Reflection 2.2

I felt most confident in the passage exploring how the lack of a public sphere is leading to an incline in political paranoia. The fact that the idea of a public sphere was new to me and I had to do a little research made it more clear for me to interpret because there I did not have a preconceived bias on the subject matter. Writing it drew some mental connections as to how technology plays a key role in the disintegration of community, which would be another rabbit trail to explore.
The paragraph about evidence was the hardest for me to form connections from because it seemed as if it was pubic knowledge and the balance between over explaining and leave questions unanswered was difficult to discern. Explaining things within the context of the essay helped me find a path through that example, but also drawing from Hofstadter’s essay made more concrete connections.
An annotation that I had was regarding the Dimitriadis’ word choice and referring to Hofstadter’s essay as a diagnosis rather than an observation. I didn’t write about this because I was not sure how the rest of Dimitriadis’ would play into the discussion, I wasn’t sure where my textual evidence would come from. I also steered clear from the claim that in order to fix public paranoia, “whole institutions would need to be taken apart and built back up” because that concept seemed so monumental, I didn’t think I could explore it efficiently in the space allotted.

Comments