PS. I'm a Robot

I found Hayles' text to be engaging, confusing, inspiring, frustrating, and difficult: the flickering signifier of my own flickering ability to understand embodiment, liberal humanism, and Phillip Dick. In How We Became Posthuman, Hayles takes us through a truncated history of cybernetics, including both scientific and literary texts, to contest that there can be a separation between information and material; she aims to fight against virtuality (see quote below). For her, it is important to specifically describe the history of how and why that disconnect occurred, including the three waves of development in the field: "The first, from 1945 to 1960, took homeostasis as a central concept; the second, going roughly from 1960 to 1980, revolved around reflexivity; and the third, stretching from 1980 to the present, highlights virtuality" (7). The Macy conferences, part of the earliest period, were marked by wanting to see machine function as man (functionally similar but without removing liberal humanism) and maintain scientific objectivity by placing the observer outside the system. Reflexivity (see definition below) was discussed and then discarded uncomfortably by all but a few thinkers. Conversely, the second wave focused on the observer and the concept of autopoiesis, or "self-making" that required "that systems are informationally closed" (10), thus making information and the system indistinguishable and bringing the observer into the system. The last wave looked at the capacity to evolve and redefined living and the connection between the material and information, thus putting us in the mindset to think about what being post-human means/could mean. I thought the chart was fairly useful for understanding some of the distinctions between these movements (page 16), though I still get stuck in all the theory/definitions beneath it.

Early on we are introduced to reflexivity, a concept threaded throughout the text. Hayles states, "Reflexivity is the movement whereby that which has been used to generate a system is made, through a changed perspective, to become part of the system it generates" (8). Hayles uses the example of hands drawing a picture being sketched as part of the picture. Reflexivity is important because it separates us from the notion of objectivity. The part about Catherine Bateson stood out as an important example that made it clear to me that the observer is part of the system. I like that Hayles describes both how this functions in Bateson's text and Bateson's awareness of her subjectivity. It reminds me of the discussion we had this week in English 360 about extrinsic proofs and the troubling emphasis on simply presenting "pure data." This was complicated by two separate lists of the best movies of 2010, signaling the importance of context and interpretation.

I also really enjoyed Hayles views of literature and science and the importance of the interrelation between them. For example she says, "As the chapters on the scientific developments will show, culture circulates through science no less than science circulates through culture, The heart that keeps this circulatory system flowing is narrative..." (21). These quotes/connections are what made me really excited to read this book in the first place. I wonder how much scientists would agree with this emphasis on narrative though. It also makes me think more about the inclusion of the observer in the system (seems to be a theme I'm stuck on), and I wonder if scientists are moving toward this acknowledgement in their texts or not. It also makes me think about the audience for this book. I found a reviewer that talked about how, because of this connection, some part of the text will always be alienating, and I'm curious to see if our class thought that was true or not. I do think that she may have benefited from scientific discourse a bit in its adherence to plain language, because sometimes I feel like her language is purposefully crafted to make me struggle. In that regard, do some texts have "natural bodies?" (45). What would that be? Does hers? Also, why have I never heard of autopoietic theory? It seems like this whole contention over the emphasis on DNA never actually made it to the biologists, or we chose to ignore it.

Another definition that is important is what Hayles is arguing against is virtuality. She states:

"Technical artifacts help to make an information theoretic view a part of everyday life....information is increasingly perceived as interpenetrating material forms. Especially for users who may not know the material processes involved, the impression is created that pattern is predominant over presence. From here it is a small step to perceiving information as more mobile, more important, more essential than material forms. When this impression becomes part of your cultural mindset, you have entered the condition of virtuality" (19).

It is easy to see how the privileging of information came about, and I appreciated Hayles discussion of pattern and randomness instead of presence/absence. What I understand is that in a general sense the formation of patterns overall from the random is part of what makes us post-human, but I'm not sure I've got that quite right. I feel like I need to understand more about related theories before I feel entirely comfortable with this text, and it has me thinking about the information she does provide (lots about the narratives of the stories she chooses, so much so that I feel it almost overwhelms her argument at times) and what she doesn't (assumed familiarity with those famous dudes).

