Responding to Tim Wise’s “Imagine if the TEA Party was Black”

Ok, I can't take it anymore. The Tim Wise "Imagine if the Tea Party was Black" blog is spreading like wild fire, and I am floored that it is receiving such accolades, especially in the academic community (oh wait – that IS where much of the perceptions housed in the piece are perpetuated for some reason…). Perhaps it is my immersion in identity rhetoric that is prompting my discontent (because I see the function of identity rhetoric being played out so prominently in the piece), and true to Burkean ideology, the people who respond favorably to it do not see the rhetoric playing upon them.

It is an amazing piece of rhetoric not only because it caters to a specific, self-based audience (Burke's the "I" addressing its "Me"), but also it works to immediately oust those that disagree with its "imaginings." The game already has a winner - those that agree with it. But the problem is this should not be the winner. The answer is: there is NO winner.

From the outset, the "game" Mr. Wise describes is the very game that he perpetuates in the non-game sense. His article plays on the realistic common assumption that Blacks are perceived by non-Blacks as militant assholes. [Insert I addressing me comment].

Personally, I don't care what ethnicity you are, if you are in a group wielding a gun for any unjustified purpose, you are a threat.

Further, I've never seen any TEA party members holding gun-infested protests. (This is not to say that TEA party members, or any other American for that matter, should not hold a gun or that they do not hold a gun – but that is another issue.) Moreover, my understanding of TEA parties is that they represent a group of people (whatever ethnicity) coming together to protest TAXES because people truly are TAXED ENOUGH (watch the documentary From Freedom to Fascism and then tell me you are not over-taxed!). This larger and more important goal about over-taxation is now being overshadowed and further complicated with the focus on RACE. It almost works to distract from the taxation issue – the issue at the core of the TEA parties.

The imagination is a powerful resource. John Lennon once wrote a song called "Imagine." And his message is one that really calls for equality. Yet, the imagination is also a resource one can tap into and abuse, which Mr. Wise does. The imagination is supposed to serve as a transcendent medium. Yet, this article transcends nothing. Rather, it perpetuates the same ideology that keeps repeating, regardless of the changes that have occurred (and are still occurring). You do see that things have changed, right? But are they changing in the direction they should? Is the intended direction to have Whites silenced or to allow them to speak only if they hate themselves for being White? Because that's what my perception is of the current-day situation. Equality truly is something that has not been achieved, and with articles, such as Mr. Wise's, I don't see it happening.

So, Mr. Wise is an anti-racist writer because why? He writes about, and perpetuates the egregious MYTH that Whites are *always* privileged just because they are White? This is what it takes to make someone an anti-racist writer? How so? He is still focusing on RACE and his focus surrounds the following idea - oh, if I loathe myself and my ethnicity, I'll be accepted by those people that say Whites are oppressive and privileged. I'll be cool with them. Clearly, Tim Wise lacks the non-privileged White experience (yes, it DOES exist. ALL humans are susceptible to abusive evils.). The non-privileged White experience includes having to fight against BOTH a system that gives help to people who are not White (while these non-privileged Whites are denied such needed help) AND the continues to reinforce the mythical assertions about eternal White privilege.

I attended a keynote address during which the movie The Graduate was discussed. Here we have a spoiled White kid living it up, yet who clearly feels distant and vapid. The question asked during the keynote was "What is his problem? He has the world and he does not even realize it." I did not get the chance to answer the question while in the audience, but his problem is this: He
has a "perceived" lack of crisis. An invalidated crisis is of the worst type because the crisis, though felt, is not visible or allowed visibility.

Just because I do not walk down the street thinking "I'm White… I'm White… I'm White… and they hate me… they hate me… they hate me…" does not mean I live in a world where I am free from being hated for being White or in a world where I am not reminded that I am White. Why, articles like this are a damn good reminder: I'm fucking White. Thank you, Mr. Wise.

And, actually, the times I most think about my ethnicity seems to be in the classroom, where I have to hear over and over that everyone BUT a White person has a battle to fight. It is times like that when I cannot help BUT think about my ethnicity and the negative associations tied to it. And I cannot help but think: will Whites ever be free from such associations? What will it take? Must I do what Tim Wise does? Cater to the perceptions that Blacks are perceived as militant assholes while Whites are proud Americans? NO. I refuse to contribute to the ongoing perceptions that paint people as Tim Wise has painted them because it is thought that that is the common perception.

With this thinking, the only conclusion one can come to is that the ONLY non-oppressive, non-privileged White is a dead White. Then to that claim I say: Let the ethnicity die. To be labeled as an oppressor and to be treated as such for eternity robs one from being able to live a free life – the only life worth living. (And this goes for all people because to have an oppressor means there must be the oppressed. Neither live freely.)

If this world can't be shared, and if I have to deny who I am so that it can be perceived as "shared," then I don't want it. And I would never bring any children into such a world. At least that is the one thing I can control. I can't control my skin color or the skin color of my neighbor or how we all feel about our skin color, but by God, I can help stop the proliferation of this diseased, crisis-prone, soul-sucking humanity.

Never forget - in death all are equal.

Tim Wise Blog follows:

"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Let's play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called "Imagine." The way it's played is simple: we'll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we'll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we'll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let's begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn't like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that's what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation's capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country's political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: "He's a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun." Because that's what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and "going through a tough time in his life" would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that's what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America's Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by "hating black people," or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn't want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—"living fossils" as he called them—"so we will never forget what these people stood for." After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama's administration, Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president's policies, that he was ready to "suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do." This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been "destroying" the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to "hang 'em high." And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for "speaking common sense" and likened his hate talk to "American values?" After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her "typical redneck trash," or a "whore" whose mother entertains her by "making monkey sounds." After all that's comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as "ghetto trash."

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that's what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark "other" does so, however, it isn't viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and "American-ness" of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.

Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care. His latest book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place.

