Leave it to a sociologist to devote their first blog post to the question of blogging.
But before I even set off for Hong Kong, and start the process, I have been wondering about the following as it pertains to keeping this blog:
1. Millions upon millions have traveled to Hong Kong and shared their observations and experiences. How can I offer anything new and original that has not already been expressed and communicated countless times before by people far more articulate than I?
2. How “sociological” should my postings be? Should the blog simply be the reporting of observations about Hong Kong or, in addition, some sociological interpretation of events, situations, and conditions? That is, how much analysis?
3. How mundane should it get? There will be lots of daily confrontations with difference, oddities, curiosities, and general otherness. How much of this do I want to report and how much would anyone find interesting?
4. Speaking of “anyone”, who is the audience to which I am blogging?
I will stop there.
These are the kind of questions that are likely responsible for paralyzing would-be bloggers. I will not worry about them any longer. My blogging will be, as we sociologists like to say when social life becomes excessively indeterminate, an “emergent process”.
Bon voyage.
Well, speaking for me (i.e., someone), I am a part of the audience, though surely a small part. I don't have answers for 2-3, nor a fuller answer for 4 other than my own empirically oriented answer. I do have a thought for 1. Thousands upon thousands of thoughts have been written about so many things. And, as you note, some thoughts and observations have received countless expression, the very same thought and observations. However, each of us finds our own route to these re-expressed thoughts. For me, I will likely see your observations as new and I would likely not ever even see the other "same" observations (assuming you actually have nothing new to say, which I seriously doubt). So, I guess I'm thinking, it's ok to observe the same thing as someone else because we (your audience, whoever we are) may not have received introduction to those observations if you had made them. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteA
That should read "if you hadn't" made them above, not "if you had made them". Sorry.
ReplyDeleteA