I also found the parallels between Hayles assertion that "the computer molds the human even as the human builds the computer" (47) and her claim that "the body produces culture at the same time that culture produces the body" (200) interesting, especially because she is all about considering context and everything involved in the system. However, does this draw us back to the we shape the tools and then the tools shape us argument? Is anyone disagreeing with this?

A-Maze of Technology

My blog post should probably start with an apology, because I did not do a very good job of describing what I want my final paper to be about. I'm still not sure exactly where I'm going or what to include, but I'm largely interested in the relationship between science and narrative and how technology has influenced young adult literature. I also want to examine stereotypes of scientists and intellectualism, which includes an examination of gender roles, especially given the rise of the female-villain-scientist character in recent young adult dystopian texts. My current aim is to examine some of these issues in the text Maze Runner, a book about the struggle of Thomas and his friends to survive a scientific experiment.

Spoiler Alerts: The narrative begins when Thomas enters the Glade, a community of teenage boys that has been built in the middle of a giant maze. He enters with supplies through an elevator they call the Box, and has no memory of who he is except for his name; the boys explain that this happens every month. Thomas is slowly introduced to the boys' way of life, including their distinctive lingo, and learns that they have been trying to escape the maze for more than two years without success. Their system is to rely on a group of boys called the maze runners, who run the maze every day and subsequently record what the maze looks like. Though they have thousands of maps, the maze changes every day, and they are unable to find any patterns that will allow them to leave. Furthermore, the maze runners must return before nightfall when the doors to the maze close and grievers, half-biological, half-mechanical creatures freely roam the maze. No one has ever survived the night in the maze. As the story continues, a girl is delivered through the box who can telepathically communicate with Thomas, and, through a series of dangerous misadventures, the group eventually escape the maze to meet its creators, a group called WICKED.

I aim to analyze this book using Hayles, Nakamura, and Johnson (User-Centered Technology), as well as other relevant texts. My goal is to argue that the whole book represents our interactions and fears as users of technology. I would like to examine the expert/novice binary and the idea of technology as a black box, technological determinism, humans as product or animal (they eventually have bar codes), the scientist and the user as post-human, the default identity online (white male), and the relationship between information and materiality, including the failure of scientific method to yield productive results. Hayles text is especially interesting in this regard, given that the boys discover that they don't even know their real names, and have instead been named after famous male scientists (Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, etc.). However, the female character is not named after a scientist, and Minho, the only character described as Asian, is named for a scientist of the future, according to the author's commentary after the fact.  

I would also like to explain that technology has changed our view of the maze narrative and what is savage and dangerous, using both Greek mythology and Lord of the Flies, one of the cited inspirations for this text. Comparing the beast and the Minotaur to the grievers could be a productive direction in this regard, as well as the role of feminine knowledge and how escape happens (the string, the fire, the digital window). I would also like to delve into how digital spaces influence memory, privacy, and language/slang, as well as the role of the woman as "the end of technology" (Teresa's appearance signals changes in the maze and their eventual escape).

Mark made the great suggestion that I should speak with Dr. Boyd, so I am doing that next week. It was also suggested that I take a look at Technologies of the Gendered Body. My main concern is that I may stretch evidence too much to fit my own interpretations or that I don't have a clear idea of which ideas are going to be the most fruitful in terms of working with sources. I chose this text because I'm also hoping to be able to watch the recent movie version, though I'm not sure how much to include that aspect (my original goal was to be able to compare the written description of a griever to the visual one). I also thought about looking at art and fan fiction inspired by the text, but I'm not sure how far to go or how useful that might be. The second book also reveals that there was a whole other maze with all girls in it and one boy, and I am not sure how much that should influence my reading of the original text.

Leave a Comment after the Beep...

I want to briefly draw connections between two of the articles we read and Castells' work, because I think they both add to the conversation in ways I was hoping for when I wrote my last post. Transnational Literate Lives in Digital Times is in a multi-modal form that I appreciate given the subject matter and the attention paid to preserving the co-author's voices. As I pointed out in one of my comments, I think that Networks of Outrage and Hope could have benefited from being a digital text to embrace the advantages of that mode (e.g. embedded video, links, etc.). Perhaps this is also based on personal bias, because to be honest I hate flipping back and forth between between chapters and notes, but I also think it would have helped readers compare these moments and the way these different technologies have played a role. In her blog, Zarah mentioned wanting to more about what sparked these movements, and I think that would have helped Castells include more of that interesting, important material without making the text substantially longer.