 

 

Daily Thoughts 1

I had no idea that I could do this in Word! So, this is a test run…

 

Money and Values. I find it interesting that American culture is hell bent on defining itself based on its employment (everyone is so interested in asking: what do you do for a living?). Yet, to try to figure out how much someone makes is taboo. Obviously this is because people do not want to envy or be envied – this builds a very uncomfortable resentment. How do we figure out what someone is worth based on their employment? And what a statement to make – that if you pick up shoes for a living, you are only worth 8 dollars an hour, while if you are behind a desk playing solitaire, you are worth 15 dollars an hour. Hmm… It really seems a terrible shame to me that the arts are the least difficult to be successful in (success defined by money/notoriety). Why are the sciences worth more money? I wonder what would happen if we all made the same amount. Of course that is a traditional communist notion – but does it have to be a bad thing if we were motivated by something other than money? If money was no longer a driving force, if we all made the same amount, I wonder what would then become a driving force? Doing a job better than someone else? This may be a valuable thing – but what happens to the person that does not do as good a job? Should their strengths be re-evaluated and used where valuable? How would that be determined? Competition seems so embedded in humans – but I do not know if it is just cultural or biological. What does competition do for humans? Survival of the fittest, of course. Why does the "fittest" matter so damn much? Does fittest mean easiest? Why do we want things to be so easy? Do we learn more from something easy or something that takes some pursuit? So, perhaps even if money was not in the equation, humans would still find ways to be destructive. It is amazing how much we live our lives for the sake of money (because human society runs on it). It just seems ridiculous to me – that we need to have a piece of paper to shelter, clothe, and feed ourselves when the Earth gives us these materials for free. All we have to do is to figure out how to have a relationship with the Earth (and we spend so much time distracting ourselves out of that relationship for the pursuit of money!).

 

Education and employment. One cannot happen without the other, it seems. Increasingly, one needs to be educated to be employed and one needs to be employed to afford an education (or the gratuitous loans required to obtain the education)! How does this make sense? If human society runs on money, and money is received via employment, shouldn't education/training be free so that human beings can begin to earn money to clothe, feed, and shelter themselves? It is interesting, also, how we define education. Education is going to school. But not just any school. A Harvard education is valued more than a community college education (when if you really stop to look – you will probably find a person at a community college better able to appreciate their education.) Education is having a piece of paper that says you went to school and did what you were told to do. Education means getting an A on something. Education is only respected if it can be measured in some arbitrary way. Ironic how arbitrary the measurement is – and yet we still consider the measurement quite valid (i.e. getting an A on something measures what? That you did it? That you sounded like you knew what you were talking about? That you are able to memorize something for a required period of time? I know that plenty of my As mean jack shit. They only mean that I was present, engaged (for the time), and knew how to play the game. I guess if you can play the game well enough to get that A, you're a valuable contributor to society, while someone else, who really may know how to do something – but never went to school to learn how to do it – will be overlooked because they lack the proper game pieces. Why didn't they go to school? Who knows. Lack of time, lack of money, lack of interest in playing a social game perhaps? I think people who have never been to school could have something notable to offer –if not even more notable because they have not been so impressioned by codified thinking. And really, human thought is key to human meaning and human functioning… isn't it?

Why I voted NO on Prop 8

Initially, I wasn’t even going to vote on this particular prop because I have many torn thoughts regarding marriage altogether (which I never thought I would have… I used to really want to be married – but with the cohabitation norm, I’m not really seeing how marriage makes anything “significant” or “exclusive” – the point is to nurture the “love” on a daily basis, and this happens without having a wedding. Moreover, it is weird that humans feel the need to marry – to hold that celebration. Quails (the bird, that is) choose life partners, they know this is the situation, their quail buddies know it, and it works. Why does it have to be different for humans?

But, as I kept seeing more and more “Yes on Prop 8” signs, I realized that I could not let my personal feelings about marriage possibly prevent others from partaking in that ritual HOWEVER it is defined.

As for the marital definitions:

For some, it is a religious event. Fine. Let it be that for YOU (why must it be that way for everyone? I get the whole absolute “Truth” thing – and the concern that if someone does not adhere to your particular way of life, then your Truth is threatened and others will be led down some evil path. I will say – there are greater evils than others. And the one you may be considering when it comes to Prop 8 isn’t even (necessarily) a choice for some people whereas there are “sins” out there that are very conscious efforts. Why not focus on those? Most importantly, why not focus on the ones you commit?

For some, it is just a romantic idea where the girl gets to be a princess and the guy gets to be a prince (now, figuratively speaking) and you ride off in a limo into the sunset. Great, but you’ve probably got a wake up call headed your way.

For others, it is simply an outward expression of your dedication to ONE person for LIFE (this is where I really feel pessimistic about the whole thing – American culture, specifically, does not seem conducive to successful relationship building as it is with our ME culture and lack of high expectations for each other and our own selves). But if you want to take that leap, who am I to stop you? The “you” that is a consenting adult (for all those that think: oh no, this will pave the way for child marriage and dog marriage and tree marriage…) Please. We’re still dealing with two consenting adults in this situation.

For others, it is a structure. It is a foundation for family. Tough one because, biologically speaking, we all know how babies are made BUT, biology aside, when I learned about a single woman spreading her legs without care (she had already had eight children with different fathers), and that the child currently in her care was not bathed, was left alone while she went to go get drunk, and that a loving and responsible lesbian couple was willing to adopt this poor child – this “traditional structure” argument falls to pieces for me. I’ve seen plenty of heterosexual couples (married or not) that, in no way, represent the ideal marriage nor provide adequate structure for children (ahem, those who stick their children in FUCKING day care (and as NEWBORNS even) – oh yeah, that’s structure (rolls eyes).

I was sent the YouTube that supposedly explains Prop 8 in plain English using stick figures for neighbors. I found it interesting that the particular video eased the conscience of the viewer in making a decision to vote “yes” because CA has a clause that gives domestic partners of the same sex rights. Why would the viewer need this golden nugget of information to make them breathe a sigh of relief as they mark that “YES”? Is it because, deep down, they know that homosexuals deserve the happiness that they would potentially rob from them by voting yes? So they need to be made to feel better about doing it? “Phew, I can vote yes because my gay neighbors are still given SOMETHING. It’s not marriage, but it’s SOMETHING and they deserve at least SOMETHING” – If that really is the case, then why don’t they deserve MARRIAGE? UGH.

Another piece of propaganda that I was exposed to was that people were concerned about teaching children about gay marriage in school. I’m concerned that marriage would be taught to children at ALL in a school. (Schools really need to get back to the basics, if you ask me.) I realize the problem with my argument here: if parents teach their children that gay marriage is wrong, then how will we advance the situation? How will children gain a perspective with which to make a sound decision?

