As a member of Generation Z, I cannot understand what the world looked like before the Internet. This is the world Nicholas Carr describes in his opinion piece where he poses the question: Is Google making us stupid? Not being able to immediately access information sends me into a state of anxiety. How did anyone write all of their research papers via their local library collections? I much prefer the society described by Katherine Fitzpatrick in her essay “Reading (and Writing) Online, Rather Than on the Decline.” In her view, the Internet “allows for the open exchange of ideas; networked, dynamic communication; and the free dissemination of scholarly knowledge” (Churchill).
Nicolas Carr and Kathleen Fitzpatrick offer opposing viewpoints of the effects of reading and writing online. On the one hand, Fitzpatrick argues that the online world creates a “multidimensional conversation that takes place within a community,” (45), while Carr believes that “the Net seems to be […] stripping away [his] capacity for contemplation and concentration.” Fitzpatrick’s analysis offers a broad view to say that in general, online communication offers the benefit of collaboration and shared knowledge. Carr focuses on how the digital age affects his learning, declaring that he can no longer think critically and wants our society to revert to a focus on literature. Carr complains that in his experience “[today’s reading] is a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking,” while Fitzpatrick counters with the view that maybe this change isn’t so bad. Carr’s insistence to ignore the greater benefits of online reading paints him as part of the “elite group of cultural producers and consumers,” (42) that Fitzpatrick references when she claims that those who most fear the growing popularity of reading and writing online desire for a monopoly on scholarly media. Fitzpatrick has a noteworthy understanding of how beneficial online access to information is for communities outside of the targets for scholarly journals, such as those in high school and folks without college degrees. In my opinion, it is crucial to understand the advantages of reading and writing online for marginalized communities and what it means for our progress towards an equitable society.
One way that I participate in the digital sphere is on Twitter. The ability to share ideas with communities lacking in academic resources is a revolutionary contribution to our society. Marginalized voices can now declare their stances on global issues and reference their own experiences to an international audience, allowing readers to think outside of their narrow spheres. However, I recognize that Twitter also includes quick-paced, often inaccurate information that can harm our ability to communicate effectively and civilly.
I am a regular Twitter user, and have been for years. My feed has ranged from memes to popular culture and liberal news, but now focuses on the lived experiences of vulnerable and marginalized communities. When I was in high school, Twitter sparked inspiration for my political judgments. This social network allows me to hear directly from marginalized groups that do not have access to publishing deals and higher education that would deem them “credible” to comment on their own experiences on a platform that is worthwhile for scholars. Those in the Global South, disabled folks, and low-income populations are just a few perspectives that have contributed to my current understanding of our world. Twitter was and continues to be my starting point for much of my learning.
Imani Barbarin is a Black and disabled woman who I have followed on Twitter for several years. On Twitter and her blog, crutchesandspice.com, I frequently read about her life as a Black disabled woman that, in my experience, are untold by mainstream literature and scholarly media. Throughout my years of schooling, I have never encountered anything relating to disabled people that tells their stories from their point of view. Twitter fills in this gap. Imani Barbarin wrote an eye-opening piece (that I found on Twitter) about how plastic straw bans affect disabled folks, which is a viewpoint that I did not see from any “reputable” news sources. She explains the risks that these bans pose to people like her and demands that politicians, corporations, and everyday people consider disabled people when they act. You can read more with the link below, but her point can be summed up with one sentence:
“The straw ban is the symptom of a much larger problem: marginalized stories and histories are unimportant to people that have far too much power over their lives.“
She’s right- before the Internet, marginalized stories weren’t told the way that they need to be. Twitter allows her to streamline her views that are necessary to understand to create an equitable society.
Despite its benefits, Twitter has its flaws. Short snippets are not enough to truly understand complex issues. When learning starts and ends with social media is when reading and writing online becomes ineffective, inefficient, and sometimes even dangerous. 140 characters are meant to be a catalyst for discussion and sharing worthwhile ideas and experiences. True learning comes afterward from further exploration, which can look like articles, videos, and of course, books.
Barbarin, Imani. “The #StrawBan is The Latest Policy Abled Allies are Choking On.” Crutches and Spice, 17 July, 2018. https://crutchesandspice.com/2018/07/17/the-strawban-is-the-latest-policy-abled-allies-are-choking-on/
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?.” The Atlantic, 2008.
Churchill, Suzanne W. “Debate: What is the architecture of the Internet doing to reading and writing?” (handout). WRI 101: Building Stories. Davidson College. Fall 2019.
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. “Reading (and Writing) Online, Rather Than on the Decline.” The Modern Language Association of America,” 2012, pp 41-51.
Suzanne Churchill says
The greatest strength of this wonderful essay is its ability to engage sympathetically with two competing points of view on an issue, and then shift the paradigm to draw attention to a vital but under-explored dimension of the debate: the ways in which the internet, for all its functionalities and limitations, allows for the articulation and circulation of marginalized perspectives of people who may lack access to books and publishing. I also deeply appreciate the way you write in a clear, direct manner, without paper-ease, for example, referring to “folks without college degrees.” You not only advocate for them, but practice what you preach by writing in an everyday language that anyone can understand, regardless of what degrees they’ve accumulated.
You can improve your argument by focusing on the organization of your ideas, not only to create a better “flow,” but more importantly to enable you to develop your claims more fully. The essay seems to start twice in the first two paragraphs, and the second large paragraph gives too much real estate over to Carr and Fitzpatrick for summaries that are interesting and clear, but not purposeful in relation to the argument. Select the relevant points and merge them with the first paragraph, concluding by siding with Fitzpatrick and indicating that Twitter will be your primary source of evidence to show how the internet has enlarged your worldview by providing you access to stories you would never otherwise read.
The essay gets really interesting once you introduce the case study of Imani Barbarin, which lends specificity to your claims. You can frame your evidence in stronger quotation sandwiches. For example, the tweet—”“The straw ban is the symptom of a much larger problem: marginalized stories and histories are unimportant to people that have far too much power over their lives.“—is followed by a statement of opinion: “She’s right.” But you can engage this tweet more deeply. Do those in power not care, or have they not had access to those stories? The straw ban may result from them hearing other, louder voices, like those representing the fish and sea life who are being harmed by plastic waste. By engaging more deeply with her claim, you can show (and not just tell) how Twitter can broaden our frames of reference and stimulate us to think, read, and research more deeply—as you put it so well, it’s a “catalyst” not an end in itself.
Suzanne Churchill says
What I want to emphasize is that you are deep, deliberative, and ethical thinker. The care you take with your thinking and writing is an ethical position, as is your clear, direct, honest style of writing. Because of your careful approach (and by care I mean thought, reflection, as well as compassion and humility), it may take you a while to fully articulate your own point of view or original thesis. But once you do, you speak your truth with power and clarity. So think how much power your essay might have if you start with your powerful conclusions!
Please also change your settings so comments don’t need your approval.