Thursday
"Web-Based Memorializing After September 11" - Foot & Warnick
Summary
Foot & Warnick's paper had a single purpose: "to fill gaps in current scholarship on Web-based memorializing by exploring the online modulation of public and private or vernacular modes of memorializing" (p.73). By developing a conceptual framework (set of constructs between ideas and evidence that can be used in future studies) Foot & Warnick hoped to study a small set of sites and comparitive analyze them and the way they utilized the concept of Web-based memorializing.
Like Socolovsky's article, Foot & Warnick focus on the changeability and manipulation of the web medium. They argue that the allowance of the individual to interact, change, and co-create work online in the memorial make web memorials a way for an ndividual to gain a public voice. According to Foot & Warnick, "The Web offers a communication environment in which individuals and networks of individuals can quickly mount sites that are themselves " 'open documents' inviting an unspecified range of visitors (in fact: anybody) to add something of their own" (Geser,1998 section 3, par.7)" (p.77). This point attests to the fact, that unlike physical memorials such as gravesits and memorial services, Web-based memorials provide more opportunities to develop and be manipulated over time (p.78). This, again, enhances the ability for an individual to make their voice heard in ways that mass media does not allow, and in ways that physical memorials cannot.
Finally, Foot & Warnick create their conceptual framework from which they are able to analyze the small group of sites they selected. The framework they developed focuses on 7 distinct ideas: 1) the object or focus of commemoration, 2) evidence of co-production, 3) univocal or multivocal based, 4) the speed of the memorial's online posting, 5) how dynamic the memorial is, 6) the memorial's intended audience, and 7) the victims positioning in reality (p. 88, 89, 90). Using this framework, Foot & Warnick were able to distinguish a patter between site developers and the content of the given site. They found that differences between sites created by individuals and sites created by institutions are not clear cut, but that there are suggestions that the sites vary by producer type (p.92). The authors suggest that individually produced sites are created more rapidly following the tragic event than those created by institutions, and that the individually created sites are more open to manipulation and co-production than those created by institutions. From this conclusion, it is obvious that Foot & Warnick intended to provide fellow researchers with evidence to aid them in their analysis of different memorials across the realm of the internet.
Inquiry
I would like to respond to the evidence provided by Foot & Warnick regarding interaction and co-production of Web-based memorials vs. that of "offline" memorials. Personally, I feel that all memorials in any form are just ways that people cope with their loss, and I find that memorials are a very different way than I would cope. Memorials to me are just that; memories of ones lossed. I now have a new outlook on memorials though, in light of this article and of Socolovksy's article. By changing my perception of memorials as strictly "offline" and based on the heroic or tragic events that occured involving mass amounts of people, I recognize that online memorials have enabled this type of remembrance for individuals as well. While I may not ever create my own online memorial, I think it is an excellent way for people to cope with their loss and to have a place where they can go and reflect on the lives of the deceased.
As far as interaction, manipulation, and co production, however, I find this topic to be somewhat disrespectful. I feel that people's need to make themselves a part of another's life is selfish and has no place in the realm of death, grieving and loss. Take funerals for example: a funeral is not a way for the bereaved to popularize or change the life of the deceased, rather funerals are a way to celebrate the life lived by the deceased individual, or individuals. I feel that being able to change online content to better suit one's self disrespects the deceased in the sense that their lives can be defaces by political and social agendas posted online. Examples include hate speech toward terrorists on 9/11 memorial sites, and also gun control advocates on sites that are made to commemorate the lives of the slain students at Columbine High School. Memorials, whether online or off, should be a place to go and simply reflect on the life of a deceased individual, not places where we go and discuss issues related to their death in a socio-political context. Political arenas and forums are a better place for this discussion. I do think Web-based memorials are a good way for people to go and get their thoughts and feelings out, but keep in mind that anyone can access the Web and say anything that they want. For this reason, I feel that death has now been publicized negatively, in the sense that we are leaving ourselves, the bereaved, open to discussion that should not be a part of the celebration of a life once lived. Therfore, in conclusion, I feel that memorials should remain a fixed-content entity and should not be left open to be changed or manipulated by anyone, but rather should be created by the bereaved as an obituary is; to let people know someone has been lossed and if you know that person feel free to leave a comment regarding your reflection on their life and possibly offering condolences to family and friends. Respect the lives of those that have left this world, and don't deface their death by polluting memorials with political and social speech in favor of an ideal or agenda, rather take the example of their death and communicate those ideals or agendas in a different arena, but not in the space of the memorial itself.
1. Do you think that memorials and deaths should be used to gain traction in political fights such as the gun control movement resulting from Columbine or the anti-terrorism movement stemming from 9/11?
2. Do you agree that memorials, online or off, should be a reverant place and that discussion of issues should take place outside of the realm of the memorial, say in a blog or separate arena, yet should still allow evidence from a death to be presented or do you think that death should be kept private and not used at all to progress any agenda?
3. What are the consequences of using digital representations to remember lives of real people that existed in real places?
4. Finally, do you think that it is necessary to analyze memorials, of any form, or is it obvious that they are just ways to remember the deceased and to cope with the loss of them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments
I think that with the advent of digital representations to remember the lives of real people that existed in real places, people feel that they are part of a collective grieving versus a private moment of grief and reflection. Take for example Facebook profiles of those who have recently passed away - suddenly their wall is flooded with people who "knew" the person thus they feel the need to express their grief publicly by posting on the individual's wall. Sometimes the comments are extremely personal and perhaps some forget that anyone can read their post. However in posting on the wall of the deceased, is this just a social phenomenon of "group think," where simply because we're facebook friends with this person, or because they are friends of a friend of someone we feel complied to extend sympathy? Sometimes I feel that digital memorials open up an avenue of grieving and reflection that otherwise may not have occurred if done in real life, real time. By posting on the wall of the deceased's wall, some may feel that they've done their part in acknowledging a death and that their generic comments have done their part. In addition because of digital mediums, we as a society have become obsessed with numbers, and in the end it may not be the actual content of the comments that makes the family of the deceased feel appreciated but the sheer number of people who responded that makes them feel like their death is being respected.
Using memorials and deaths to gain traction in political fights is a necessary evil. Although it is insensitive, I believe that in order to show evidence and to get the message across sometimes it is necessary to aim at people's emotions. It is a tragedy that it happened but it would be even more of a tragedy if it happened and we did not take the necessary measures to prevent it from occurring a second time. I agree that memorials should be a reverent place and I agree discussions should take place outside of the memorial but I think that unless the family requests that the death be kept private, it is an honor to continue to be remembered after death even by strangers. I think memorials should be a way to remember the deceased and to cope with the loss because once people start analyzing them it loses the humanitarian aspect and becomes more of a research project.
I can understand that people want to use a digital monument in order to reach a larger audience and as a means to express their grief, hurt, pain etc. over an event. However, I disagree with the idea that by making a memorial on-line, it becomes permanent. I think the ever changing nature of the memorial simply goes to show how the memorial isn’t permanent. I also don’t think that a memorial online will have the same effect on a person as a physical memorial. For me, if I look at an image online, or read text on the computer, I will likely forget about it days later. However, if I go to a museum and can touch or sense the painting and see for myself the actual description of the artwork, I will remember it for much longer. I know that I have seen pictures of digital/virtual memorials before, but I have no recollection of what they are. I do have a very vivid memory of seeing Holocaust memorials though, even one that I saw when I was 6 years old. I don’t think that digital monuments can ever impact people as much as a physical monument because people need an actual sense of connection with the monument such as people crying over the steel from the 9/11 destruction versus just seeing pictures of it.
Post a Comment