Lisa's comment about linearity vs. a network or web also reminded me of Dr. Ericsson's digital text we read in 501 and how works online can disrupt (or not disrupt) that sense of organization and how we move through them. For example, Transnational Literate Lives in Digital Times does not keep all of the introduction on the same page, but organizes based on subheadings that the reader must click through. Does this say something about attention span or how we expect information online to be displayed? Readers are able to see the "title page" at all times as well, where one can click to find more information about the co-authors (though I'm interested in why the "more information" is simply another picture and when/where they were born, especially given the transnational emphasis of the text). It also includes chapters, but that has me wondering if it is important to read chapter 3 before I read chapter 5 and if we need those markers at all. What would happen if we arranged the categories horizontally instead of vertically, or even in a web (thinking Prezi)? In Castells' work, is it important that I read the chapter about the social movement in Spain before I read about Occupy Wall Street? Would an alternative organizational scheme this give the reader more agency (Is this like the digital portfolio conversation?)? I realize we should also consider the disadvantages of the digital too; after all, Castells' does that have to include a 'be patient' part of his text or make the reader wait for QuickTime to download. He also doesn't have to worry about how his text will look on a mobile phone or if readers can get the message even if they can only access part of the text. As the "Generation Y" article demonstrates, it is important to think about the constraints and advantages of these different media and if they really change the way we communicate.

my-prezious-precious-prezi-joke

Overall, I like the emphasis in Transnational Literate Lives in Digital Times on maintaining the integrity of the coauthors voices, at it reminds me of the readings that speak to valuing student work and viewing them as equal members of the conversation. In the introduction Berry, Hawisher, and Selfe, describe the reasoning behind their method:

 Because participants' voices have been such an important part of these literacy narratives, we have also tried to maintain, as far as possible, the integrity of the responses: at times using digital video to record their narratives and writing processes and at other times using their own written words and language. In addition, we have selected written passages that retain the participants' words and phrasing, grammatical structures, and distinctive word choices, which also mark their digital videos. This approach, we believe, keeps the contributors’ language intact—along with all of its important markers of class, age, geography, and personal expression.

However, it also strikes me as interesting that they need to keep coming back to this methodology--it is almost as if they feel like they have to justify it, which to me is a bit strange. Are we still at the point where we need to talk about why we want to hear people actually talk/write about what they have talked about instead of a translation? Also, the co-authors don't make the cover or the works cited entry, and we don't hear from them until after chapter 1...and I keep looking at the picture of the researchers and their self-representations and trying to understand their meaning. There is a third picture that you only get if you click on the image, which is in color and also blocks out part of the shot. I can see how this relates to being the organizers and being behind the scenes, but how does looking at the building (a school?) define being an insider or an outsider? Why is this picture in the section on making a global turn? What are the different ways pictures are used in the part of the text we read, and what makes them rhetorically effective? How do these pictures give us different ideas about the identities of these students?

http://ccdigitalpress.org/transnational/intro2.html

I also wanted to talk about "Political communication in the Cuban blogosphere: A case study of Generation Y", because it describes a particular technology and its affordances and constraints, something that Castells does not really discuss. The authors build on Castells 2008 text and his concept of mass self-communication in their article (159) and also include a section about how these spaces have made these authors (or, in the case of the article, author) famous and perhaps that they are using them for personal gain. Castells does it in his discussion of livestreamers (176) and this article does it when it talks about responses by people in favor of the Cuban process (156). Do these bloggers fall under more intense scrutiny than other "established" news sources/media? How do these spaces redefine what we consider "credible"? I also thought the discussion of Twitter was fascinating, and I'm wondering if people agree with the authors' claim that:

Twitter's interactive capabilities fall short of opening opportunities for real and substantial dialogue between Sanchez and her followers, which could lead to enrichment of the topics addressed in her blog, mostly because of Twitter's restrictions on post lengths (140 characters) (165).