First, the school should not be the end all be all for sound instruction. We need to expect parents to teach their OWN children – and not exempt them from this responsibility by putting it on the school.

Second, I don’t know that any issue is exempt from bias – I was taught to be a Catholic and that Catholicism is the ONLY way. But I’m not a Catholic today. So, it can happen that children will end up making decisions for themselves. Teaching them HOW to examine an issue is most valuable and is thanks to critical thinking (which IS something schools should teach! Where is the “logic” component to our instruction anymore?)

It seems to me that the other side of the issue is human socialization. Schools are a part of socialization, as are all other institutions. I heard on KFI about the demographics involved in the “Yes” votes, many of which included older people. I think this plays a huge part in the lack of acceptance of homosexuality. There are a few generations of people (religious or not) that were raised in a culture that had very strict gender expectations (woman at home, man at work), while homosexuality was also considered a mental illness and was listed in the DSM. These ideas get implanted on a social scale and only time can change them – clearly, the time is not yet now – but it IS on its way to changing.

So, though I am not exactly excited about marriage, and I simply cannot understand what it is like to be a homosexual, I could not allow my limited perspective prevent loving people from engaging in an act that is supposed to represent LOVE – and how truly lucky ANYONE is if they really believe they have found it.

A sad day for love, though, because we humans cannot allow others to feel it or show it if it doesn’t fit a certain mold. I don’t know about you – but I know that I am truly capable of loving my female friends. True, it isn’t a sexual love, but it IS LOVE.

And loving was what humans were supposed to be capable of… but so much for that.

I wonder: CARP vs. 5 Paragraph Essay

This post is motivated by a conversation that Gina and I had about "quality" design. In our class, "quality" design is measured via the utilization of CARP (Contrast, Alignment, Repetition, and Proximity).



It is interesting that this seems strikingly similar to the 5 paragraph essay, which used to be a measure for "quality" academic writing, with its 5 paragraph structure, and within that structure TEA elements: Topic sentence, Example/Evidence, and Analysis; yet, somewhere down the line, the 5 paragraph essay was thought of as too limiting to serve greater purposes.



I wonder if the same will happen for design - will it be liberated from CARP? Or will design take an opposite turn and become more rigid since it is visual and visuals are taken in as a whole? Do rules for design negate the nature of design?

A Response to Barbara Stafford

First, I must respond to the verbiage of Stafford's article, "Visual Pragmatism for a Virtual World" and how it is so emotionally evocative. She uses words and phrases, such as:

· Extinction
· Iconoclasm
· Puritanical myth
· Combat the sophism
· Totemization of language
· Godlike agency
· Dominant

Her use of such words automatically registers with me as a passionate attempt to get her point across, while using the above "light switch" words - that when they are read, they flip an emotional switch in the brain of the reader (again, writing for the appropriate emotional response). It is ironic how she argues that images must be freed from "…an unnuanced dominant discourse of consumerism, corruption, deception, and ethical failure…" (210); yet her article is rife with verbal rhetoric that causes skepticism in me because these are spin-worthy talking points. No image is necessary for me to suspect: all human communication is now worthy of suspicion.

Stafford's article evidences that the image is considered suspect, while it must not be since the image is the wave of the Virtual/Digital world. Moreover, Stafford makes the argument that the visual is unfairly held as suspect, while it is the text that should be held liable for making communicators disembodied via abstraction (212). She remarks that continued focus on the importance and authenticity of language reduces human cognition to a computational code and that forcing humans to continually work with abstract, textual notions will result in reducing their "…sensory awareness to superficial stimuli and false perceptions" (211). Unfortunately, in both the case of the image and the text, human perception cannot be relied on, and this is no fault of the image or text, but rather, just being human.

It is ironic that she considers text to be more computational and thus, a downgrading of the senses, while virtual worlds might end up revealing that humans are compatible with machines - that sensory or emotional responses can be controlled, if not manufactured. That the photograph is seen as more realistic than the diagram could represent Baudrillard's simulacra argument: that we will be immersed in copies of copies, unable to differentiate between the real and the fake. If this is not a downgrading of sensory perception, I'm not sure what is. If we want to get away from sensory downgrading, we should use more body language than anything.

She continues to argue that writing is identified, in the western world, as intellectual potency while the goal should be to implant our intellectual markings into images since cognition does not have to be linguistic (210-12). I argue that, yes, writing demonstrates our brains in a visual context because writing makes thought visible, and so it only makes sense to have writing demonstrate and act as a measure for intellect.

I need a clearer explanation, however, about how our cognition is not primarily linguistic. It seems that, to make sense of the world, we must explain things to ourselves, and others, via words of some sort. When I see a picture of a cat, my brain is so accustomed to the identification of "cat" that I do not notice that I say "cat" to myself. I simply see it, and it is - but I fail to see how this is not a linguistic act and would appreciate someone enlightening me on it.

There is a cultural comment to be made when Stafford references spectatorship as being considered "…empty gaping, not thought provoking attention" (215). I do not think this is the fault of images, BUT I do think this is the fault of TV (and because TV is image-laden, images take up the blame). I do attribute spectatorship to be a less-intellectual activity because it is a distraction. It is also a path to societal voyeurism - where we become much more interested in watching other people live their lives than in living our own. It is easier, after all. This perception can be changed with the critical thinking about what is being watched and why and what the images show and how - but sometimes, I don't want to be critical when I'm watching Hell's Kitchen or TAPS or, God forbid, The Bachelor, but I should be aware that while watching those shows, I'm missing out on my own cooking, ghost hunting, and relationship-building.

So, yes, the word voyeurism is bound to pop up regarding images when images do work (with text) to sell us products, ideas, or the lives of other people. Yet, again, I say, it is not the fault of the image. It is the fault of being human. Humans are the tricksters behind the image. Always. Stop being human, and it can be fixed! (And hey, as I've alluded to - we're already on our way!) So, I just want to applaud Stafford on the argument that the focus tends to be on "the taintedness of the instrument" and "not the fallibility of the errant perceiver" (216). Her argument here is the key argument when it comes to distrusting images and why one shouldn't merely because it is an image.

