Audience and Blogging

Posted by Tad McIlwraith on June 1st, 2005 filed in Linguistic Anthropology, Teaching

As I try and find my blogging voice, I realize that I struggle with the idea of audience. Much of my research methodology and orientation in anthropology is drawn from the Ethnography of Speaking and because of that I think I am (over) analyzing blogging as a conversation and thinking (too much) about the receivers, contexts, channels, and codes are all in play (with apologies to Jakobson). How does my blogging fit within a larger context of blogging, internet reading, surfing, etc.?

That said, it is impossible for me to blog without some consideration of an audience. By default, the first audience I imagined was my students and I considered them as I wrote. (Perhaps my mom was in there since I wasn’t sure anyone else would care … !) More recently, many of the other anthropologist-bloggers are my intended audience – and particularly those who have commented on my writing. Having an audience in mind tempers tone, content, and style to be sure.

On some occasions, such as my acknowledgement of an invitation to speak at the University of Victoria, the audience is much more obvious. In that case, the students to whom I spoke were foremost in my mind, but in an effort not to alienate secondary audiences like regular readers I felt compelled to add in short comments about our classroom discussions – the kind of thing I assume makes the post interesting more broadly.

But I understand too that there is always another audience to write for – the unknown readers. I was amazed, for example, that the author of a book I cited emailed me about my post. It never occurred to me he was reading although I suppose I should not have been surprised.

And, I am learning to find clues about the audience (and I hesitate to say ‘my audience’) left at site-meter.com where the blog stats are kept. Limited URL information is left there about those who have been reading.

For whom do you write your blog? Or, what audience is in mind when you type a post?

(Inspiration from ‘Why This Blog Sucks.’)

Share This

Sphere: Related Content


12 Responses to “Audience and Blogging”

  1. Will Says:
    June 1st, 2005 at 8:15 pm

    I think anyone with a voice (blog or otherwise) will analyze their audience. It takes an anthropologist to get technical about it, but it’s in our blood. For me, I write for myself first to satisfy a need to organize my thoughts, and any audience I do have (mother included) is motivation to spell-check and at least try to make it interesting and/or connect with readers.

    Interesting topic of discussion, and I do know that at least one anthropologist, John Norvell at Harvard (who runs AnthroBlogs.org where my blog is hosted) is studying internet communities, including blogs. I don’t doubt there are several more now and in the future as online presence becomes more and more common. Which raises the question (and maybe you can address this Tad, with your background) are we going to see any major paradigm shifts as a result of increased interaction on the internet, with it’s characteristic annonymity and relative impersonal nature?

    Ok i’m done…

  2. Administrator Says:
    June 1st, 2005 at 8:54 pm

    Will … I’m not sure if I can answer you directly, but I detect something of a start for the discussion in your own statement. I find it somewhat paradoxical to pair the annonymity and impersonality of the internet with increased interaction through blogging and other forms of e-communication.

    Part of what has me wondering about voice and audience is precisely that — on the one hand, I feel compelled to write simply to do so and the annonymity of the medium is comforting. On the other, after less than two months at it, this is hardly an impersonal or an annonymous activity. I have come to know some of you through your writings and through off-blog emails — or at least your on-line personas. (The next thing I want to consider is how I can better convey my humour and the occasional use of irony in my posts to this new community, so that my poorly worded or badly explained ideas are not misinterpreted!)

    What else interests me is how approaches like the ethnography of speaking or Jakobsen’s communication model are flexible enough to continue to have utility for thinking about and understanding internet communication.

    But perhaps that is best left for a day when I’ve considered it longer.

    Ok, I’m done …

  3. orange. Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 5:14 am

    I m not into ethnography of speaking and not too much into communication models (except Stuart Hall`s ), but
    was thinking on “the audience” myself these days and especially on how a text changes with every reader you get aware of. I will go on for one more month not reading the logfiles of my blog, so the unknown audience is really unknown, as long as it stays quiet.