Does the length constraint stop substantial dialogue, or does it promote a back-and-forth exchange? Should Twitter lift this restriction? What are online alternatives that allow us to have "real and substantial" dialogue? Would the conversation be different if comments influenced what was written in the blog? Does this piece support the claim that the internet is making us more polarized, because we read (and comment on) what we already believe in? Does consensus building better take place in the space offline? Castells highlights the importance of the connection between digital and non-digital networks, and I wonder if that is part of what this blog is missing (or what, at the very least, we don't hear about).

funplusfun90.blogspot.com

When Hope Seems Outrageous

Manuel Castells' Networks of Outrage and Hope discusses social movements that aim for true democracy and justice using a combination of online and offline networks and spaces. Castells describes these movements from Iceland to the Middle East to Spain to the streets of New York and recognizes the similarities between them stating, "In all cases the movements ignored political parties, distrusted the media, did not recognize any  leadership and rejected all formal organization, relying on the Internet and local assemblies for collective debate and decision-making" (4). The book makes observations about these movements (e.g. the spark, who participated, the response and outcomes, etc.); however, Castells contends that it is too early to make any systematic statements, only hypotheses. He uses his theory of grounded power to state that institutional structure is defined by the interplay between power and counterpower and that power is gained through peoples' minds or through force, which cannot last forever: "torturing bodies is less effective than shaping minds" (5). The way to create meaning in the minds of the people, a more stable form of power, is to communicate, and we can now do this partly through digital "mass self-communication" (7). Thus, these movements have created a space between the digital and the urban to conquer fear through community, invoke symbolism, and regain representation (11). According to Castells, these movements are emotional, requiring both outrage and then hope to turn feeling into action (14).

I thought the text was powerful in the way that it described the movements and their similarities, and I learned quite a bit of detail about these different revolutions. However, I am a bit curious about the addressed audience for this text. I know that Castells' works are widely cited, but I sometimes felt as if I knew too much or too little about what he was discussing. For example, I thought the part about the government's attempt to shut down the Internet was particularly fascinating, especially the new technologies that were created to allow people to have their voices heard. However, his example about speak-to-text made me want to know more about Twitter and why that has often been the outlet for these messages; if the other readings sounded outdated due to their examples, this one made me feel old. He also made the very good point that the internet is impossible to shut down because it is "the lifeline of the interconnected global economy" (65), but I was not quite sure I completely understood the implications of that lack of physicality. Castells says that the speed in which the Internet was reconnected in Egypt indicates that "neither the disconnection nor the reconnection was physical. There was simply a matter of re-writing the code for the routers, once the government authorized the ISPs to operate again" (65). I guess I was expecting him to say something about how that plays into power dynamics or this space between the digital and the physical, but he then quickly moves on to talking about why they restored it instead. Furthermore, he also brings up the role of women in the chapter on Egypt and how these revolutions occur in places where people have internet access, but I was hoping for more. What about the role of women in these other countries? How long have these places have widespread access, and did that affect the movements? Polity Press, the publisher of his text, says that they serve a mainly academic audience, but also strive to publish works that a general audience could pick up. Could you see yourself teaching with this text? If so, in what type of a class? What type of student? Would you feel the need to supplement, or could the book stand on its own? In that same vein, could a chapter be pulled out to discuss? If you were to use a chapter, which one would you pick? Who do you think is reading this book as a "member of the general public"?

This book also hints at some of the problematic issues these movements have had to face, but overall gives a very positive view of the digital and these networks. I would be really curious to see the 2010 study that talked about how the Internet has increased peoples' sense of security, agency, and liberty done again (233), especially considering the article on Isis that Lacy and Alex provided. In other words, I'm not totally convinced, or I at least want to see some numbers (I know, there's a link, but I wish it got a chart like some of the other information). At the very least the study backed up the assertion that the groups who could most benefit from the Internet are the ones that have the least access (boo). However, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit I did at least partially enjoy reading a book with a "yay Internet" message, though I feel that all the readings have stressed the importance of connection between digital and non-digital spaces. For example, in our "overview text", Reed had a brief portion of a chapter dedicated to social movements, and his final claim was, "it is this close connection to 'real-world' away-from-keyboard sites that makes online netroots activism most effective" (134). Castells expands on Reed's synopsis by discussing how these social movements have created a new sense of time as well when he claims:

...they have generated their own form of time: timeless time, a trans-historical form of time, by combining two types of experience. On the one hand, in the occupied settlements, they live day by day, not knowing when the eviction will come...on the other hand...they live in the moment in terms of their experience, and they project their time in the future of history-making in terms of their anticipation...It is an emerging, alternative time, made of a hybrid between the now and the long now [reminds me a bit of Condon's talk in the long now] (223).

blogs.psychcentral.com

Do we have the patience for the 'long now'? How do we feel about this concept of 'relearning from old mistakes in terms of consensus (130)?

