Shirky Part 1

Early in Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, he brings up something called "The Tragedy of the Commons," which was a similar theme brought up in my book review of Barbara Monroe's Crossing the Digital Divide. The Tragedy of the Commons concerns how in social situations, when people share resources, they have no incentive to not take more than they need. Shirky's example is a group of shepherds who share a pasture, and have an agreement to not overgraze their sheep, so the other shepherds can feed their flock. Shirky talks about how nothing is stopping one of the shepherds from leaving his sheep out longer, and if he were to do that, the others would have to retaliate to keep up. He also discusses how many restaurants will place a mandatory tip on a large group, because people tend to leave smaller tips in a group setting by assuming others will carry the burden.

This relates to Monroe's idea that on online discussions, many people refuse to speak out or argue, especially in an educational setting, because they're either afraid they're the only one who has that opinion, or someone else will post it for them. I found it interesting that the same theme popped up twice in both books.

Tapscott Part 1

After the Ong and Baron books, I was a little fed up with hearing someone from a different generation attempt to analyze the problems of a younger generation. A lot of analysis from previous readings, while articulate and studied, was hampered by generational gap issues and assumptions because of differences between the writer and the subjects.

Tapscott, then, finds a very agreeable middle ground by utilizing his children in Grown Up Digital. Early on in the book he admits his shortcomings as an outsider, studying a group he isn't a part of. He says "My two most important collaborators were my children ... who spent many hours with me brainstorming, reviewing ideas, and often setting me straight." This honestly is admirable and (in my opinion) gives the book much more credibility. I think it's important to be humble and honest, especially when trying to reach some sort of conclusion about an important argument.

Things Fall Apart (Part II)

In Walter Ong's Orality and Literacy, he talks about oral societies and how (compared to literate societies) prefer "loads of epithets" that reinforce stereotypes and expectations about their culture. Phrases like "the manly warrior" or "a sturdy wall" or "the nurturing mother" populate the language. He also states that these descriptors are "cumbersome and tiresomely redundant because of their aggregative weight."

I think it's interesting to think about this idea of epithets and stereotypes between the society in Things Fall Apart and our own society in the U.S. Okonkwo struggles with his son's supposedly effeminate personality because his society expects men to be strong and masculine. An oral society like Okonkwo's would fail to accept someone like Nwoye because of his atypical traits.

Compare that to a literate society like our own and you'll find it's not as extreme. Our culture still places expectations upon boys and girls to act a certain way, quite literally from birth. Boys are given a "masculine" color (blue) while girls get "feminine" colored clothes (pink). We still expect boys to enjoy sports and rough housing and girls to play with dolls and dress-up.

But what distinguishes the two is the reaction to someone breaking the norms. Okonkwo chokes Nwoye when he finds he's joined the Christian missionaries, and disowns him shortly thereafter. Things are (generally) not as extreme today.