However, Stafford enters into a problematic argument when she writes contradictory statements:

"Contemporary iconcolcasm…rests on the puritanical myth of an authentic…epistemological origin" (210)

Vs.

"We have lost faith in the creation of good images" (215).

If there is no epistemological origin, how can we have any faith in the creation of good images? What is a "good" image? Again, we can never seem to extricate ourselves from the notion of an absolute Truth.

One last thing, Stafford mentions that we live in a deregulated society and that citizens find themselves deregulated (217). Why do citizens need to be regulated? That is a question for you.

Taking a Risk - Gas Prices

I drive an 86 Toyota Camry. Last week, it cost me 50 bucks to fill up, with Regular, in San Bernardino – and I wasn’t even filling a completely empty tank. This week, I drove by my local Corona “Shell” and saw that Premium was $4.51.

When I tell people what gas costs around me, I always use the Premium price – not the Regular, to which people usually reply, “But that’s the Premium.” As if 4.21 for Regular is better?! Moreover, news reports always focus on the average for Regular. Even further, no one seems to be saying much about diesel, which, last I saw was $5.09. Can someone tell me why diesel is so much more expensive because I apparently missed the reason in my busy, hurried life.

In fact, what IS the psychology behind gas prices? And just what are YOU going to do about them? Last I read on an MSN message board, these are the plans for some individuals to respond to the gas crisis so far (and what they expect others to do, too, in response to gas prices):

1. Buy a hybrid (oh yeah, let me just shell out the money for one. Oh, wait, maybe if I stop buying gas, I’ll be able to save for one!)

2. Take public transportation more often (oh yeah that’ll work considering the distances in between my various locations. I’ll get everywhere on time.)

3. Carpool (Feasible for some, but not for me considering my schedule.)

4. Ride a bike (Well, at least I’ll get in shape considering I’ve gotta bike 30 miles to get to school.)

5. Drive slower AND hope that the government mandates reduced speed limits (WTF? You need the government to tell you, and everyone else, to drive slower? Wow, this is a land of sheep, but yes, I have started driving slower.)

6. Elect a democrat (same as a Republican in my book!)

7. Accept it because Europeans have been paying more than us for a long time and our time is due to pay expensive prices (The value of the dollar is going down – this is the problem that Americans should be worried about.)

8. Do nothing because it will give the “upper class” even more of an “upper class” status, while controlling the “lower class” (yes, someone actually wrote this.)

9. Reduce spending on everything else: entertainment, food, material items, etc. – we spend too much on these things anyway. We should be more discerning with our spending. (A good idea for anyone, but this does not stimulate the economy. Instead, it keeps prices up, purchases reduced, and has a negative effect on overall societal morale, leaving us with a depressed, defeatist attitude.)

10. Do nothing because nothing can be done anyway (Let me just bend over and give the ones responsible for the price hikes the Vaseline) ß THIS seems to be what I see MOST people doing… including myself, and why? Because:

11. Eventually, gas prices will get so high that someone ELSE will do something about it (and how high will they have to go? What is the breaking point for you? I don’t even know how diesel truck owners are surviving, as it is, right now).

12. Or, there is just nothing I (or we) can do about it period. (We are slaves to the government. We are slaves to corporations. And we are funding our own, continued enslavement with what we pay for gas).

For some, these might actually be feasible, but are they really an answer to the problem? No, from my point of view, they are the psychological enablers. They keep gas prices steadily climbing. For instance, if a bully hits you on the head, eventually you put a helmet on to allow yourself to take the hits easier. The above constitute the helmet. Why not stop the hitting? Not only that, but some of the above just are not feasible for the masses to do.

And, well, if you’re like me, you really just don’t know how to solve the problem. And that’s partially the purpose of this blog. As graduate students and critical thinkers, how can we solve the problem without resorting to enablers? I want to know what YOU are doing or what possible solution YOU have to offer (that is/are different from the above) because I’m coming up empty handed, and it frustrates the absolute hell out of me.

I think facing an invisible enemy is part of the problem, psychologically speaking. We might differ on who the real culprit is behind the gas prices because the culprit is not clear cut for everyone (i.e. is it the government? Is it gas corporations? Is it the Middle East and the war?). Who do you think is responsible? I don’t really have a specific culprit in mind, myself, but if we cannot agree on who the culprit is, how can we organize to fight against he/she/them/it?

I know I should be writing another long overdue blog about Visual Rhetoric, but there is something alarming to me about what is going on with gas and diesel, especially diesel since this country RUNS ON IT. Trucks, trains, airplanes –major modes of transportation for our goods – are being hit hardest, and I have no doubt that the costs they incur will also be placed upon us. But for what reason…? Anyone? Anyone?

Oh yeah, and the environment. This is where the psychological briar patch gets MUCH stickier. We have been told, ever since we were little (the perfect age), by many different sources (the news, our teachers, Al Gore, some (not nearly all) scientists, the weather reports, etc.) that the environment is suffering and oil and cars are primarily to blame. So, it’s a GOOD thing that we have to think twice about living in our happily-ever-after-oil coated, suffocated world (going back to the pro-hybrid, public transportation arguments).

If we pair the hype – yes hype – over the environment with the gas problem, it makes it even easier to accept our “well-deserved” punishment. Could it be, I dare suggest, that the environment is being used – rather, prostituted - by those (nameless individuals) that are actually in control of gas prices?

Fear is one of the strongest forms of power over a group of people. As I study the apocalyptic rhetoric of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and their many cries of Armageddon and the end being near, I cannot help but see fear as the primary component in the apocalyptic rhetoric of the global, environmental movement:

“On August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: ‘Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada’” (Inhofe 9).

“On December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed ‘the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade’ (Inhofe 10).

“The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, ‘mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence’ would result” [emphasis added] (Inhofe10).

“These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don’t they? They sound strikingly familiar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president’s [Al Gore] brand of climate alarmism” [emphasis added] (Inhofe 10).

I’m not saying that the environment has not shown instability, but I am saying that those (unidentifiable individuals) who want power are prostituting environmental fear, akin to religious apocalyptic rhetoric, to breed acceptance of problems and to sell their protection. In what form is this protection? Control.

When we feel helpless, never more are we willing to accept our enslavement.