Lastly, there is also a very interesting tension in this work between what the movements were able to do and what they could not accomplish, which connects to the difference between short-terms goals and long-term change. Castells mentions several times that the distrust of politics stops these movements from being able to make pragmatic changes, because that would involve working through that system. In the "Occupy Wall Street" chapter, Castells summarizes this outlook when he describes two trends of the movements:

...(a) most people simply do not trust the political process as it is currently framed, so they only count on themselves; (b) the movement is wide and strong because it unites outrage and dreams while skipping politics as usual. This is its strength and its weakness. But this is what this movement is, not a surrogate for an old left always looking to find fresh support for its unreconstructed view of the world. No demands, and every demand; not a piece of society, but the whole of a different society (188).

In the end, he says that the movement's hopes will have to be "watered down" (234) through "reform or revolution" (234). In the United States, is one more likely than the other? Has this movement done enough to empower people and influence their minds? How do we go from awareness of a class divide and the degradation of the "American Dream" (everyone and their mother's AP English final paper topic) to that next step?  Does it really matter that about 30% of people supported disruptive action, especially if most didn't approve of the movement?

On a related note, I think this book is going to need another addition given the events in Hong Kong and his discussion of the government and their control of the internet in China!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29423147

For example, see:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29423147
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29407067

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/02/353189674/hong-kong-police-warn-protesters-not-to-occupy-government-buildings

Check this box if you would like to check more boxes

After reading these two pieces, I think a lot of connections can be drawn between the chapter "It’s My Revolution: Learning to See the Mixedblood" and Cybertypes. Though they build off one another and diverge in interesting ways, it is important to acknowledge the similarities between them and the issues they discuss as well. First of all, both pieces clearly point to the fetishization of groups based on race. For example, Arola says:

...non-Indians, when looking to see Indians, often fall into this visual trap—a trap that fetishizes what it means to be American Indian. This fethishization is manifested in popular visual representations of the Indian (think your typical mascot, or your cigar store Indian), thus providing a visual standard by which to measure the “real Indian” (216).

Similarly, Nakamura claims:

The vast majority of male Asian characters deployed in the MOO fit into familiar stereotypes from popular electronic media...the orientalized male persona, complete with sword, confirms the idea of the Asian man as potent, antique, exotic, and anachronistic" (38-39). 

Though Nakamura is specifically referring to names and descriptors in an MOO, her ideas about how groups are stereotyped and the repression that occurs due to lack of real representation fit into the more general terms that Arola describes. Furthermore, Nakamura and Arola bring up earlier forms of media that influence representation (e.g. the mascot, video games such as Mortal Kombat, popular television shows, etc). These examples serve to remind us that we have not moved "beyond race" and that online spaces are not new, free utopias where we no longer have to worry about silly stuff like race or, if you dare to bring it up at all, you deserve a little flak (Nakamura 45).  Both authors use their examples to illustrate that forming these over-simplified, outdated categorizations of other allows us to feel more "usy." In other words, we need these stereotypes or cybertypes to reassure us that we are us and not them. According to Nakamura, "These images [of the Orient] provide the necessary contrast, the dark background, against which the user can feel even more 'himself' than he did before" (40). How comforting.

amin210.wikispaces.com

In addition, Arola builds on the idea of identity tourism and its similarity to a costume in her work. Nakamura uses the term costume in the second chapter when she says:

One of the dangers of identity tourism is that it takes this restriction across the axes of race/class in the 'real world' to an even more subtle and complex degree by reducing nonwhite identity positions to part of a costume or masquerade to be used by curious vacationers in cyberspace (47).  

