A few years ago I bought the book titled Deep Work by Cal Newport. I was in the middle of a book project, trying to re-write my dissertation so that I could publish it to a wider audience of educators and thought that by reading this book I might be able to add to my understanding of how to better focus my writing time, while balancing a full time job teaching. The book is a very interesting read to say the least. Cal Newport is a very intelligent person and his writing is very engaging. As indicated in my first sentence, it’s been a few years since I’ve picked the book up and…my book project while completed has been put to the side for the unforeseeable future as I have found…over the last 2 years especially, that blogging has been a much more rewarding experience for me on so many levels. Newport’s book came back into my life while cleaning out the closet in my small office. I actually put the book in a stack that I eventually want to go and donate to a used bookstore not too far away from where we live. Due to the pandemic…it’s going to be a while before the store re-opens and I can complete that mission. Things do really happen for a reason. About a week ago…I was looking at the stack and said, “Why am I getting rid of this book…it deserves a further read.” So, I took it from the stack and brought it back up to my office and placed it on the small pile of books and notebooks I keep next to my LOVESAC.

I’ve been reading the book at night before going to bed or…in the middle of the night if I’m having trouble sleeping. Recently, I came across a section that made me “pause.” In this section Newport references the work of Winifred Gallagher, a behavioral science writer. In 2009 she published a book titled: Rapt. There is a great quote that Newport pulls from the book that I found interesting,…”the skillful management of attention is the sine qua non of the good life and the key to improving virtually every aspect of your experience.” The quote has a certain Zen-like quality to it and at 1:43am it got me thinking about where I have been putting my attention during this pandemic. Newport also cites, in the same section of the book, research from Barbara Fredrickson, psychology professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. Another quote that got my attention states that, “…what you choose to focus on exerts significant leverage on your attitude going forward.” Two Zen-like quotes in the same section of this book, read in the same sitting, very early in the morning…my decision to leave bed and go read felt more and more like the right choice. Newport leans on these quotes to posit his own theory that if we spend enough time in a deep state doing a range of things from crafting swords to writing that, “(y)our mind will understand (y)our world as rich in meaning and importance.” Newport talks a lot about how putting our attention on e-mails, social media, and the daily grind of our work is basically attention misplaced and is counterintuitive to the benefits of a more “Newport-Ian”, “Gallagher-ian”, or “Fredickson-ian” mindset. 

I’m not sure I agree with Newport 100% especially when it comes to the use of social media. It is here that I think Newport’s absolutist (or should I say...monastic) thinking becomes short-sighted. Yes, I think social media can be a distraction if you are not quite sure how to manage your time and attention on it. Yes that has happened to me numerous times in my life (by choice) and it probably will happen again and again. I’ve written at length about my issues with social media. I’ve taken my share of social media “sabbaticals.” However, while in the midst of the work that resulted in this blog post, I stopped…no…I take that back…I “paused” and got my phone out to tweet. I’d just opened my signed copy of Chris Dancy’s book Don’t Unplug: How Technology Saved My Life and Can Save Yours Too. I was instinctively drawn to the book as a sort of rebuttal to some of Newport’s thinking. As some of you who read this blog may know, Chris Dancy is an “Internet” friend of mine. I’ve “known” him for years through his podcasts, writing, videos, and on-line correspondence. I’ve written about his book and his influence on me in the past. My point here is that the tweet I chose to “pause” and write to him helped inform the words I’m writing now. To me, that momentary “pause” does not feel like a distraction from the “deep work” I was engaged in prior to the pause. It feels more like an extension of the work that you are reading right now. And that use of technology is precisely what I think Chris Dancy is arguing for in his book. He argues for a use of technology that is nuanced, one that is meant to help cultivate a sense of calm, order, and organization in your life. As I write this I feel that Dancy would whole heartedly agree with Winifred Gallagher’s notions of the importance of skillful management of attention which Newport cites in his book. Heck…Dancy’s whole book is a “master-class” on how he’s used technology and data to achieve “this!” Others have written about this from very interesting perspectives. My own research, during my doctoral studies, into how we construct (and for that matter how others construct) our identities while writing, exposed me to one such perspective that I feel applies here.

As we compose, in this case within social media platforms like Twitter, we construct audiences for our work or what Michael Warner (2002) calls publics. Publics can best be described as sites of membership, communities that cannot be touched, seen or avoided. Publics are imagined. We are members of publics by default while at times seeking membership into others. That membership or performance can come through the text we create and contributes to us being seen as a full participant or outsider at this site. Warner states that publics can be thought of as, “...frameworks for understanding text against an organized background of the circulation of other texts...” (p. 16). So, we imagine a public based on our ability to compare and contrast the text that make “it” unique with ‘other texts,’ from other publics we experience that exist around “it.” Writing about how we speak to and imagine ourselves affiliated to publics, Warner states the following: 

To address a public or to think of oneself as belonging to a public is to be a certain kind of person, to inhabit a certain kind of social world, to have at one's disposal certain media…to be motivated by a certain normative horizon, and to speak within a certain language ideology. (p. 10)

So, I understand a public, writing about roasting gourmet coffee for example, as being distinctly unique from another public writing about the intricacies of staining antique furniture. Wanting to be seen as a ‘certain kind of person;’ in this case, one who enjoys roasting gourmet coffee and talking about it with others, I can, based on the language used, the manner in which that language is being used, and my interest in the topic seek out, via my ‘disposal to certain media;’ read and attempt to write with those having similar conversations about that topic. 

I think we miss a chance to deepen our thinking, our potential membership in publics, and the work we care so much about if we dismiss participation in social media entirely; especially during this global pandemic that we find ourselves in the midst of. In his book, Newport does offer the reader a selection of “philosophies” that can be adopted when deciding how best to navigate one’s own deep work. We all cannot lead monastic lives. Some of us have jobs where we are required to be “in the weeds.” For example, while working on my dissertation, I was still working full time as a classroom teacher. Making that “work” for me while not going insane required that I section off blocks of my day. I’ve written about this in the past but bring it up here to say that I adopted what Newport would call the rhythmic philosophy...figuring out how best to do my deep work while working full time. This involved getting up about 90 minutes earlier than normal (actually a little more than 90 minutes so that by the time I shook the cobwebs out of my brain I actually had a 90 minute block) to get either a reading or writing session in. Then, I'd go get ready for work feeling like I'd accomplished something meaningful. Later in the day, after work, I’d do the same thing for at least another 90 minutes. In the near 2 years that I’ve made the decision to blog seriously, I've taken on the philosophy that Newport self-identifies with, the journalistic philosophy. This philosophy was given its name due to the fact that journalists have the capacity to shift into writing mode at a moment's notice. I prided myself on this ability back in my “dissertation days.” I can write anytime, anywhere and love it!! So I guess I’m claiming to be a hybrid, a mix of rhythmic and journalistic. Heck…I’m doing it right now. 30 minutes before starting my 8th week of “teaching” from home I’m choosing to write and think more about this post. 

Even with a good understanding of these “philosophies” I’m still not convinced that a total dismissal of social media is required to be the best at what you do for a living. If cultivated in a focused and intentional manner, social media, and the relationships we engage in “through it” has the potential to propel our thinking and our understanding of self and others, through membership in publics, in valuable and meaningful ways.

Yes, I know Newport’s most recent book: Digital Minimalism (2019) examines ways in which to foster a more balanced relationship with technology. I look forward to reading it when I finish Deep Work…to see how Newport’s thinking has evolved. 

For now, I will continue on, “rhythmically” and “journalistically” writing and thinking integrating social media into my flow when necessary!