(The above quoted material comes from http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/HOT%20AND%20COLD%20MEDIA%20SPIN%20CYCLE.pdf)

My Frankenstien! - The Human Machine

This blog is going to be a work-in-progress. It is already massive, I know - but I've really found an interconectedness between many of the authors we're reading, and this is my attempt to connect them and find my own place in the arguments. I'll clean it up later - but this is what I've got so far.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The "Brass Tacks"of this Blog:

It has taken me awhile to finally formulate a blog (while, admittedly, it probably wouldn't have taken as long had I not been trying to up my brain size and my vocabulary on the Internet and obsessing over Myspace Karaoke). As a result, this blog will be MASSIVE and unattractive to the hurried eye. So be it. I'm hurried, too, so one long blog about multiple authors is how it is going to have to be. As for the "design" of this blog - I've highlighted my main points in bold in effort to invite my readers to pick at least one section to respond to.

Mostly, though, the reason I procrastinated on this particular blog was due to an initial lack of understanding about what the readings were trying to say, while at the same time, having a hard time knowing how I felt about them (that I really "feel" has become an issue thanks to the readings). I have been noticing a few "trends" though (as I allow my human brain to catalogue):

1. That language is being used to describe humans (and society) as "coded" in the articles of the class text AND that language is viewed more in terms of "function." In the Ehses article "Representing MacBeth…," these notions appear, such as when this author writes that style works to arouse the appropriate emotional response [my emphasis] (166). Also, Ehses writes that rhetoric constitutes the functional organization of verbal discourse or messages (165). In fact, it seems that rhetoric functions based on understanding a perceiver's coded responses. Ehses discusses how deviation from ordinary expression produces a "challenge" (168), which demands that rhetors know how humans respond. Obtaining this knowledge means that "…the designer assumes and activates codes by meanings…" (169). Essentially, knowing how humans are socialized to respond to certain (crafted) stimulus enables for more effective function in rhetorical communication.

First, that "designer" has become the new, “hot” word implies an even deeper notion about the ability to create and foster reaction. “Design” seems to imply that every aspect of a communicative effort is considered and placed deliberately for a desired, or expected, outcome.

Second, that humans can be "reduced" to codes, and human communication to coding, bothers me; however, perhaps this verbiage merely reflects our developing technocratic society - the society of the transhuman (http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/). I use "mere" lightly. I think that, as with all media, we have a mirror and we need to look into it to see who we are and who we are becoming. If we speak using technical terms, if we are looked at as coded beings (ahem, machines), what does this mean for the meaning in human interaction? Is it still meaningful? And by whose standards? Sure, machines can connect and interact. Computers talk to each other; however, do they mean anything to each other?

In response to this machination of the human and, consequently, human communication, Michele Shauf posits the humanist against the technologist, writing that there is too much focus on the "function" of language (366). Shauf hopes to imbue this techno-dialectical trend with meaning - meaning that seems a growing absence in the "design" of communication. She notes that there is plenty of technical ambition (i.e. the drive to understand the function of JavaScript) while very little rhetorical ambition (i.e. the drive to understand the meaning that JavaScript achieves on a larger social and communicative scale) (367). She hopes to continue the drive to invent rhetorically versus technically (367). It appears that I share Shauf's concerns. The "humanist" cannot become obsolete in design and technology. One way to achieve this, as Shauf alludes to, is to ask questions. Computers follow commands (well, we hope they do). They do not ask questions of what their users demand of their function. If we look at words or images and give "appropriate" emotional responses, are we then following the commands we are "coded" with? Hmm…

2. There is a continued notion of binaries in the relationship between verbal and visual AND binaries even within the realm of the visual, WHILE there is also a very intricate relationship between the image and corresponding text. First, I do find it a bit odd that there is such subordination of the visual as Ehses notes that "…this society is informed by visual discourse through a wide variety of media to a degree incomparable to any other time" (176). If the visual is so prevalent, why is there such a heated debate about its status compared to written discourse?

Criticisms highlighted by varied authors in the Visual Rhetoric… text point to why it remains subordinate. David Birdsell and Leo Groarke write that "visual images are assumed to be intrinsically arbitrary, vague, ambiguous (310), which leaves them open to suspicion. Additionally, Keith Kenney writes that scholars do not recognize visuals as capable of forming rational arguments because they lack explicit meaning, are perceived as whole (thereby lacking a two-part premise), and that they are prone to what David Perlmutter says is "ideological manipulation" (324, 340). Advertising seems mostly responsible, in my opinion, for the notion or stereotype that images cannot be trusted. That Roland Barthes focuses on the role of the image in advertising does not seem to help the image of "the image" in this argument.

Barthes' article is poignant, however, to one reason why images and text must be integrated. His argument that images are "polysemous" (have more than one meaning) explains why humans rely on the linguistic side to fix their potential uncertainty (156). Though this explains the connection, it only emphasizes the implied deviousness of human communication comprised of both text AND image (and have we ever wondered why humans must be so political, controlled, and devious with each other in their communications?)

Barthes explains, "When it comes to the symbolic message, the linguistic message does not guide identification so much as it guides interpretation" and that "The text directs the reader through the signifieds of the image, causing [her]/him to avoid some and receive others…it remote controls [her]/him towards a meaning chosen in advance" [my emphasis] (156). (Again, the possibility that humans can be remote-controlled appears even here.)

Barthes' explanation "frighteningly" implies that text filters the image, but because the text is 1) more accepted, 2) therefore more trusted, 3) and delivered in segments (versus the whole of the image), it is actually the TEXT that humans should be wary of (but perhaps not only the text – just other humans with “agendas” is what the general populous should be wary of). The wolf/text dresses itself in the sheep/image, essentially.

I used the term "frighteningly" above because of Barthes' mention about the hurried reader (157). Since our technological society encourages us to be so damn busy, we are consequently becoming a hurried society – having no time for anything because our technology gives us the ability to accomplish so many things. Being a hurried society, do we take the time to stop and reflect on what is going on around us? Do we even feel the “need” to do such reflecting – such as asking the question about why text is seen as so authentic, especially compared to the image? When reflections and questions cease to exist, we only become more susceptible to accepting code and being coded.

