Author’s Note: I have to admit that the ideas I posted with my take on the blogging principalia is very rough and unpolished. Therefore, it might be problematic to give reactions to my messy mindmap. I caution bloggers who would want to explore the idea to not take every concept I throw in as parts of my final position on the matter. This is an exploration and a work in progress. Though I appreciate those who do take time to read and react.
There can be several ways on how you view the blogging principalia. One is to attribute blogging as an activity of the society’s elite. Another is to view influential bloggers as members of an elite group. And I believe that what the Pinoy blogosphere is more concerned with is the second view – that within the realm of Pinoy blogging, an elite group exists.
However, I tend to view things on three varying levels (using the CDA framework of Norman Fairclough): 1) the text, 2) the discourse practice, and 3) the socio-cultural context. With blogging, this particular framework may need to be adjusted to effectively interpret how all of these things interact with each other. I now consider the blog/s as text, blogging as the discourse practice (as a process of text production and consumption) and the Pinoy blogosphere as a possible socio-cultural context on one level and then a larger socio-cultural context that is the Philippine society. Thus, this concept of blogging principalia may necessitate a combination of the two views I mentioned above.
Juned reacted to my previous post on the blogging Principalia which I think, is a valid one based on the meager definitions that I’ve made. Here’s my reaction though:
I think limiting the concept of the principalia in the older Hispanic context is quite limiting. While I use it to describe the so-called “blogging elite,” one has to further define the finer details of this elitism. Is it it defined by politics? Socio-economics? Popularity? Influence?
Some scholars view the elite as a dynamic bloc, not necessarily inherited as you may have defined it. It may involve complex processes of recruitment and transitions. Some sort of transience of members but not that particular bloc.
Hegemony, as a concept, is neo-Marxist so I think it belongs to a school of thought that may be in contrast with the concepts of Divine Right or social contracts.
Sure, the influential bloggers you have named may not necessarily born with silver spoons in their mouths. However, you have to consider these in a synchronic manner than a diachronic one, observing things particularly in the point of time where these bloggers exuded influence as bloggers, not necessarily their origins.
Whether this so-called elite or principlia or mob/mafia (according to Jon Limjap) is a good or bad thing, it would depend on how you view things.
Debunking an idea entails more than just pointing points for clarification. As I’ve said on my previous post, these are just initial observations that I plan to expand to a more organized position. Frameworks will vary and I am exploring different theories ranging from neo-Marxist to post-colonial critical theories (I think I used Spivak’s subaltern last time). Arguing using different premises can be quite problematic so again, I caution reactors (so as to keep the discussion flowing).
Perhaps the next step in fleshing out this concept is to first, settle on a framework that would effectively describe the blogging phenomenon and then characterize this blogging principalia.
Check out these other posts:
My only advice to you comes from a postscript I read in a writer’s forum. ” Right? wrong?… Write!”