I'm stuck on Gurak's notion of online communication being a hybrid of oral and written communication. He suggests electronic discourse is more personal, though it is in text form. This led me to the conclusion that the difference between online text and printed text is the use of voice. This is precisely what draws me to the blogosphere. The voice of the writer is not only justified but encouraged.
The idea of voice and personality in electronic discourse makes it an inherently feminist space. Just as the second wave used the mantra, "The personal is political," the third wave uses online communication and the blogosphere in particular to assume the same thing. This is why many second wave feminists and anti-feminists don't see the third wave as a coherent movement. We are not marching in the streets; we are marching through the World Wide Web.
Just as Gurak says is necessary in cyberliteracy, we have to think critically about the Internet in cultural history. This allows us to understand some of the key differences between the second and third wave. The key difference between the second wave and third wave movements is the Internet. Unless the computer pictured above has the ability to connect to Feministing or Twitter, I doubt that woman’s feminism can be found online.
Gurak writes, "Cyberliteracy... is about consciousness. It is about taking a critical perspective on a technology that is radically transforming the world" (16). It is a funny coincidence that he makes that point on the page after I scribbled "more voice in online comm -- very feminist!" in the margin. I had started thinking of online forums as the modern consciousness-raising groups of the second wave. Just as cyberliteracy takes a critical perspective on technology, we must be cyberliterate to appreciate critical online third wave perspectives on our global culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment