Sarah J. Edmonds

Berit Elvejord

English 101

17 February 2015

Social Media: Discourse Principles that Prevent Change

To be involved in a flawed discourse such as social media raises many questions, one of

which is whether or not the flaws within it may ever be mended. Social media, a force which

cannot be ignored in todays modern society, brings together a specific group of people; ones

who take great pride in the strides of their generation and do not want to risk being on the outside

looking in on the world they have grown up into and developed. According to James Paul Gee,

that is what would happen if any one person in this discourse, or any other, criticized the

discourse to which they belong. According to the same principle, someone who is not a member

of that discourse may not offer criticism, for one has to be a part of a group to fully understand

their ideas, rituals, and beliefs. This paper investigates whether this society is forced to live with

the flaws of the discourses within it with these seemingly contradictory theories in place.

Tags: Social media, communication, literacy, James Paul Gee

In James Paul Gees essay What Is Literacy?, many rules are presented that put literacy in

specific categories, including elements such as discourses. According to his many rules and

regulations for this category, he essentially says that one cannot criticize (criticism being defined

by each discourse individually) a discourse while being a part of it, because then by definition it

would eliminate them from that discourse. One can, however, criticize from other viewpoints,

but cannot criticize without a point of view, or different discourse. He also notes the difference

between learning and acquiring knowledge stating, aquirers usually beat learners and

performance, learners usually beat aquirers at talking about it, that is, at explication, explanation,

analysis, and criticism (76). Now, both these points raise many questions revolving around what

this means for society as a culture, specifically participatory cultures such as social media. In his

words, for many generations that are not born into and brought up in this culture, it is like trying

to repair a jet in flight by stepping out of it (74). In this, he means that one cannot fix something

that they are totally disconnected from, which would be parallel to someone criticizing a

discourse from an outside perspective.

It is no secret that social media has many flaws. For one, it seems to distract people from

their real life situations and absorbs them into presenting a certain type of online presence of

themselves that they have created. As Jean M. Twenge discusses in Generation Me, This

generation has often been described as narcissistic by its spectators. This may be due to the

fact that people are so involved in their own feeds, profiles, and other social media outlets that

highlight their own lives. Another example is the fact that people now seem to be doing things

just for the sake of enhancing their online presence. For instance, if someone goes to the gym,

theyll get ready, go to the gym, take a workout selfie and then call it a day because everyone

will think they worked out, regardless of they did or not. Things are becoming less and less about

their actual benefits, and more about making ones life look interesting through the lens of social

media. One more flaw is the fact that people who use social media often have a compulsion to

check all their sources in fear that theyll miss something. People are constantly checking every

feed they have Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, etc. sucking up a ton of their time,

merely just because of the paranoia that Beyonce will tweet something hilarious and theyll miss

it.

But will these flaws ever be able to be remedied according to Gees principles? Because

according to these rules, no one can point out these flaws without being immersed into the social

media atmosphere, under the pretense that no one can really understand these flaws well enough

to criticize them without being a part of them. However, if someone involved within the social

media world were to criticize that same discourse that theyre a member of, they would no longer

be a part of it, therefore violating the first rule. And people cannot simply learn to be a part of a

discourse, they must acquire it, much like how one can learn all the technological aspects of a

language, but will never understand the nuances that each one possesses unless they grew up

immersed in it. So does this mean that this culture will forever go on with its flawed ways?

Despite this, there have been plenty of people who go out of their way to give their own

take on this issue, whether or not it is justified by Gees regulations of criticism. But it is

regarded as not justified when it is from someone outside of the discourse, and a betrayal by

someone who is within it. So none of the comments seem to gain any traction or hold weight. For

example, many of the people who have strong voices within society currently are not necessarily

within the discourse of social media. While everyone from news anchors to authors is forced to

have at least a limited knowledge of the subject if they want to stay relevant, it does not mean

that they truly understand the purpose and culture of it. So if those people, lets say ages 30 and

up, gave their take on the culture of social media, the real body of beast, which is people around

ages 13-25, would not take that criticism seriously, because it is someone talking about a culture

they know nothing about. It would be as if someone who learned English as a second or third

language in the later stages of life corrected native speakers on their grammar. Even though they

may be right, their comments are not appreciated or taken seriously by the main group.

