The final blog entry of the semester and I can barely come up with a topic...
My final entry will be dedicated to the most effective way to handle public announcements in terms of Simmel's Social Distance Theory. While this depends entirely on the nature of the message, I will attempt to take all elements into account.
Method 1: Mass Email
This is an effective method for announcing a party or event. However, if it is sensitive information, this may not be the most effective way. There are cases when mass numbers of people are involved that this may be appropriate, but only when a final verdict has been reached.
Method 2: Print
A public announcement by paper must be neither important or sensitive. Such as the case in an expulsion from a private university. A print release within 48 hours of the verdict is highly unsensitive and inappropriate.
A public announcement by newsletter can contain more sensitive and important information, such as a dismissal or resignation. This acheives the goal of a more personal conveyance of information.
Method 3: Oral
A public announcement given orally in front of a congregation is appropriate in many situations. This seems to be the most personal way to convey both spectrums of importance and sensitivity.
There are many ways to make a public announcement. The selection of a method seems to come down to the importance and sensitivity of the situation. Other factors include the number of recipients for the message and the nature of the relationship of announcer to recipients.
Simmel's Social Distance Theory applies on each of these levels. Each method conveys a certain emphasis on importance and sensitivity, while the layers of relationship reflect on the method chosen. Public Announcements can quickly define the perceived distance between entities--individuals to each other, individuals to communities, and communities to each other.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Entry 12
This post comes purely from a weekend of reflection on high school, college, and profession football. Although my intention for the weekend was focused purely on meditation and relaxation, I could not separate my experience from what I have been learning in Communication Technology and Society.
It all started with a coach's challenge. The announcer commented on the dialogue the coach was having with his team up in "the booth". The fate of the play, and possibly the game, rested on those 30 seconds of communication. As I reviewed this in my head, I realized how many technologies played into that single situation: video recording and playback, two way audio transmition, visual time-keeping, and others. To get to the main point, I think there is a huge standard of communication in college and pro football that goes completely unnoticed to most spectators.
Calling plays is the single most important element of the coach-player relationship. As I watched different games, I realized how this took place differently at different levels. A high school team generally runs plays in as it substitutes players. A college team, depending on the level, will relay calls by signals or audio. A professional team relies solely on audio calls with an arm sleeve to interpret. It was really interesting to see how this played out through the course of the game.
In high school, there was chaos if the coach needed to call a play quickly. This chaos toned down throughout more advanced levels, but speed was a constant of this element of communication technology.
I think Ellul's theory of image and word has some interesting implications. Within this environment, the two are completely synonymous. The piece of paper held up to call a play means the exact same thing as the play call itself. The play call relates entirely to a reality and not so much to truth. As the two blend, it is incredible to consider if this applies to other areas of life.
In addition to Ellul's theory, the Umbrella Perspective can be applied. Comparing the audio forms used in professional and college levels to the high school word-of-mouth form is ridiculous. Any player would say that having the coach call a play in your ear is the best way to get it. Any coach would say that the ability to call a play at any time is invaluable.
Also, one of the 3 Immutable Laws is kind of negated in this. These comtechs and pace are inversely related. This slows things down and allows the coach to set a slower pace that is not so chaotic.
It all started with a coach's challenge. The announcer commented on the dialogue the coach was having with his team up in "the booth". The fate of the play, and possibly the game, rested on those 30 seconds of communication. As I reviewed this in my head, I realized how many technologies played into that single situation: video recording and playback, two way audio transmition, visual time-keeping, and others. To get to the main point, I think there is a huge standard of communication in college and pro football that goes completely unnoticed to most spectators.
Calling plays is the single most important element of the coach-player relationship. As I watched different games, I realized how this took place differently at different levels. A high school team generally runs plays in as it substitutes players. A college team, depending on the level, will relay calls by signals or audio. A professional team relies solely on audio calls with an arm sleeve to interpret. It was really interesting to see how this played out through the course of the game.