However, as Punyashloke Mishra (“The Role of Abstraction…”) quotes Gould as saying “iconography comes upon us like a thief in the night – powerful and remarkably efficacious, yet often so silent that we do not detect the influence” and that because images are treated as subordinate to the text, they are not given the attention that the words are given (178). If what Barthes says is true about text guiding interpretation of images, Gould’s assertion is not exactly an accurate view – it is not that the image is more sneaky than text, it is that the text guides us so strongly that we cannot help but see it over the image AND that it tells us what to see in the image.

It's not all bad, though. I like that Barthes shows how text can provide meanings that may not be found in the image itself (157). The benefit to both text and the image is that they both can transcend their own existence depending upon the interpretation(s) they offer. Barthes puts it well when he writes that “The language of the image is not merely the totality of utterances emitted…it is also the totality of utterances received…” (160). Unfortunately, though, if perceivers are coded to receive messages, than the utterance seems to occupy the same meaning as the message received.

2a. Images contain binaries in themselves. As Scott McCloud, Punyashloke Mishra, and Barthes note, however, text and image are not the only components connected in a binary. The drawing and the photograph fall into a binary, where the photograph is seen as more realistic (but distracting according to McCloud) while film, drawings, and diagrams promote a “magical fictional consciousness” (Barthes 159). In this way, images enter into a binary-type relationship, with one being perceived as better than the other because one is considered more truthful than the other.

On the same hand, McCloud implies that different types of images serve different purposes – that if one’s goal is to amplify specific traits, and to deliver an effective message, one should use a generic form so that the perceiver/receiver of the message is not caught up in distraction (207). McCloud shows how different images work differently (serve different functions), thereby taking more of a genre approach – which is, it seems the best rhetorical option any “designer” could work from because it admits that in every situation, every image or text may not be appropriate or may be more appropriate than another. Does this mean that one is better than the other? In McCloud's presentation, value judgments about communication mediums are context-based, not inherent to the communication medium's nature.

Mishra points out the importance of genre when considering the usefulness of a picture versus a diagram in scientific illustrations and discussions. For instance, "…a photograph is an imperfect representation of an actual object, while a diagram represents it more faithfully" (187). In this case, the traditional notion that the photograph is more authentic or realistic than the diagram works against someone trying to see all aspects of a cell, for instance. McCloud's assertion that simplification amplifies works well in terms of using a diagram in place of a picture. A "cartoon" cell would relay different information than a microscope image of a cell; however, both are useful for the science student.

3. Images (and what they are images of) seem able to occupy multiple subject positions (they can center, while de-center simultaneously). Mishra states directly that “pictures have a double reality” and that “pictures are unique among objects; for they are seen both as themselves and as some other thing…” (182). This is a paradoxical existence for images - one that seems an answer to the problem of the binary, while also the very thing that keeps images suspect. Since images can be "something else" or something different than they are, this leaves skeptics continuing their suspicions about the authenticity of images. Words also share double (perhaps triple, quadruple) meanings, such as the infamous "double entendre" construction. Moreover, the words of the Bible have never been more debated due to many possible interpretations (literal vs. symbolic). I am beginning to see that the image is, in fact, unfairly suspected and maintain that ALL of human communication is worth some inspection.

Arnheim Blurbs

I'm going to try something a little different... instead of writing a drawn out piece, I'm going to take sections of Arnheim's writing (from "Pictures, Symbols, and Signs") and respond, while asking readers questions at the same time. Hopefully it will make sense!

Arnheim writes about the nude woman being painted – how she exists “…at the realistic level of representation, as the muse, as the traditional allegory of truth, the fullness of life, all at the same time” (142). Arnheim notes how an image de-centers, while centering. It seems that, because images appear in whole, instead of a sequential order, that they truly do offer an existence that transcends the binary. This is ironic considering the fact the image is caught in the secondary position of a binary comprising verbal text and visual imagery.

Arnheim writes: “This creates a problem in a civilization which constantly throws things together that do not belong together or puts them in places contradictory to their function. All the mobility, transportation, transmission, and communication in our century removes things from their natural location and thereby interferes with their identification and efficiency” (143). This argument emphasizes the notion of truth – that things have a certain place where they belong. It is an interesting observation that present culture has a [postmodern] tendency to disrupt, which is seen as a positive move – one that breaks up established norms that may need/require change; however, because this interferes with identification, it also interferes with efficiency, which is, ironically, what the technocratic society seems to aim for.

Arnheim writes: “…there is always the risk of ideas coercing the life of the image” (148).

Now there’s a thought – that the image is not subservient to the idea. How does the image sustain life apart from the idea?

Arnheim writes: “Conceptual norm becomes poverty of imagination” (149). It appears that, with this statement, art should never enter into a “norm” for fear that it becomes incestual (to put it crudely). Yet, Arnheim stated earlier that problems arise in a civilization that tries to put seemingly unrelated things (concepts) together because then they cannot be identified. Identification begets norms and vice versa. Is it “wise” to deviate from the norm to avoid the “poverty of imagination”? Is the imagination something that is vulnerable to poverty? How so? Does a technocratic society argue for such deviations? Does a technocratic society imbue or hinder imagination?

Myspace... or MyCompany'sSpace... Hmm

This also was a comment on Heather V.'s blog - but I would like to make it a post.

I read the myspace article and was also quite bothered, annoyed, angered, and confused. So, I get the whole: teachers are public servants thing. I get that politicians, clergy, police officers, etc. participate in a public eye and also, that they represent certain ideals set forth by who knows who. So, when these public figures/role models have conduct that suddenly speaks against those ideals, people don't quite know how to react other than to point fingers (and they probably should point fingers at themselves while they're at it).

The point is: all of these roles are filled by humans. Humans with basic needs and desires: sexual, companionship, lust, humor, liberty, etc. which get conveyed in mediums of expression, such as Facebook or Myspace at varying degrees.

I agree that teachers should behave appropriate to context - that they conduct themselves professionally in a professional setting: the classroom, and that while they are around students (especially underage students), they should be considerate and cognizant of their conduct.
When creating their own space, such as Myspace or Facebook, they should be allowed to express their multiple identities as the context allows for it. When employers go "snooping" around, they are bringing their "professional" context into an arena that is meant to be non-professional. They are crossing boundaries, and while they cross, they are bringing "rules" into an environment where their rules don't *necessarily* apply. (Child porn is one area where concern would, of course, be rational.)