Much like learning a language from another country to understand the people, there is a

certain type of literacy that is required for being knowledgeable within the atmosphere of social

media, such as text speak and emojis. Speaking within texts can be as simple as knowing

what lol stands for, but also can become as complicated as deciphering the phrase hA hwz It?

wnt 2 MEt ^ l8r?. Its simply an encoded language. Similarly, emojis are used in a fashion that

may not make sense to the naked eye. Instead of being used outright to express the emotion,

action, or figure they are presenting, many of the emojis have implied meaning that would only

make sense to people who have used it long enough. It can be learned to an extent, but there

comes a point where acquired knowledge becomes necessary for full understanding. This same

logic is used in other languages such as English; people who grow up here know when to use a

and when to use the, however it isnt something that can be learned, but something that can be

acquired.

This leads to another overarching theme of Gees essay, concerning the difference in

learning and acquiring knowledge. In the end of his article he states, We must take seriously

that no matter how good out schools become, both as environments where acquisition can go

on...and where learning can go on, the non-maintstream child will always have more conflicts in

using and thus mastering dominant secondary discourses... (80). More simply put, this means

that as long as the difference between acquiring knowledge and learning it exists, people who

happen to come from backgrounds that give them a leg up on acquiring certain skills will always

have an advantage over those who haven't had the privilege of having that background. My

question concerning this is: can this age of social media be at all learned? And if not, since no

one new will ever be able to be inducted into this culture, will will these flaws ever be able to be

mended?

It is a well known fact that the social media movement was developed and used by the

same generation that brought it to light. According to statistics from 2013, the age range of 29 to

30 year olds are clearly leading the herd of social media users; 90% of people in that age range

are active users in discourse. This is a colossal jump from the mere 9% of representation of that

same group in 2005 (PewResearch Center). However, even when the phenomenon was on a

much smaller scale, this same age range had the highest percentage of those tested. This proves

that this age range has always been the forerunners of this discourse. No age range has been able

to surpass those who have had the advantage of being born in a time where these developments

have been created; part of growing up for them meant acquiring the skills and intuitions that

social media require.

So if no one is ever able to pass this young group on the matter, according to Gees

theories, only this group will be able to comment on the numerous flaws on the system that they

themselves have created. But, while it is true that if someone who was outside this discourse was

to try and comment on its state it would be like trying to repair a jet in flight by stepping out of

it (74), this generation commenting on its own creation would be like a parent criticizing its

own child. The advancements of the internet, social meidia included, are a part of this

generations lifeblood, and we as a whole do take great pride in the strides that have come upon

society while we have been at the wheel, and also are proud of the abilities we have to work

these advancements to their full potential.

In my opinion, this generation is much too proud and absorbed in the achievements that

they have accomplished, as well as making each one bigger, better, brighter, and streamline, to

ever consider the flaws that are being concocted simultaneously. This is a fast paced population

of a discourse who for the most part 1) does not want to be disowned by such a successful group

by criticizing its own people and creations, 2) is more interested in the progress of moving

forward rather than the consequences of doing so, and 3) cares far too much about self

expression and sharing with their peers, as well as being an onlooker of these events, to ever let

go of this age of social media in light of the ramifications it may cause.

So no, according to Gees theories about discourses, as well as acquiring and learning

knowledge, self realization and consequent change are not a possibility within the atmosphere of

social media. Will these flaws keep pilling up until they shape our society as a whole, not just

this solitary discourse? Have they already?

Bibliography

Gee, James P. "What Is Literacy?" Participating in Cultures of Writing and Reading. N.p.:

Bedford/St. Martin's, 2015. 73-81. Print.

Pew Reaseach Center. "Social Networking Fact Sheet." Pew Research Centers Internet

American Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center, 27 Dec. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

Twenge, Jean M. Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident,

Assertive, Entitled--and More Miserable than Ever Before. New York: Free, 2006. Print.