The term is used more extensively in "It’s My Revolution: Learning to See the Mixedblood", and Arola uses it to connect the real world with the digital. She starts out with a narrative that describes the difference between regalia and a costume outside of the web, when a women comes up and asks Arola about the meaning behind her beautiful costume (213). The woman is insulting because her use of the word costume separates the outfit from identity and everyday life; it is something a "curious vacationer" (Nakamura 47) might try on. Arola goes on to explain her definition of regalia and why it applies to the outfit when she says, "Regalia is not something one simply dons atop the self for the sake of play or trivial performance; instead, regalia is an intimate expression of self" (214). She then uses the concept of regalia to describe online identity and its materiality, something I do not notice being discussed overtly in Nakamura's text.  According to Arola, a shawl is not a costume; online identity is not a bracketed performance (217). Thus, though both works want to "call the fixedness of these categories [gender, race, or condition of life] into question" (Nakamura 49), I believe there is a stronger connection between online and offline identity in Arola's text, and a sense of how offline identity feeds into identity online. This is likely tied to the fact that Friendster first came to the US in 2002, and MySpace did not appear until 2003 (though we all know that the internet didn't really exist until after Facebook in 2004) ("The Brief History of Social Media"). These sites made it much more popular to post pictures of yourself (and obviously your body) as part of your online identity, and I'm just guessing that Nakamura deals with that more in Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet, which was published in 2007.

Furthermore, Arola's focus is much more on being mixedblood and the choices users can make in social media to represent (or not represent) that identity. However, both texts bring up the fact that the internet makes racial categories discreet, limiting a user's options to one. I thought it was particularly interesting that Jamie initially does not mark himself as Native American but goes back to check the box a few days after their discussion; I would have been very interested to hear his thoughts as he decided to check that box again. I am also interested in how non-artists might represent themselves as mixedblood in online spaces. For example, would it be different if someone were to share the picture of Erica instead of his/her own self-portrait? Does it matter who that someone is? (Though I think this is a rather obvious question, the implications are interesting to consider.) How much do other people and what they post affect your identity or how other people view that identity? Is this any different than in "real life"?

Something shared on my Facebook wall

No, thanks. You're not my cybertype.

Lisa Nakamura's text deals with (to use that handy little subtitle) "race, ethnicity, and identity on the internet" using her term cybertypes, which she defined as "the distinctive ways that the internet propagates, disseminates, and commodifies images of race and racism" (3). She states that her definition allows for a layering of the ideology of race in the non-virtual world with that of the computer and its influence on access, interaction, and expression. She argues against the assertion that we are "beyond race" on the web in all its Utopian promise, saying that we are certainly still under the same guidelines, cultural norms, and hegemonies that govern our "solid" selves (4). Her book certainly talks about issues of access in relation to this issue, but she also discusses the cybertying that occurs even when a significant number of minorities are able to use the web, including redlining (10) and the possibility of the internet mimicking the problems in television despite diverse viewership (28). Like Reed, she brings up a lack of minorities not only as consumers, but also as producers, and ends with talking about issues of access in the academic world. Overall, her chapters cover identity tourism and menu-driven, reductive identities, race and cyberpunk films, the myth of multiculturalism, and the way advertising perpetuates the view of the other as "clean" and "unspoiled".

I found Nakamura’s quote in the introduction about monocultures and what we consider contamination very interesting. She cites Saradar, who says that the cyberspace is a monoculture, and briefly talks about the discourse of bioengineering and agribusiness. In agriculture, monocultures often produce high yields, because practices can be standardized and the strain used is bred for disease resistance and, you guessed it, high yield. However, “the fashionables” (17) claim that monocultures reduce soil fertility over time, and disasters can occur if a novel disease is introduced. I’m not sure I quite understand her bitterness toward the opposition here if we are strictly speaking crops; however, she brings up interesting points: Do we have a monoculture? (*Nakamura raises hand*) What would be the “high yield” of monoculture on the web? Do we really care what the downfalls are, as long as we get what we want? What would a polyculture look like, and how would it be maintained? In the end, does it all come down to economics?