While I know that Myspace and Facebook are public forums and that privacy is not expected, what should be expected is that viewers will see PEOPLE. That the people are separated from their "role." Already students fail to see their instructors as people with lives: that they grocery shop, do laundry, date, drink, play pool, etc. It is this ignorance and naivete that contributes to the shock factor when someone stumbles upon a "sperm cartoon" on a teacher's page (or whatever it was).

Moreover, if teachers cannot express themselves in mediums like Myspace, Facebook, or ANY other public forum, in relaxed, human ways, we essentially say that they are not allowed to be human and that they are owned by the company/institution that hires them for the rest of their working career. It certainly is "good" to be professional, but letting loose in relaxed arenas seems only a logical action. If one is always being "watched" or feels that s/he cannot participate in community-creating activities, I believe they call it the "chill effect." This could result in feelings of resentment and poor morale - certainly not beneficial to the company.

While companies say that their employees represent them - of course, I can't negate this. But it is the fault/ignorance of the viewer to assume that a "sperm cartoon" denotes poor moral character (especially just because a "teacher" posts it) first, and second, automatically linking the thought that the company/institution endorses people who like sperm cartoons.
Essentially, there seem to be many who jump to conclusions about someone or a company without really exercising critical thought about the situation.

CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.

Such as in the case of the "retard." So, this instructor teaches special ed students and is accused of using the word "retard." First, she never ever called her own students retards - she probably wouldn't even dream of it. The context in which the word was used was completely divorced from her special ed students. I doubt that when the word was used, her students ever entered her mind. Instead, it is the viewer who is linking the word to the students - and perhaps the viewer should be faulted for this assumption.

A Comment Turned Post

I posted this comment on Jeanne's blog, but I want it to also stand as a post:

What I found interesting about the David story is that it seemed to imply criticism of standard English requirements employed by the institution (a literacy that David could not find a home in), while elevating the literacy that David COULD find a home in: a tech literacy or new media literacy. What I think this article fails to imply is that tech literacy/new media literacy work to create power structures AKIN to those that standard English is accused of: that is, those without that literacy suffer out in “the real world.” It seems that new media literacy is being viewed as “the answer” to breaking down the authority of (or assumed oppression of) standard English, while I see it continuing - or even - reinforcing power structures. If you lack it in a new media environment, you will not have power (which is yes, why there is a move towards teaching it and using it in the everyday classroom - but this does not mean that this form of literacy is any less competitive. It seems more competitive to me right now).

A Film Imprisonment

In Nancy Lutkehaus and Jenny Cool's article about ethnographies, I appreciate their statement about how "...the very act of representing others not only bears with it moral responsibility, but, more sinisterly, is a form of domination" (434).

So, they present a shift in the form of the ethnography. No longer is it an objective narrator narrating his/her subject, but rather, trends are shifting towards the indigenous and autobiographical or towards the global/transnational (436). In these forms, "subjects" have voice over their experience as they are filmed. Moreover, "...autobiographical films and videos ... make the Self the focus of the camera" (443).

The camera is problematic in terms of enacting an unframed, unboxed subject because the camera is one tool that always binds its subject (or a tool that the filmer/photographer uses to bind his/her subject) within the frame of a viewfinder.

As Donna Haraway writes in Primate Visions "The eye is infinitely more potent than the gun" (43).

And with her insight, I see the potential danger and limitation of the visual:

"To make an exact image is to insure against disappearance, to cannibalize life until it is safely and permanently a specular image, a ghost" (Haraway 45).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against visuals - I just don't automatically assume they are the answer to eradicating the pure, sacrosanct notions about text. With every new solution, comes a new consequence.

Questions

Does an image (or the image) have voice? If so, what kind of voice?

Beating Authenticity – A Fragmented (Frustrated!) Reading Response

So, I know what I want to write about – I’m just not sure how it will all come out... So, here goes. I’m noticing some trends about the relationship between visual media and verbal text – how one “form” is considered better than the other or (hopefully) equal with the other.

Claims that verbal text is better than visual imagery are based in the notion that there exists the possibility for an authentic form. Verbal text is supposed to represent this authentic form (as declared by Whitey – or so, it is being conveyed. The White male sure gets a lot of mention (credit) for being dominant…I don’t want to go there, but well, why not. I just did.)

Charles Hill emphasizes that the physical real world is given more “authentic value” versus the represented real world (i.e. in art) (113). The problem is that there is no “authentic” available considering that “…we perceive events around us very imperfectly and incompletely” (Hill 113).

Though I agree, what remains problematic is that, while we cannot grasp the authentic, (some, if not all) humans believe that there is a standard, origin(al), truth, absolute, etc. against which concepts, representations, notions, etc. are measured. Even those who strive to claim that there is no such thing as an absolute, or that we should strive to find something beyond absolutes, holds these resolves absolutely.

Moreover, Rogoff writes that the critical culture has been trying to remove the dominance of “Whitey” in representations for the purposes of re-writing culture – a culture not dominated by Whitey (383). I’m wondering what the goal is. What is this re-written culture going to look like, and will it be free from binaries?

Further, I am seeing this complaint over and over and over and over – that the White male is in control over how “we” should perceive things. It seems to me that those who continue to acknowledge such dominance only work to maintain it, to give it control, to allow it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy (in other words, we see what we want to see (or even (if not especially) what we don’t want to see) – which is another problem in terms of the “real,” … but then perception IS reality, is it not?).

I find it ironic that deconstructionists strive to break apart binaries in order to affect chaos, disharmony, unsettled feelings, etc. to enact fluidity, motion, (maybe) progress because in human psychology, it seems that when feelings of chaos are paramount, the desire to have control grows stronger – as the cyberculture seems to be enacting: this obsession with CONTROL. So, we are moving towards freedom of expression, of infinite possibilities with visuals, sounds, colors, texts, etc.; yet, all this concludes in is having control over visuals, sounds, colors, etc. AND how we want to see them. Hmm.

Rogoff claims that she prefers curiosity (preferring the curious eye to the good eye) because it is unsettling and likely because it works to defeat the binary of good/bad (386). This position makes the most sense in terms of attempting to remove power from the (assumed) powerful. It keeps one from labeling – from determining something as good or bad. Chaos finds a home in art/representation as Lanham notes “The arts are non-linear systems” (467). “Art” (defined as whatever by whomever – nevertheless, art has a definition, even if it is just as art) strives to break, push, merge boundaries. Okay, but it still acknowledges those boundaries in order to break them… How can we stop acknowledging boundaries is my ultimate question?

