The idea of the effects of the networking information economy I found really truthful and they are something that I continue to see day in and day out. This type of economy can allow you to be more independent and allow you to get things down on your own record. Some of the things the reading brought up in terms of values this economy increases includes individual freedom, critical culture, and a more genuinely participatory political system. The internet is a means of reaching all of these goals by connecting different users around the world. As an internet user, you can be your own entity without the direct control of someone above you. Furthermore, the internet creates a much richer culture since you have a melting pot of ideas from across the planet. Posting videos, photos, and other content like that allow users to immerse themselves in this rich culture. In terms of more genuine participation, the fact that there is so much freedom and opportunities to be heard online, people’s participation in the online world is much more increased than without the internet. Overall, the internet plays a huge role in this type of economy and has brought us many affordances as a result of bringing the world closer together.

Interview question for show writer: have you ever written/edited something in a way that guy disagrees because your supervisor or “market” would prefer it a different way.

Option 2: I would say I don’t generally get angry at my friends or parents about anything. I don’t have that “mean” bone in my body to actually get so worked up that I yell at someone or break something. Instead, I take a more passive aggressive approach which can actually be more effective and less destructive in general. I haven’t written an actual passive aggressive “note”, however through text messages I’ve been able to convey a passive aggressive tone when I’m upset about something. Using sarcasm or by acting in a difficult/pouty way usual gets my point across and I end up resolving the conflict after the other party asks what I’m upset about.

One part of this reading that caught my eye was the economy behind utilizing language as a form of power/currency. The reading mentioned that “the dominant class occupying jobs in today’s lofts, offices, and boardrooms succeed by making language its instrument of production” (255). The reading argues that things like email and other online textual tools have made the use of language more accessible and easier to use to gain points in a hierarchical job setting. For example, even if you are a more shy person or are less socially equipped, you are able to convey powerful messages behind your screen which can still very much be effective. This allows anyone with access to a computer the ability to converse with those around the world and form crucial connections. The reading discussed how back hundreds of years ago the middle class was able to ensure its status through mastery of language. We are still seeing this phenomenon today as language plays one of the greatest factors related to someone’s success in life. Every job position can be boiled down to having effective and strong communication skills. With new technologies like computers and phones, it has never been easier to communicate even if you lack in-person social skills.

Artifact: Social Media acting as currency or social capital

Capital is defined as the assets one has that enhances their power. While the most common and most talked about form of capital is in the form of money, it is a much wider concept that has roots in several different fields. Yes, it is true that capital needs to be in the form of a type of currency, however this currency is where the variability comes into play. In today’s modern world there are more forms of currency than ever before. One notable area of extended currencies lies in the digital world. Many people are able to obtain currencies online that aren’t necessarily in the form of money. Capital can play many different roles, one being the form of social capital as Bourdieu asserts. Social capital is essentially the strength of a network of relationships that one person has. This type of capital is extremely prevalent and valuable in today’s digital frontier. With millions of people connected at any given time through multiple different channels, it has never been easier to communicate and build relationships with individuals world wide. One subset of this new online world is the category of social media. This type of network allows people to gain a type of currency known as followers. The more followers one has, the more power or influence they have. Any advertisements, messages, opinions, alerts, etc are more easily spread among those with higher follower counts. This relates back to Bourdieu’s idea of Social Capital. He views those with more relationships as more powerful and more successful with those with less networks of relationships. One key component to keep in mind about Bourdiue’s claim is that it was written in a time before the internet. The key question now is whether or not the network of relationships is now diluted due to the overabundance of it on popular social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. It seems like anyone is able to have large networks of “friends” or “followers” and the actual relationships themselves are less meaningful. One can argue that Bourdiue’s idea of a social network was built on the basis that a strong tie existed between everyone in the given network. Nowadays, the currency that makes up Social Capital is so widespread that it actually loses value. It’s the same principle as quality of quantity. WHile the quantity of relationships is so much higher than it ever has been in the history of humanity, the quality between each connection is miniscule. For example, famous celebrities and athletes will have millions of followers yet they will know nothing about the vast majority of them. They will never meet or have met any of them and they just exist as a number on the celebrity’s profile. 

One quote from this reading that jumped out to me was Grubb’s and Lazerson’s definition of education gospel which was that “our faith in education as moral, personally edifying, collectively beneficial, and a worthwhile investment no matter the cost, either individual or societal ” (10). I wanted to argue or pose the question of whether or not this is truly obtainable or is it impossible to achieve all the aspects of this education definition? Thinking of education as strictly a positive without downsides may be wishful thinking. For example, there are certain things that must be given up in order to attend high education such as time, energy, money, stress, etc. These things can affect every student completely differently, so the idea of it being a “worthwhile investment” no matter what is tough to argue. There are unintended consequences with every decision that gets made, and many of these consequences can hurt the student and those around them. There are certainly situations where not attending higher education can lead to benefits greater than attending a school overall. I think it comes down to each individual’s personal situation/story. Of course higher education is something that can be used to advance society and individual growth, but the amount of factors that go into that decision is alot to consider.

I found the reading on the different forms of capital very eye opening due to the fact that it described aspects of an “economy” in ways i had never done so before. The idea of a “cultural capital” or “social capital” made me realize that goods and services can be sent and received in unorthodox ways. Many factors go into how we give value to certain types of capital such as how much time is involved or how you transmit the capital. This reading makes you realize that almost anything can be transmitted as a sort of “capital” where you give or receive value at a cost. Capital doesn’t necessarily need to be a form of psychical money as there are many other ways to transmit a form of currency. In fact, this reading discussed that cultural capital can actually be acquired unconsciously. Overall, this reading just opened my eyes to how our global economy works and how complex it can be depending on the types of capital you utilize. Every type of capital can be valued differently depending on how it’s earned, given, and used.

One part of this reading that jumped out to me was the line about how we define monetary payments and how this frames the way we look at them. Zelizer argues that you can categorize the types of payments as either “gifts, entitlements, and compensations”. Each one of this key words leaves behind a different way that the exchange of money is evaluated. Each categorization helps to define the type of social relation that the “buyer” and “consumer” have with each other. This quote got me thinking about this class as a whole, and what exactly it means to define money and writing. I think that the categorizations play a large role in how we define the interaction between money and writing. Depending on what type of job or career you have, you could argue that you receive money for writing in any of the 3 categories of exchanges. The relationship between the consumer and the writer could fall into either being a gift, entitlement, and compensation type of money transaction. I feel like this is what makes selling writing so versatile, since many other industries don’t have this flexibility in how you sell your writing. The way you can get paid and the way that people view these transactions is a lot more creative than in other fields, and has the opportunity to manifest itself it so many ways. Whether it’s working for a company or working for a specific client, the relationship a writer has with it’s consumer is very flexible and can branch out into several categories.

In order to perform a rhetorical analysis based on the artifacts in class, it’s important to do research on the time and audience in which the artifact was first displayed. You can find out how people at the time digested it, and how public opinion was different at the time of the artifact. You can also find other examples of people interpreting the artifact and then synthesize what they all thought about it.

I recently watched the movie “Wolf of Wallstreet” which depicts the lift of a stock broker who becomes corrupt due to the greed of making more and more money.