Comp 106 Critical Essay

When Vaidhyanathan writes that those who are comfortable with and excel at using digital technology tend to be those who are “socio-economically privileged, English-speaking, white, and male” he is asserting a generalization that I believe to be true. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but Vaidhyanathan is just stating a general guideline. I believe that the assertion is correct for the majority of people. While not progressive, it is honest without being condescending.

I believe his argument is correct because it is supported by the research of Eszter Hargittai, an expert on digital communication. Young people can only become “Web-savvy” if they have a computer readily available to them, and access to the internet. This rules out many people who do not have the finances to afford these luxuries, or people who’s local schools or community centers do not have the adequate funding for this. So, in order for young people to be very familiar and comfortable with navigating the web, the will need to be socio-economically privileged.

Although I don’t think it is any kind of requirement that a person be English-speaking in order to be “digitally adept,” I believe Vaidhyanathan was correct when he listed it as one of the top groups of people who tend to understand more about digital technology. English-speaking countries are some of the wealthiest countries, which causes digital technology to be more easily accessible to young people. When young people are able to gain experience using digital technology, they become more skilled at it.

It makes sense to me that white young people would be more comfortable with using digital technology because, in America, majorities tend to be wealthier than minorities, so white people would most-likely have easier access to computers and the internet. While all types of people could excel when using digital technology, young people in minority groups are usually not given the opportunities and the exposure to digital technology that majority groups are.

The most-likely explanation to why “digitally adept young people” tend to be male is that they are usually drawn to technology and figuring things out more than females are. This could be attributed to the nature of males in general, or it could be attributed to the history of males being involved in mathematics and scientific studies more than females are. Males would enjoy figuring out things on a computer or other digital technology the way they usually enjoy building things or figuring out how things work. While this is purely speculation, it is displayed when one observes how male-dominated the sciences are.

I don’t believe that Vaidhyanathan’s argument is progressive, but if he were to make a statement that all people excel at using digital technology it would’ve been a lie. In order to make a more progressive statement, Vaidhyanathan could’ve mentioned that as time goes on the numbers of less socio-economically privileged and minority groups that are gaining a good understanding of digital technology are continually increasing. He also could’ve said that many programs have been created to bring better digital technology and other resources to underprivileged American classrooms. It would’ve been easy for Vaidhyanathan to say something more progressive, but I do not believe there is anything wrong with what he did say. He was simply reiterating a conversation that he heard in which a well-known expert on digital communication was answering a question honestly.

Some people may feel that the argument that people who understand digital technology more tend to be socio-economically privileged, English-speaking, white, and male, offensive or condescending, but I don’t believe it was intended to be either of those things. Simply stating which groups tend to have more skill when dealing with digital things doesn’t mean that they are any smarter or have a better capacity to understand or learn things. Because the people who are more comfortable and skilled at using digital technology are those who are exposed to it more, the argument is more or less telling who has easier access to digital technology. Those who are offended should remember that it is a generalization, and does not apply to every individual.

Breaking down all the varieties of people in the world into groups may seem simple. Because every person is so unique and has a different background and upbringing than everyone else, not every person fits easily into a group. However, the groups used in the argument are so general that many people can fit into them. Vaidhyanathan’s argument is not oversimplified. It is a generalization that is usually true and gives us insight into who is taking the most advantage of digital technology.

I feel that it is important for communities to be beautiful, and for citizens to be able to take pride in the appearance of their buildings and surroundings. The man-made structures in the places we live serve as the constant setting and background for our daily activities. Because we are continually surrounded by human-crafted things, I believe that slight improvement in the visual aesthetics of each thing could make a dramatic difference in every person’s life. If something is going to be built, I think it should be made beautifully. Incorporating artistic details into every space, structure, or building should be encouraged and, in some cases, should be funded by the community through the local governing bodies.

Generic, unsightly buildings seem to cause people to lose respect for their community and the buildings themselves. This loss of respect could greatly affect the mindset of the people and possibly be a factor in a rise in crime. Also, a lack of applied creativity and effort pertaining to appearance can make a person have negative thoughts towards the community as a whole. Contrary to this, beautiful surroundings could lead to a greater respect for the community and those involved in it’s upkeep.

In order to show how I feel about the importance of incorporating artistic and pleasing visual details into a community, I chose to create a photo and caption series. I took the pictures used for this project in some of the places around my home, or places that I commonly drive by on my way to school. I put certain pictures next to each other so it was easier for the viewer to compare them. The pair of pictures may be of basically the same thing, but one is slightly more creative, or prettier than the other. It was my intent that the viewer would be able to look at each picture and notice the difference in their feelings toward each one. Without saying anything, I would like my audience to realize that one of the pictures is more aesthetically pleasing and evokes more respect for the community it belongs to.

It is my wish that through seeing the pictures I have prepared, and through thinking about the surroundings around their home and workplaces, my audience would gain a greater appreciation for the art and creativity applied to architectural details and other small, but important, details around a community. I hope that a greater interest in the overall appearance of one’s environment will gradually lead to a clean, well-designed community. In a place like that, the people would respect their surroundings and appreciate living there.

While working on this project I realized how varied the buildings and structures can be within a relatively small distance. All the pictures used were taken within a few miles of each other or less. I noticed that elaborately and nicely decorated or created things could be standing very close to plain, ugly things. However, the mood was very different in places with pleasant surroundings than in those with unpleasant surroundings.