorporates the suggestions into their daily lives. Problem solved. kthxbye.
I agree Ashlee, but I don’t think all soapbox rants are bad. We all do them sometimes, but usually in a slightly more professional and productive manner than calling someone a “shitstain.” I haven’t noticed the political agenda thing so much as the name calling and mean stuff. I don’t mind listening to others political rants because I sometimes find thos at least semi-interesting… sometimes
What I wanted to see and did in this video was what he was saying that made the police stop him from talking. I can see that he “maybe” didnt know he was crossing some line, but at some point he had to realize that if the police say stop then you stop (anybody watch cops). But to make the point in regrads to the reading I think that it is very important that at teachers we do have a hand in teaching what a good arguement is and is not. I mean I have read some of the comments that people post on youtube, even about music videos, and all they seeem to be able to do is a lot of bashing and name calling. I am not sure if that is becuase they are kids commenting or they are just people who can hide behind a screen name and say what they want to the world. I like the Monkeymech had to say and its shows that people are thinking about what they are seeing in more terms then just what is in the video. He makes a really good point without the name calling that I so often see on youtube. People often have an opinion without any real understanding of where it comes from, and that is something that we as teachers can pull out of them. They need to do a lot of self reflection and that is essential to be able to really argue effectively. To argue well is an art form, and you have to know your topic to be able to do that.
I found the “viral comments” on youTube to be an interesting phenomenon. What is it about online forums that make people forget how to treat others like humans? I get that it’s practically anonymous and all, but manners! I would never talk to someone else like that! Is it that they don’t know how to respond diplomatically or that they like being jerky to other people?
In my experience, I think the “bad behavior” is almost all (but not entirely about) anonymity. If no one knows who “sexyback123″ is, there’s no reason not to call someone a “shitstain,” even if it is just for the naughty thrill of it all. Of course, there are arguably good reasons to be anonymous sometimes too. Anyway, lots and lots of thought, debate, scholarship out there about identity for sure.
Oh, and Brian brings up a lot of comments below on sites that have tried to wrestle with this issue through moderation, temporarily turning comments off, etc.
In the end, I think it’s basically a trade-off: you can set up a site that filters/moderates all kinds of comments to avoid naughty behavior. But those sites run into the problem of occasionally over-reaching and over-censoring. This is something I see with annarbor.com all the time. And on the flip-side, if anything goes, well, then you get a lot of shitstain and other comments.
Something funny about the concept of anonymity is that people feel anonymous even on things like Facebook and Myspace in which they clearly identify themselves. There’s a strange, artificial sense of distance between the writer and the rest of the world – even when people are publishing for the world to see. Very odd. Maybe it’s because people feel like their writing is private when typing on a computer in the privacy of their homes…?
I think it has something to do with not being in the same room when they write what they do. If they were in the same room they might think twice about saying it.
I remember when this happened, and I talked about it with a lot of my friends. But, I’ll avoid a long monologue about it. I think both sides of the “who’s @ fault” argument have merrit… it is a free speech issue, but Cristin’s point about when a cop says stop is also quite correct. Although I don’t think he should have been thrown out for the questions he asked, I also think that he had particular motives in mind once it happened. Let’s not forget that this was a political event and tensions run high.
Anyways, I really appreciated how they approached this study. The introduction really set up what they were going to present and rationalized it well. I think this could have been a very “messy” kind of study, but they really focused it well and made it much cleaner than it could have been. I also appreciated that they admitted to their own limitations, which is always important in such a study. And, I think they make a strong argument for reassessing how we view argumentation in the writing classroom. It certainly would involve some complications to engage students in this kind of “back-and-forthness,” but those are usually the kinds of things that when you can pull them off, end up acomplishing the most.