Nakamura then goes on to say, “…the tourist gaze would like to see [the African woman] out of time, protected from the incursions of digital “culture” (or monoculture) by Western intervention: the authenticity of the timeless primitive is threatened by the television set. In the second example, cultural appropriations are commonly celebrated as hybridity and assimilation” (17). She quickly explains that music allows for these mixings, but I was hoping to hear more. Would that newspaper article be different if the African woman was listening to an iPod? Furthermore, does this same dichotomy apply for the people using this technology? For example, what do the Filipino youth, the African woman, and the Chinese rock group think about the tools they are using? When I was in Guatemala this summer, several people I talked to blamed technology for the loss of their Mayan culture and identity. Our tour guide specifically spoke about how computers have Westernized the small town we lived in, causing women to trade their traditional dresses for skinny jeans and graphic t-shirts. He sounded nostalgic, sad, and resigned. However, I later learned that many families could no longer afford to put their children in the expensive, traditional dresses, which was why they had switched to the "Americanized" clothing, bringing up an issue that technology may mask. There is certainly a digital divide, but there is also a non-digital divide, and the cost of getting on the internet (less than 10 cents an hour) was certainly much lower than buying a dress (perhaps around $50 but up to hundreds of dollars). In addition, though he mourned the loss of that part of his culture, he also wore jeans and a t-shirt instead of the suit only worn by the oldest generation of men in the town. I wish I had been able to talk with more people about their views of technology, but, with my limited vocabulary, it was hard to get from "how are you?" to "Do cell phones and internet cafes affect the way you view your cultural identity?"

www.wykop.pl and hobby.idnes.cz

Also, given my summer experience and the way I am still trying to make sense of it all, I found Nakamura's definition of identity tourism unsettling and disturbing. She claims, "Multiply distributed identities allow identity tourists to simultaneously claim two positions, that of the tourist and that of the native; the can be both inside and outside" (56). In Guatemala, I always felt like a tourist, an outsider, and I found myself wanting to somehow pass. I hated my height, my skin, my accent, but part of me still wanted the "best" of both worlds, and that's scary. I'm interested in how this notion connects to the "unspoiled" notion of nature and "authentic otherness" (94) that Nakamura talks about in Chapter 4. Does this perhaps explain the tourist's love of the postcard, with images akin to those described in the advertisements? There's only enough space on the back to write some quick, little note (in that primitive pencil) about how you are having "so much fun" and "experiencing that real culture." Not "I found out that the push to use trash cans and recycle has been largely unsuccessful in the market" or "Someone just told me that during the fair they put poison out for all the dogs on the street. TTYL!" On a related note, I would love to hear Nakamura's opinion about the more recent, controversial Coca Cola ad, where actors sang "America the Beautiful" in different languages. Does that challenge her argument at all?

When I read Chapter 5 I  found myself wondering how much internet menus have changed since 2002. It was enlightening, for example, to have looked at the categories WSU uses to define student demographics this year in PDC last week and what they have recently added. Nakamura describes how these boxes function to exclude when she says, "When race is put on the menu...it is cybertyped in such a way that mestiza or other culturally ambiguous identities--such as those belonging to hyphenated Americans--are rendered unintelligible, inexpressible, and invisible...in the world of the contemporary interface, if it can't be clicked, that means it functionally can't exist"(120). Thus, as she states, these identities cannot make "legitimate" racial categories less so. Because that would definitely be the case. I also appreciate that she talks about how that information has been used to develop niche marketing and the overwhelming desire of companies to just sell us something. Though we now often have the "I prefer not to say" option, I wonder if choosing that option itself also says something that you may prefer not to say. I've found that at least on some websites nationality is being arranged in true alphabetical order, instead of the United States being pre-highlighted at the top and Europe sliding into second. Progress?

In case you didn't know! www.zazzle.com

The invisibility of whiteness (caution: entering default mode) is another thread I noticed running through Nakamura's text, and I thought her discussion of the 1995 debate on Lambda was striking in its commonality. In her example, the opponents of the petition against hate crime said it was unnecessary, with one person even claiming, '"If you want to get in somebody's face with your race then perhaps you deserve a bit of flak"' (45). I've seen that argument on Facebook before with (dare I say it) even less eloquence. I would have liked to see more of that debate and responses to Taffy in the text to get a better sense of the conversation as a whole.  

groupthink.jezebel.com

Reeding and Writing (Blog Post #2)