In high school, there was chaos if the coach needed to call a play quickly. This chaos toned down throughout more advanced levels, but speed was a constant of this element of communication technology.
I think Ellul's theory of image and word has some interesting implications. Within this environment, the two are completely synonymous. The piece of paper held up to call a play means the exact same thing as the play call itself. The play call relates entirely to a reality and not so much to truth. As the two blend, it is incredible to consider if this applies to other areas of life.
In addition to Ellul's theory, the Umbrella Perspective can be applied. Comparing the audio forms used in professional and college levels to the high school word-of-mouth form is ridiculous. Any player would say that having the coach call a play in your ear is the best way to get it. Any coach would say that the ability to call a play at any time is invaluable.
Also, one of the 3 Immutable Laws is kind of negated in this. These comtechs and pace are inversely related. This slows things down and allows the coach to set a slower pace that is not so chaotic.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Entry 11
Within this post, I would like to discuss the development and implications of the online church. Fueled from online discussion, I am incredible interested in how we define church traditionally, and if that definition changes online.
Primarily, looking at the concept of Simmel's Social Distance theory, the online church would be a negative influence in the heart of spirituality. Our understanding of Jesus is that he was and is a completely personal God who has a heart for touching people. Although the way this is communicated to us is perceivably distant, we cannot deny the implications of Jesus' life. An online church would considerably deteriorate one of Jesus' main points of ministry: touch. The laying on of hands, the lifting of the crippled, the embracing of children are each intricate pieces within the ministry of Jesus. Keeping the Social Distance Theory in mind, I do not think we can use the online church as a substitute for the community experienced throughout the history of the church.
In addition to Simmel's theory, Postman's questions can play a significant role in determining the effects of online church. The first question--what problem is being solved--is obviously the inconvenience of a global church, or at least a church with very widespread membership. The second--who is harmed--would fall in line with the composition of the organizational church. All churches would be hurt if online "churching" becomes more prevalent. The third question--new problems--addresses the social implications of an online community of believers. Similar to the social distance factors, the online church would struggle with this new interpretation of church. Would baptisms and weddings be conducted online? The fourth and final question--new power--implies how the church structure and authority would change. With such a broad range of people, how do we determine pastorship, mentorship, and other elements. Do they disappear? Is it limited to the most technologically oriented Christians?
Overall, the online church seems to have far too many holes to fill before being a legitimate substitution for church community.
On the other hand, if we look at the early church, we see that it was born out of an existing community. Today, the case is
Primarily, looking at the concept of Simmel's Social Distance theory, the online church would be a negative influence in the heart of spirituality. Our understanding of Jesus is that he was and is a completely personal God who has a heart for touching people. Although the way this is communicated to us is perceivably distant, we cannot deny the implications of Jesus' life. An online church would considerably deteriorate one of Jesus' main points of ministry: touch. The laying on of hands, the lifting of the crippled, the embracing of children are each intricate pieces within the ministry of Jesus. Keeping the Social Distance Theory in mind, I do not think we can use the online church as a substitute for the community experienced throughout the history of the church.
In addition to Simmel's theory, Postman's questions can play a significant role in determining the effects of online church. The first question--what problem is being solved--is obviously the inconvenience of a global church, or at least a church with very widespread membership. The second--who is harmed--would fall in line with the composition of the organizational church. All churches would be hurt if online "churching" becomes more prevalent. The third question--new problems--addresses the social implications of an online community of believers. Similar to the social distance factors, the online church would struggle with this new interpretation of church. Would baptisms and weddings be conducted online? The fourth and final question--new power--implies how the church structure and authority would change. With such a broad range of people, how do we determine pastorship, mentorship, and other elements. Do they disappear? Is it limited to the most technologically oriented Christians?
Overall, the online church seems to have far too many holes to fill before being a legitimate substitution for church community.
On the other hand, if we look at the early church, we see that it was born out of an existing community. Today, the case is
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