I liked the quote, “we analyze so we can argue, and we write so we can be responded to…” we can’t argue something properly unless we analyze it, pick it apart, and think about it from multiple perspectives. Like the other things we have read that claim writing, video creation, and other forms of literacy are all process-oriented, so is rhetoric and argumentation. They follow a process that is necessary in order to have a successful debate. This article made good use of the Phaedrus. Normally I like to argue against Plato, but it made sense with what this article was saying. We don’t fully understand something unless we argue over it, defend it, change our mind, talk things out, etc. this is a great way to engage students’ curiosities as well. Students love to argue things and giving them a structured manner to do so would be a great forum for writing in the classroom. This type of writing is collaborative and intertextual and so much more complex then a lot of the things we give to students that bore them and follow the same regulations of 5-paragraph essays they’ve written all throughout their lives.
Hey, all! First, thanks for paying me the best compliment in the universe by reading my stuff! You’ve brought our readership up to, like, six, and that’s six more than I thought would read the article.
Second, Steve, your assignment would be excellent, especially if we could teach students how to categorize arguments and make judgments about what makes an argument effective beyond merely providing a reason. I think Ashlee’s onto something when she complains about how annoying comments can be. Mashable and Engadget have posted debates on blog comments, since far too many people just can’t help but act like barbarians when they make comments. (Engadget in fact disabled comments for a while for this very reason.) Though I doubt there was ever a time when civil discourse was the norm—I’m thinking of the senator that bludgeoned the other senator during the antebellum debates on the expansion of slavery—it seems we have plenty to contribute to the refinement (ugh–what a word!) of digital discourse.
Finally, I think Andrea’s onto something as well. It seems we have a hard time engaging with each other. Maybe some of us are too passive aggressive, or maybe we take it too personally. And maybe sometimes we should; maybe it’s true that we are what we argue. But I look forward to teaching students how to use words to debate issues in digital venues in ways conducive to public judgment. Quixotic?
Keep up the great work! This looks like the kind of class I wish I had taken in grad school.
Hmm Meyers. People are shushed every day by others. I’m fighting the urge to join in the argument because I’ve never seen this video.
“The online agora changes so fast we almost have no way as teachers
to respond without sounding dated.”
I feel that what we are doing in this class right now is so important. We are taking part in a dialectic, back and forth phenomenon that will be studied and thought about by others. Cheesey right.
It’s like we are studying ourselves. Ha.
This article is so loaded that I feel like my response is going to be prehistoric, in a sense, because I feel nostalgic and that I am trying to figure out what is occurring right now at the same time. Technology is rapidly changing writing and so there is hardly any source to draw from. But it takes a freaking storm for people to notice the changes that occurring in our society, in our communication and ourselves.
I think you all have some really good ideas. I can see the discourse you are discussing for a college class, However, for high school students it is terribly trying just to get them to make a valid arguement at all. Andrea, I loved your thoughts re Plato.
I think this situation is a result of us moving away from our own little space…when we have to trust what we see because we are not there, It is really interesting because the book I am reviewing (spoiler alert) talks about the role of teachers as being that of making sure that students learn how to process and use the information wisely. Therefore, according to the experts, that is perhaps our most important role.
The issue of debate online is really interesting. One thing to consider is that online dialectic may just be a little(lot) more pointed, than face-to-face conversation. Of course, civilizing it to a degree is probably a good idea; but, simply making it adhere to traditional debate standards might not be the best approach. It might be a case of looking at online conversations to discover not only ways to “up” the quality of the rhetoric, but also, of how online dialogue may simply be doing something different, and therefore, require a different set of analytic tools.
And, yeah, Steve’s assignment is pretty awesome. I’d like to implement something like that.
I agree. Since there is not an immediacy as there is in a face to face debate, one might expect a higher level of argument, but then there might be something lacking in the very immediacy of it all.
One important issue is that we are becoming aware that student need to be taught in the new literacy of video and composition. This issue can go back and forth for months but the issue is getting students to react to argumentation in a civilized way that Aristotle intended. I think the more English teachers start using video/writing the expression to social issues will be better than a bunch jumping on the emotional bandwagon.
Great point Gloria; the issue of teaching students calmer ways to react to video speaks directly, I think, to developing critical reading skills not just of text, but over a range of different modalities. If we can give students tools for analyzing different modes of rhetoric that occur online, it might go some way towards those students thinking more critically about the things they see on YouTube and other spaces online that contain multimodal texts.