I think our language is too limiting to answer the question. The reason humans are “trapped” in the binary, in the assumption that we have an absolute standard to follow, is because our human language operates (for some reason) on it. (I’m talking about all language: verbal, visual, auditory, etc.) Images seem a nice way to get out of the assumed objectivity of text – they seem expansive, and I love them (being a creative person); however, what they convey is still a form of mere, human communication. I think to get outside of ourselves, we must truly be something different than the humans we are – we must be “non-humans”… if that’s possible. I can’t argue with the thought that that might truly be better…

Reading is "Lonely" - Technology is "Social"

I was reading in my Poets & Writers magazine about how reading is in decline. (I would give appropriate citation – but the mag. is at work – an indication of how I kill time at work…). What the article failed to mention was: why does this decline matter? Who cares if people read?

As I talked with Frances about this topic, I was forced to realize that I don’t really know why it matters whether people read or not. I have my own biases about reading because I have (finally) found joy in it. I stopped reading as a teenager because reading was forced upon me in school. I couldn’t get “into” the books/stories – in fact, I didn’t even see them as stories, but rather, as only mere school assignments. This disdain for being forced to read specific material kept me from being an English major for two years. In essence, I had better things to do – like write.

That’s the other thing this article brought up – reading is in decline, while writing is at a seemingly all-time high. Not only do we have a plethora of books in a bookstore (even all those in a library – my goodness), but now we have the advantage of self-publishing – of blogging – of emailing.

With technology, we have the advantage of having an online voice or persona. We have the notion that we finally exist somewhere in this mass of humanity (which is why, Sy Parrish (perhaps a play on the word “perish”) in One Hour Photo explains that we take pictures – to show someone that we existed AND that we mattered to someone else. I believe the same can be said for the act of writing.) Writing gives us the ability to take a snapshot of something important to us, while allowing us to be in the snapshot – as author, as subject, as perceiver, as a human voice.

I fear I have much more to say on this – and my blog is getting a bit long – which proves problematic for those struggling to catch up with their OWN reading for their OWN blog writing. Who will read my blog? I mean, really read my blog – and care about what I have to say? I certainly admit – I haven’t been able to devote fair attention to my fellow class blog authors. But instead of reading what others have to say this morning, I’m writing – writing to be heard. Writing to be a social and classroom participant.

So, this Poets & Writers magazine mentions why reading might be on the decline – because it is lonely. I never thought about this before. Instead, I always thought about how people resist reading because it takes work (and for those who don’t read – it really does take some effort). And THIS was why it concerned me that people didn't read - because it seems like their brains go into atrophy from lack of use.

Now, my concern has shifted. I still believe it is worthwhile to "work the brain" - but I also now worry that we are falling prey to our mere "notion" that we are social - that we are only making ourselves more isolated and consequently, more lonely.

To be a reader, one must be a receiver of something created, not a creator. To read, one does the activity alone. While I am writing alone, I am writing for social purposes - in effort to connect.

Thus, we have irony. Technology seems to have made us all busier because it has made things more accessible to us. We seem to have no time for anything (as it is, I got up at 4:30 this morning to write an email to a colleague (again, to be social) and to write this blog!)

Yet, I have this notion that technology allows us to “perceive” that we are social and connected. Myspace, for instance, allows for us to connect with old friends, meet new friends, keep in touch with family, etc. The fact that we can see (especially with younger Myspace participants) how one person has over 150 “friends” shows how social we feel we are, how important we are to others, and how technology has allowed for us to “feel” this way. Yet, we never talk on the phone. We find it hard to meet friends for lunch or dinner. As this comic so appropriately shows:

I’m seeing how technology allows us to be very egocentric. We can maintain a superficial idea that we are social, that we are connected, when really, what we are most intimate with – is our machine. I touch a machine more than anything else all day. My machine allows me to be social when I want and how I want.



The word social no longer means in the company of a physical society. It now means being in a representation of society.

When everyone has a voice, suddenly no one has a voice... except their OWN.

Never have I felt so alone.

Response to Niemeyer Podcast

Cyberculture: Ongoing and Future Implications for Human/Machine Hybrids

Part of Greg Niemeyer's podcast focuses on the relationship between the technical and the social, where the performance of race and gender is most affected because it can now be constructed and fabricated, especially with the aid of a screen persona, which could serve as an actual identity or an alternate identity. For instance, when one creates a "profile" of the self, and advertises it (and by default, their self) on a public space, such as Myspace, or Match.com, one must wonder what goes into the creation of that persona: actual identity, desired identity, perceived identity, or even a completely fake identity - one used either for manipulative means or for a way to test out the experience of an alternate, or an other, identity.

A distinction between the divine origin of gendered identity and the human ability to control what/who one is occurs with this "profile" capability. Instead of one being defined by an outside source (especially by the divinely inspired origin of male (Adam) and female (Eve)), one has the ability to define who they are (or, more importantly, who they want to be). Defining oneself corresponds to Niemeyer's point that the word "cyber" means control. Combining cyber with the word culture (which Niemeyer says is the act of telling stories) forms a cyberculture: a way to control the stories one tells about self and other. How does one illustrate who they are with this cyber "mask"? Is the mask deceptive or more revealing?

In his class, Niemeyer poses an assignment for his students where they must figure out how to decipher human consciousness versus a computational consciousness. He notes that chatbots have the ability to arouse emotion, particularly negative emotion, in actual humans. In this way, Niemeyer illustrates that the line between the human and computational consciousness may be blurring.

This blurred line may beget or signfiy the "cyborg" - a human being that is part analog and part digital.

How can communication exist between the two forms of existence (previously thought as completely separate in nature) if the digital is (traditionally) considered inanimate, objective, and ultimately, programmed?

(My answer is that humans animate the inanimate all the time - personification of non-persons is an inevitable consequence to living with only a human perception. Another answer for consideration might be that the digital mirrors an uncomfortable reality: that we are programmed/programmable; thus, we are able to connect with a programmed machine...).

Which is more authentic: a digital voice or an analog voice? Which would you prefer to have and why?