The second half of Reed's text deals with politics, games, education, and accessibility. Chapter 7 discusses how the digital influences voting, campaigning, hacking, and protesting. I thought that the discussion of slactivism was particularly interesting given the myriad of reactions to the extremely popular ALS ice bucket challenge and its impact. My friends in real life (i.e. Facebook) have posted that it is helpful, up-lifting, self-serving, harmful, environmentally unfriendly, and overwhelming (just to name a few). Google search tells me that it is a....satanic ritual? I wish Reed would have spent a bit more time talking about how people are/are not more well-informed and the reasons behind that, as it is interesting to think about that in terms of what we see vs. what we click on vs. the source. To me the main message behind this chapter was that a mix of the digital and non-digital is important, and that the digital should enhance rather than replace. I also enjoyed learning about the games/parody sites that exist (Cybracero was quite good and more than a little scary in its mimicry, and I liked looking at the site in both English and Spanish). It might be an interesting exercise to have students examine the rhetoric going on there...

Chapter 8 addressed the role of digital games, pitting the view that they are violent, sexist, and racist against the claim that they are going to save the world. Given our discussion last week, I do not think many of us will find his conclusions surprising; however, it was interesting to read about Laura Croft, given that I did play that video game when I was young. Looking back, I remember more about her economic situation (wow, this lady has a full-sized pool in her house!) than how her gender impacted game-play, though I do want to know more about dialogue and if that differs between male and female protagonists (I only recall that some of her one-liners were a little odd). Furthermore, while looking at Laura Croft YouTube videos, I found videos related to Beyond Two Souls, one of the games Reed mentions. They discuss the leak of nude shots of Ellen Page's character Jodie, as some systems were apparently able to access alternative camera angles during the shower scene. Sony's response included "please take these down" and "this is not Ellen Page's body". Does it matter? Should it matter? What are the differences between leaking naked photos and leaking naked photos from a game? One of the commentator's statements paraphrased: "This concerns a very pretty woman...well, she is very pretty...well, depending on your taste..." Blah.

Furthermore, I can certainly see the danger of war games. Reed states, "But many argue that this similarity presents the danger of lessening the reality of war, rendering it playful. Even antiwar activists report feeling a certain thrill in being positioned as soldiers during the invasion, a reaction difficult to imagine apart from the messy merging of the real and the simulated via millitainment " (148). How realistic should these games be? How does that affect the portrayal of America to Americans? To others? I am also really curious about how the video games help veterans and which ones are used (or if it matters). In other words, why is this chapter so short?

Chapter 9 talks about the use of the digital in education, concluding that good technology use in the classroom requires good teachers (ba duh duh). However, I do wonder how that relates to university education and the TA system, where standardization and training becomes an issue. I think it is also important to consider the history of teaching and what technologies have been used. Reed mentions that few teachers are great lecturers (169), but I wonder if that understates the difficulty of leading a good discussion and planning interactive activities. I also like the distinction between teaching how to use technology and teaching to learn with technology; however, it seems to me as if you have to teach the how before you can get to the learning. This also fails to address access on the level of the students or the level of the university. On the other hand, I agree with many of Reed's points about publishing as a business:

Innovations in the digitization of educational resources  raise the larger question of whether knowledge is something that should be hoarded and made financially inaccessible to all but the few (the business model), or a human right that should be available to anyone with the intellectual skills to benefit from it, regardless of ability and pay (177).

In other words, it sucks to do "academic work" (with all the discussion that could come with the use of that term) without being associated with a university. Trust me.

The last chapter considers who is able to access technology, and I appreciated the breakdown of the digital divide in terms of digital resources, human resources, and community resources as well as the physical requirements needed for accessibility. When I traveled to Guatemala this summer, it was very rare for anyone to have internet in their home, but there were at least four internet cafes on our street, and the customers were predominantly young people and, of course, tourists. Thus, it was certainly more of a communal experience than in the United States, and, because you had to directly pay for time, people were less likely to go for leisure or to "surf the web."  Many people saw a direct connection between technology and the loss of their culture, including the traditional dress.

It was also interesting to think about how we might all be connected and then have "nothing" to talk about. I would like to know  more about what people thought of Power's quote  concerning technology: "The web was a neighborhood more efficiently lonely than the one it replaced. Its solitude was bigger and faster...it seems to me we'd still have nothing to say to each  other and more ways not to say it"(190). Sometimes, I think I agree.