Globalization and Culture of Conversation

Recently, my understanding of the effectiveness of Culture of Conversation has waxed and waned like that of a high school student’s acne. At times the site feels like a great way for youth to interact, to improve communication and understanding. It’s not like Facebook interaction where one can construct a pristine identity and have no repercussions for writing or viewing anything, or anybody. Facebook offers built in safety through anonymity, leaving youth to appreciate voyeurism more than genuine interaction. Contrarily, Culture of Conversation requires students to make opinions, even if utterly rejected by other readers. Identity appears on any discussion thread a student writes for, removing any place to hide. Students become defined by what they say, not by what snap shot they choose or simple group the join. Actions through words speak louder than the simplistic ability to choose. At other times, though, Culture of Conversation seemed to be a product of its time, no different than a Facebook or MySpace. Culture of Conversation follows the crowd in a sense; originality checked itself at the door long ago. I have assumed students actually want to say something. In fact, students may enjoy saying nothing.

Then I realized this conversation really revolves around the positive and negative effects of globalization. If it were not for globalization and the advancement of technology, Culture of Conversation would not exist. What I thought to be a simple idea of students from around the world interacting through written English, assumes that (1) all students have access to the internet, (2) most international students actually do speak English, and (3) students would actually have self incentive to write. Basically, I took an extremely narrow and close-minded understanding of the benefits of globalization without ever considering the negative side effects and the current construction of many students. My idealism has run smack into the wall of globalization. But like any wall, this road block can be traversed.

The assumption that the “world is at our fingertips” only really applies to a “micro-minority” of people (Gomez-Pena, TDR. Spring 2001). This “micro-minority,” which unfortunately I’m one of, tries to control the rest of the world by proclaiming that our lifestyle is the most superior in the world. In turn, those with power (States, NGOs, MNCs, transnational movements, etc.) try to push their lifestyle, mainly devised by the notion that market liberalism is good, throughout the world. My website, in this sense, is no different. I have implicitly suggested that every student would want to join because he or she will see the beauty of the site—my constructed world.

Culture of Conversation does not have to fall into this trap. Instead, the site actually acts as a reaction to the path American education currently is on. Because America is a hyper-consumerist society, where corporations have latterly hijacked our democracy, education is slowly falling victim to increased competition and the idea that choice makes Americans free. Many Americans see privatization as a way to save the education system. If privatization succeeds, education will be a for-profit entity and cause a diaspora of wealthy (in terms of socio-economic class) students away from impoverished students. Educational diversity will disappear, resulting narrow minded students. This departs from the historic understanding of what education means: the guidance of youth to make profound decisions, especially when the youth take control over the country, regardless of class. To define education in capitalist terms counters everything education means. Privatization will increase the competition in schools, leaving education as a system to win, not a compounding process. Also it will segregate those who can pay and those who cannot. Culture of Conversation goes against this idea and accepts any and everyone. (Culture of Conversation assumes that globalization will bring internet to more and more communities worldwide.)

Instead, Culture of Conversation provides a platform for youth to travel through, letting skills improve without ever submitting to competitive, market forces. Students working together actually improve more then students competing against each other (Johnson, Skon, and Johnson. American Educational Research Journal. Spring 1980). Different cultures can interact in-depth. Simplistic understands, which globalization creates, become obsolete when youth can interact with each other in a written, communal way.

So the question I want research and try to prove through the website is this:

Can Culture of Conversation take the good aspects of globalization (the shrinking off space because of technology) to counter the bad (the push for market liberalization in every aspect of life)? Can increased discussion create a discourse that is so complex and rich that understandings of different cultures pervade in an intersubjective space? I believe with more empathy human interaction can strengthen relationships to new levels. Having a space to work through this process is key. Culture of Conversation can be that space.