    “For whom do you write your blog? Or, what audience is in mind when you type a post?”

    This depends very much on the specific post I write. Sometimes I write entries addressing my teachers whom I expect to have a look in my blog at least sometime.
    Sometime I address a person who has left a comment. Sometimes I indirectly address authors of other blogs. Sometime I address the readers of ethnolog, where I started posting and entered blogosphere before running my own blog. I wonder how much will change when reading my blog`s referers.
    Think you never have the whole audience in mind, but address parts of it in parts of your writing.
    Nice question. First, I started my blog in order to get an idea on what academic blogosphere is about by ethnographic method Thick Participation.
    Second, I write my blog for those whom I have read to create at least some equality concerning ´state of nakedness`. (Know this phenomenon when you read someone`s dissertation, at the end of the book the author is almost “naked”? Of course this depends very much on the way the book is written) So this is about audience again, but from the audience`s perspective.
    Third, I write my blog for everyone potentially willing to get into critical dialogue on the knowledge that is produced in there (and elsewhere), for classes or colloquiums at university simply do not offer this chance largely enough. Fourth, I write it for myself to get parts of my perception articulated and objectified.
    The audience in general hereby is a powerful motivation.
    A text nobody reads is a dead text.

  4. orange. Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 5:29 am

    one could say,
    it`s the audience, that makes me write.

  5. Administrator Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 6:15 am

    Great thoughts and I appreciate you sharing your extensive list of audiences. The idea of dead texts is provocative … I feel I must be prepared to accept the fact that no one reads what I write … is it dead? Or, as I ask my students, can you talk to you yourself and have it count as communication?

  6. orange. Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 6:37 am

    I am reading what you write–within this medium.
    For Dissertations and academic papers in printform theres different conditions to be read.
    Think this is one reason, why blogosphere more and more attracts many academics, as the growing number of anthropological blogs was mentioned above.

    On ´deadness`of texts`–this is a very subjective perception of mine. I did not attend to make a general statement on the nature of texts, just described my personal perception of writing & audience.

  7. orange. Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 6:44 am

    “can you talk to you yourself and have it count as communication?

    All definitions of term ´communication` imply at least the sender and the recipient.
    There has been many a variations and forthdeveloppment from this very simple and linear model, but its the conditition for both verbal and nonverbal communication,
    that you are not alone.
    Being alone, it is ´reflection` you d call an inner dialogue, whether it is written down, spoken out or remains unarticulated.

    I d be curious on what your students respond to your question.

  8. Administrator Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 6:47 am

    Cool … I like the idea of dead texts … if only to play with the concept and to see how it works.

    My students often feel that you can receive your own messages and thus they want to argue that you can satisfy the send-receiver requirements of communication when talking with yourself. Do you buy it?

  9. orange. Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 7:02 am

    [OT: Tying the terms ´dead`, ´communication` and `text` anew points me (one more time) on an attribute of the present, no one remarks as such: The communication we practice everyday with the dead via their texts,
    that we read long after their lifetime, see e.g. Max Weber--associating your ethnography of modern life as as amazing as researching a jungle tribe. :-) ]
    ok. I really done now.

  10. orange. Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 7:08 am

    My students often feel that you can receive your own messages and thus they want to argue that you can satisfy the send-receiver requirements of communication when talking with yourself. Do you buy it?

    Think they are refering to different levels of consciousness. But again I stress, the basic elements of sender and receiver are defined.
    Extending reflecting the term communication within this perspective, it gets really interesting, because aspects of selforganization within oneself are touched. But this brings you straight into cybernetics and I really dont want to bomb the topic of your entry.

  11. orange. Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 7:20 am

    hm.
    my conclusion: also precisement of the term ´communication` is undevideably bound to ´context`, within certain characteristics/conditions are fixed then. anyone surprised? :)

    thx Tad. ;)

  12. Administrator Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 2:25 pm

    What a series of interesting and provocative thoughts, Anna. Thanks so much for them …

    Tad

Leave a Comment

Close
E-mail It