According to T.V. Reed, this book was written in order to provide the layperson (e.g. someone who does not reside on Planet Geek) with a framework for thinking about technology and the questions that we continue to face when we use, analyze, and break down digital culture. He states that he is more interested in good questions than answers, and his work dissects and complicates binaries (Technology is awesome-sauce vs. technology will ruin us all!). The first section of the book is broken down into five chapters, each with a first page that reminds me a bit of a website with "hyperlinks" to the right that define the sections within each chapter. The topics range from desire and sex online to how the digital is produced to identity when using ICT; thus, as mentioned in class, it provides more of an overview than an in-depth discussion of any particular topic. However, it is a good starting point for thinking about the myriad issues surrounding digital culture.
The first chapter is primarily concerned with defining important terms and thinking about the importance of naming (Fields...naming...shout out to 534 blog!) and how that affects what is examined (e.g. plurality, technological determinism, the four different ways of examining digital culture). In other words, the text sets the groundwork for looking at relevant issues and provides readers with the main aim of Reed's work: a focus on social relationships in a medium that is rapidly changing and ubiquitous in some areas. He states:
...Let me be clear that I will not pretend to deal with all aspects of new communications technologies. My focus will be on cultural and social questions, on asking what can be done to make to make digital communication technologies serve the cause of richer representation for groups currently on the margins, and how digital communication technology can be used to further economic and social justice for all (7).
 |
I especially like the way he used the quote by McLuhan--"we shape our tools, and afterwards our tools shape us" (10)--to think about the role of technology, its context, and its limits. I have lately become very interested in how design and original intent affects options provided to current users. I also found the discussion of cyberspace and its lack of material reality quite relevant to my own life. Why do we want to hide the physicality of cyberspace so badly? What is the difference between being immersed in a book and being immersed online? How does that affect learning? What role does remediation play, and has that become invisible?
 |
| What my lab is supposed to look like (above) vs. what my lab might actually look like (right). |
What should I do with the skeletons of my once-functioning Dell Inspiron and newly-labeled "dumb" phone? What is the relationship between innovation and sterility, and why do we like it so much? Why the desire to hide what is in that little black box (even see-through computers seem to have fallen out of favor)?
The second chapter talks about the making of the digital, which is particularly relevant to this semester at WSU given that the required reading is Garbology and the recent issues surrounding garments sold by the university. The chapter gives an overview of the history of the internet (military/war - science - academics - hippie counterculture - the public), including a discussion of a user-friendly interface and Web 2.0. One of the scariest quotes of the chapter proclaims:
Apart from the occasional scandal when workers in a computer assembly factory in China or Bangladesh commit suicide or die in a fire because they were literally locked into the factory, these workers do not get much attention. And when scandals bring them to public attention, their work conditions are dismissed as aberrations and swept from popular memory as easily as the mind cleansing in films like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or "Men in Black." (41).Can we target the entire industry in order to stop this? How? What about Kairos (and mode)? Can we find some enlightened self-interest for everyone? What changes can we make and how quickly can we expect to make them? How does prosuming (filter than publish to publish than filter switch) affect public perception and how we see news, scandal etc.?
 |
| http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Public-Interest-Global-Warming/dp/1560729112 |
 |
| http://news.chrisjordan.com/ |
Reed then moves on to talk about sorority girls (59), weblining (61), Facebook and Privacyfix (62), and cosmetic privacy settings (64), stating that legislation has really lagged behind in terms of privacy in the digital realm. He also returns to the issue of being cyborg or post-human with a discussion of place and using tools, as well as the dangers and opportunities provided by anonymity on the web (71). He also asks more questions: Does being online make us value time offline more or less (77)? How does hegemony (cultural domination without overt or coercion [78]) function on the web? I thought that Reed did a nice job of defining hegemony and offering comparable examples such as the music industry for greater understanding.
 Does anyone read these? |
The fourth chapter covers equality, addressing gender, ethnicity, and dis/ability. The main theme in all of these sections is the ability of online space to both deepen and lessen inequalities, and Reed suggests that much of this inequality might be dealt with if we had more diversity in production. I enjoyed the section that talked about how students in the Western world focus on uniqueness, though their values tend to match their own subject positions (84). It seems as if much of Reed's critique deals with making the invisible visible. The discussion about cyber harassment was also interesting, especially the split between cyberbullying and cyberstalking at the age of 18 (90). I agree with Reed's assessment that it seems arbitrary and lacks sensitivity.
 |
| Message posted on http://fatuglyorslutty.com |
I also wonder how effective sites are that call-out cyberharrasment. For example, I had never heard of "Fat, Ugly, or Slutty", and it seems that some of the most recent posts on the page are still from 2013. I certainly applaud the idea, but is it doing enough? For example, who visits these sites? Is it effective in "shaming"? What would happen if information like this was brought to Facebook or Twitter?
The last chapter in this section deals with desire and the digital. This chapter seems particularly short given the amount of material it tries to cover, as Reed touches on sexual education, the porn industry, sex trafficking, and alternative sexualities online. I had never really thought about the safety of online sex or the "safety valve theory" (112); both topics would be interesting to discuss further. Furthermore, I wonder how schools can use digital technology in sexual education and how the digital affects relationships that are not long-distance. I also wonder about Reed's tone in this section and whether it affected your reading of the chapter, such as the commentary on gamut (110) and the puns on sexual positions (110) and penetration (109). Is this an appeal to audience? Does it make him seem uncomfortable with the topic?
Lastly, I leave you with a video that shows a term new to me in the digital realm: swatting.
This is a great overview of the reading. In future posts, you don't necessarily have to do a chapter-by-chapter walk through, though you're more than welcome to do so. I'm ok if you do a large-scale summary and then key in on a few issues or chapters that really speak to you in some way. That being said, I love the connections you make here. Also, loving the visual. Thanks!
ReplyDelete