Amateur manifesto :)

I am so intrigued by Keen’s (2007) book “The cult of the amateur”. Although I’m not a real blogger (I don’t blog except for the purpose of this class) I found very offensive phrases such as “… instead of creating masterpieces, these millions and millions of exuberant monkeys – many with no more talent in the creative arts than our primate cousins – are creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity” (p.2-3). I think his metaphor is completely off and transmits a deep disrespect for human beings in general. So, everybody who is attempting to voice an opinion in a domain in which s/he is not an expert (by the way how does he define expertise?) is committing a moral sin and should be degraded from the human race?! Should we all shut up because we are not “experts”?! Should we all stay mute and bend our head in awe to the mighty “expert”?! This make me think of all the beginners in communities of practice. We are all novices at some point in our careers and our lives. We are not born “experts”, we are not born rocket scientists, chemical engineers or medical doctors but we surely can become one. But how do we learn to be one? Do we do it by keeping our mouth shut and opening it just to take our spoon of knowledge and truth from an expert? Or do we do it by engaging ourselves into dialogue with other novices and experts alike? Do we learn by regurgitating expert content or by thinking and talking about all around us?

It seems that Keen’s perception of the threat of the Internet reflects a positivistic perspective. He advocates the existence of a unique Truth and belittles shared understanding and multiple perspectives. He argues: “Truth … is being flattened, as we create an on-demand, personalized version that reflects our own individual myopia. One person’s truth becomes as “true” as anyone else’s. Today’s media is shattering the world into a billion personalized truths, each seemingly equally valid and worthwhile” (p.17). I’m asking: what is wrong with multiple truths and perspectives? Is the world really shattered apart just because a “simple” mind has a chance to express its thoughts? And how is this threatening the “valid” knowledge proposed by the “experts”? I‘d think that what is valid cannot be shattered so easily. And if something shatters it means it was not so solid after all.

Another annoying idea is that Keen judges all the content-creators on the Internet by the value of the blog content of some of us. There is more to Web 2.0 than trivial blogs and My Space profiles.
The idea of amateurism is somewhat connected to Shirky’s distinction between perfection and perfectability. After all what should we aim for: unreachable perfection or human perfectability? I think that waiting to become “perfect” (or “expert”) and then talking/writing is not constructive if we think in terms of communities of practice whose progress depends on conversation/dialogue/interaction between new-comers and old-times (novices and experts). Perfectability is instead a better frame which describes the new-comers’ goal of contributing to the discourse of the community.

Keen’s apocalyptic vision (i.e., “Our culture is essentially cannibalizing its young, destroying the very sources of the content they crave” p. 28) can be discussed in terms of distribution of power. Whereas in the past, gatekeepers such as journalists and editors detained the power of information, now this is being distributed across users and contents. However, I don’t think power is equally distributed and thus I don’t understand why Keen fears so much this new reality. In this “noise of a hundred million bloggers all simultaneously talking about themselves” (p.16) there still is enough space for professional journalism; the only difference is that there are more voices to compete. Theoretically this is an opportunity for perfectability for all parties involved. Isn’t it?

Perfection and perfectability

One interesting idea that I’ve found in Shirky’s (2008) “Here comes everybody” is that the Internet emphasizes the distinction between perfection and perfectability. As Shirky puts it, “ the goal of getting better at something is different from the goal of being good at it; there is a pleasure in improving your abilities even if that doesn’t translate into absolute perfection” (p.99). As perfection is, I think, unreachable or at least circumstantial, perfectability is a more desirable goal. In Shirky’s view, perfectability translates into simple questions such as “How did you do that?” which is asked/answered in the online communities. A genuine question like that is able to become the starter of conversations between new-comers and more experienced people in any given domain. Either it’s about getting to the next level in an interactive game or finding the best deal when buying a product, online conversation reveals a desire to become better at; it reveals perfectability. I think that perfectability is the engine of learning. To want to be better at something is the prerequisite of learning, isn’t it?
However, the idea of perfectability does not explain by itself the whole process. The intention of the less experienced member of the community is to become better. What about the more experienced one? Is s/he going to become better? Is perfectability a viable condition for her/him? What is providing an answer to the question going to do for her/him? I think her/his trade-off is as valuable as that of the less experienced person. Being challenged to provide an answer produces at least two results: 1) makes her/his expertise visible and acknowledged which is rewarding in itself, and 2) offers the chance of knowledge “refreshing” by discuss it with others and put it on the table to be dissected. In this “dissection” there is opportunity for close analysis, reexamination or validation of knowledge, thus perfectability.
Interestingly, this informal learning that develops spontaneous in online communities has been theorized by Lave and Wenger back in 1991 under the concept of situated learning in communities of practice. Learning is seen as legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice in which the learner progressively moves from the periphery towards the center. Within this centripetal motion, the learner accumulates knowledge evolving from a newcomer to an old-timer, from apprenticeship to expertise. As a result, the learner is assimilated into that community and adopts its culture, becoming most likely a contributor to its progress. Shirky (2008) who cites Brown and Duguid (2000), discusses some instances of successful learning occurring into communities of practice: the Hewlett-Packard and the Xerox examples. By facilitating conversation between employees through the use of walkie-talkies, these companies fostered the formation of communities of practice which in turn foster learning. This proved to be less costly than the traditional professional development.
Note: I plan to find out more about Brown’s work at http://www.johnseelybrown.com/
Question to be ruminated later: How does perfectability comes to terms with formal standards which are meant to assure perfection within a given territory (i.e., medicine, genetic engineering).

writing for the sake of writing

This blog is meant to be my reflective board for the class IT695 - Learning and the Internet (spring 09).
The blog title is paraphrasing Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am).
"Scribo ... ergo sum" was supposed to be more like "I write ... therefore I am?!" I do not believe in "Cogito ergo sum" and I plan to find out if I believe in "Scribo ergo sum".