According to Howard’s research vernacular discourse differs
from institutional discourse in that vernacular is alternate from the
institution. This is a pretty simple way to view the difference between these
two voices in the public sphere. In the year 2012 our internet is primarily
dominated by user content. According to Howard’s article this user content
would qualify as vernacular discourse among the institutional parameters. These
institutional parameters being any website that facilitates users content such
as Facebook, twitter, blogger, Tumblr, and YouTube. Howard states “On the one hand, vernacular
forms are those available to individuals or groups who are subordinated to
institutions, and, on the other, they are a common resource made available to everyone
through informal social interaction. Based on this dual meaning, the vernacular
came to refer to discourse that coexists with dominant culture but is held
separate from it.”(2008, p.493) This means that our entire vernacular
discourses on these facilitating websites is under the institution of the given
website. That is why we have so many of these websites that have no
affiliations, but they purely exist to make the most user friendly tool for one’s
own voice. The article talks about this shift in content on the internet. The
rise of "web 2.0" changed the way people viewed the internet. The internet began
to function less like a newspaper, TV, or retail store and more like a coffee
shop, family reunion, or a swap meet. This change attracted people because they
could now express themselves on the internet and also receive messages free
from the institution. I think part of the reason why the internet is so
addictive is because we can post our own content and then receive feedback from
virtually anyone. I know personally when I post something on Facebook I am more
excited about the responses to my post than the content of my post itself.
In the case of “Homosexual Extremist Catholic Space” the
website Dignityusa is an institution of gay and lesbian Catholics. Raymond
posted this content on his own blog and then provided his own vernacular
discourse on the matter. This is case in point the new age of web discourse.
Everything is fair game. Anything that is posted on the web by an institution
is then able to be reposted on facilitators of vernacular discourse. This is
what makes the internet a beautiful thing. We as consumers of Media are no
longer subject to merely the discourse of institutions but we can now easily
deliberate the ideas of institutions among our public sphere. GM motors
embraced this new way of communication by mixing the institutional discourse
and then opening it up for vernacular discourse. I think we will see more of
this in the future. I think we will see institutions try to meet their consumers
at a vernacular level, because human beings ultimately want to be heard and
feel like their voice has an impact.
How have you guys seen these institutions adapt to the new wave of participatory media?
Some good thoughts here, Joey. I'll leave them to your classmates to discuss.
ReplyDeleteI did, however, want to point out some of the connections between the Calleja piece and this one. Consider how they are related.
Also, think about Howard's piece in relation to ANYTHING that you do online. Do we ever have our own true agency online? Or, is it always mediated between the institutional and the vernacular levels?
Its interesting that these institutions can't functioned as cyborgs. This whole concept that we as human beings are only highly elaborate computers and all modern electronics are only extensions of our brains relies on an individual level. We in a sense have our own personal freedom to use this new extension of our human brains to explore and express ourselves.To communicate by computer or internet is not operating under an institution, but becoming more intelligent and finding better ways to be communicators.
ReplyDeleteI certainly believe that institutions are attempting to meet their consumers at a vernacular level. This is obvious by all the Facebook , Myspace and Twitter accounts that are business related. As a marketer, one of my biggest suggestions to companies is to ensure they have a presence in social networking sites. In order to create a name for oneself they must interact with society. Create a personal relationship, so to say, with that consumer.
ReplyDeleteHoward says on page 492, Network media have allowed individuals to coproduce content with powerful institutions. In reading this my first thought went to the superbowl Doritos commercial. Doritos’ Crash the Superbowl contest encouraged consumers to create a 30 second spot featuring their nacho cheese chips . The commercial who won was known as “Sling Baby”. The consumers that created it ended up winning $ 1 million. If you don’t remember this one, take a look at the youtube video, www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2kQFEjkhBQ. Howard states that a given piece of this content has typically been assumed to be non-institutional based on the identity of its producer.
Howard talks about how vernacular discourse remains distinct from dominant discourse. What I find interesting here however it is becoming more and more common to see the top youtube video discussed on the nightly news, or to see someone’s home video being used to see an event first hand. A great example of this is the state fair last year, when the stage collapsed. The nightly news used someone’s camera phone video to show what happened. Check out the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe5HNtfTdGE.
Instututions have to begin to communicate at the vernacular level if they want to influence us. Most commercials today are created through some form of participatory media. Bonnie, you bring up an interesting point with the doritos commercial, but just think about how many different Doritos commercials are now out there from all the contestants. A friend of mine does these types of ads for a living...sometimes he makes money, but often he does not.
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, as far as agency goes I do not believe we ever truly have agency online as an individual self...but we do have agency as a networked self. Think of someone who goes trolling on the internet and derails a conversation that is going on (we have seen a few of these examples in class). The troll, as an individual has no effect on the nature of the conversation, but rather the group begins to influence itself. The troll may not even be present to the conversation. Institutions must advertise through the vernacular if they want to retain their agency.
“The vernacular is powerful because it can introduce something other than the institutional into an institutional realm.” (497)
DK
David, I completely agree, and it seems like institutions are starting to evolve to more incognito ways of using the vernacular. Take this youtube video for example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVXMwI2xQ5c&list=UUVJK2AT3ea5RTXNRjX_kz8A&index=8&feature=plcp . Besides music videos and cute babies doing silly things, sketch comedy and vlogers seem to be the driving subscription force behind youtube. Toby Turner, who made this video, has over 1.6 million subscribers and multiple youtube accounts, making this effectively his career. However, what looks like just another sketch is actually a glorified Axe commercial, shot entirely like the other sketches Toby makes from time to time. Axe, the institution, has communicated its message through the vernacular of a youtube vloger in order to reach his millions of loyal followers. It's never explicitly stated, and there isn't a "go to axe.com" at the end or anything like that. It's just an example of how an institution has recognized the power of communicating through a vernacular and is evolving by using advertising guerrilla tactics.
ReplyDelete