Gannon and the Problem of Time
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 I’m glad you brought up the issue of time. I think this is one of the most important elements of this discussion of social media vs. traditional scholarship that we seem to be whizzing past. If I were to respond to Gannon’s post, I’d start by applauding his methodical approach and thorough entertaining of Anon’s ideas. He takes the time to respond fully and flesh out the concerns Anon brings up. However, he does appear to do some of the same things he criticizes Anon of doing, namely, attacking a caricature of his opposition. Once Gannon decided that Anon, although dodging the accusation of crusty old academic, fits right into that mold, Gannon attacks the very idea of the traditional academic, lampooning what he sees as the old, white, and probably neo-liberal, well-intentioned man. He even goes so far to post a screenshot of Google image results for “professor” and doing something along the lines of “ew, look at all the white people.” Moving past the racism that the commenters are also able to ignore, we find Gannon essentially doing the same thing that Anon does: building a straw man so silly we can’t help but be pleased when it gets knocked down.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 But more than identifying some of those points where Gannon adopts some of the same ploys we see Anon using, I’d try and focus in on his argument. A couple pages in, he lays out his main point:
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Let’s call it what it is: the argument of Serious Academics™ against social media is not a critique of shoddy scholarship or the lightening of professional standards. It’s a rear-guard action against the increasing diversification and democratization of scholarly space.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 2 Gannon believes he’s found the red-herring. It’s not about criticizing the type or method of scholarship for Anon, it’s about the establishment fighting the changing times, man. He goes on to explain that social media is an inherently democratizing force that allows those who’ve been forcibly kept out of academia’s hallowed halls (real or figurative) to enter the academic conversation, and that those who decry the use of social media are simply gatekeepers interested in maintaining the status quo. In a variety of ways, Gannon associates traditional academia with privileged white traditionalism and thus sees fit to toss it out.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 1 Certainly, we can admit that traditional academia has its problems, and plenty of them, but identifying the worst of anything and than arguing for its value on those terms is silly. The same could very well be done to social media. And we could just as easily point to plenty of progressive non-white, non-male academics holding esteemed positions in the academy (bell hooks, Judith Butler, etc.) that would seem to confront Gannon’s estimation that academia is a conservative boy’s club. So, ultimately, we can see Gannon’s argument standing somewhat precariously on a less-than-moral high ground.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 1 Ultimately, I’m most interested in the issue of time and engagement here, and how these relate to scholarship. I do think that social media, like so many other digital things, is a powerful tool, and it’s up to us to decide what to do with that tool. Even if the tool was not originally designed with scholarship in mind, we are certainly intelligent and capable enough to bend these tools to our purposes. We should, though, be aware of how these tools shape our work. If we wanted to build something–say, a chair–and all we had was a tiny handsaw and wood-glue, we could probably get by. But the kind of chair we create will be very different than if we had a power tools, a proper saw, and other tools. All that to say our product is irrevocably marked and in some ways determined by our tools, and we should maintain an awareness of that fact when using social media to do scholarly work.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 1 And further, we should understand and be aware of how our attention span plays a role in the reading and writing process, and how that our attention span is changed or at least impacted by shifting digital media. Just as our tools determine in some way the product we create, we are in turn changed by our tools. Jesuit priest and media scholar John Culkin said “we shape our tools, and thereafter they shape us,” or, in other words, the tool works at both ends. It’s troubling to hear that so many people admit to skipping reading long works and prefer instead to read short works because their attention spans are poor. If our instinct is to cater to our weaknesses rather than work to strengthen them, perhaps we should be, like Anon, suspicious of how these technologies are impacting our ability to do substantive, sustained work. That is, after all, what we’re doing here.
I think that you probably is right when it comes to comparing Gannon’s approach to Anonymous, that they both adopted an extremely opposite sides of each other. Do you think Gannon ruined his argument by taking it too far and that’s why he got all those comments? what could he have changed to make the argument look less aggressive?