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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
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?
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?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
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.
· 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.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
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)
Friday, May 23, 2008
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
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?
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?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
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.
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).
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).
Friday, April 25, 2008
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.
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.
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…
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…
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
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.
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.
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:
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.
Monday, April 14, 2008
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?
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Reading Blog #1
Sorry for posting these responses this late. I have "chunked" my responses and hope that if you do not want to read all, you will read at least a section - one that could interest you most - this is what our authors call for right?
The Fabrication of Drones - Using Machines to Battle the Formation of Machines
I want to comment, briefly, on J.L. Lemke's article "Metamedia Literacy: Transforming Meanings and Media." Finally I see someone writing about a very serious problem: the lack of critical thought appearing in education. Lemke compares the "curricular learning paradigm" with the "interactive learning paradigm" (84). He argues that the curricular learning paradigm, found in today's schools, is where "someone else decides what you need to know and will arrange for you to learn it in a fixed order on a fixed schedule" (84). This results in a "common curriculum" (86). (Can we say standardized tests and learning? Actually, let's call this it the common curriculum cult or the fabrication of productive, passive drones…)
I agree with Lemke that "we want people who are at least a little critical and skeptical about information" and that they have the ability to decipher the reliability of the information being taught (85). In the interactive learning paradigm, members of society can access information freely opposed to being imposed upon with a set of ideas in a confined setting (the classroom with a captive audience) (85). In such a free learning environment, one no longer remains subject to an "author's priorities, scope, and sequence…" (87). [Though, I will confess, this portion was at the bottom of my blog, but I moved it to the front because, as the author, I want to manipulate my readers into reading this first… Authors will forever be able to manipulate readers, maybe in even more subtle ways, when users have the impression that they are not being manipulated…]
As I will note below, however, such freedom to information has its own self-indulgent dangers. Lemke writes, "We can change reality [via technology] by acts of will or small motor commands - we can be sorcerers…" (90). In essence, we can play God. I remember this story about this guy and this gal called Adam and Eve. They were tempted to eat from the "Tree of Knowledge." And look what happened. [Whether you believe this happened or not, the moral of the "story" still stands…] Which is better? A blissfully ignorant life - the life of a slave or drone - OR one where humanity becomes God (or many gods). Which is more dangerous? Can we have a situation where we can choose to be one or the other - or should we simultaneously be a slave to a God and a God who has slaves?
The Individual vs. The Collective and Who Owns What
The notion of both a hybrid identity and expression offers a new perspective on owning space, especially when this space resides on the Web. Craig Stroupe provides good argument for the possibility for and potential of "visualizing English" in his article "Visualizing English: Recognizing the Hybrid Literacy of Visual and Verbal Authorship on the Web." With this notion of shared space for expression, contact zones develop between the individual and the collective body of society.
Stroupe writes that David Siegel describes a "new work paradigm" where "success depends less on the individual writer…and more upon the coordination of a team…" (14). Using Siegel, Stroupe infers that English Studies needs to reduce its high regard of "the individual" as a lone producer and as a symbol of authority when "Web-based communication makes verbal expertise only one among many forms of literacy…" [emphasis added] (14). I can see why English Studies praises the individual. The individual is identifiable. Names belong to work produced so that accountability and credit can be established. The individual can be rewarded and this induces competition.
English Studies can hardly be faulted for this psychology when it is the mentality of a capitalist society to credit the individual. (I do not, necessarily, find fault with competition - I think it can be a motivating force. After all, to remain "competitive" in society, I must master using the Web and its tools because it is becoming an essential part of succeeding in this technological culture. Competition has hardly ceased to exist, nor should it. Without something to fight for or compete against, for what should anyone strive?)
Stroupe does bring about an honest realization though: how often is an individual really an individual in the production of a text? Ideas from others find their way into the individual and it makes it appear the individual is the "original thinker." Works cited pages in documents written by only one author clearly represent the fact multiple voices DO appear in the work and in a way, allow for credit to be given to the other players.)
How will human psychology respond to this "new work paradigm" (shared space) since it certainly is a reality society faces with the advent of this technology? We all remember how teamwork seems to function in class: there is a leader and then there are followers. Within teams, there are always varying degrees of involvement and production, especially with competition entering the scene. How will this "work" be rewarded? And will every member of the team be rewarded equally? Who decides? Moreover, will the visual eventually gain more praise than verbal text? It certainly seems so. Big blocks of text (such as the ones I have here) are never preferred. So, will we see a continued hybrid form of expression or will we begin to see a shift of privileging other forms? (Essentially, privilege will always exist, just in different forms.) Faster is better… at least, that is what this technological society seems to privilege most.
The Problem of Self-Indulgence
What Stroupe really seems to want less of is English Studies' focus on elaborationism, which is based on the notion that higher forms of consciousness can only be achieved through formality in the reading/composing process (15). It appears that those who engage in "formality" appear impersonal and (unfairly or unreasonably) elevated due to standards set in the history of English Studies. Without "visualizing English" (or, what Stroupe seems to want: "visualizing one's arrogance"), one remains ignorant to their self-indulgence because it is rewarded in the current-day English Studies environment - one that is criticized for rejecting "difference" and multiple forms of expression.
Stroupe pits Peter Elbow against Elizabeth Castro to illustrate the benefits of Web expression. He does this by unfairly illustrating that Elbow's expressivism only maintains self-indulgence whereas Castro's method is expansive and results in enriched societal connections.
Of course, next to Castro, Elbow appears stuffy, out-dated, and unreasonable in terms of his call for intimacy with words, which Stroupe seems to paint as intimacy with self. After all, Castro offers helpful editing tools, options for creativity, and a heightened focus on audience, opposed to focus on self - definitely more attractive on first glance.
I must ask: why is focusing on self-improvement a negative thing, especially when it comes to the way one thinks? Elbow's method invites, and even requires, contradiction for growth as a thinker and writer (21). True acts of self-indulgence never take time to consider another perspective.
What I really find beneficial in Elbow's method is his focus on words talking to words, which argues against using visuals because they offer immediate, simple, and literal access to meaning (21). While Castro speaks of speed in terms of visuals (will a user be able to download or easily view images?) Elbow has a point - should access be so immediate? Should meaning be revealed so easily? After all, "only those who resist the expedient and who master what is difficult will achieve personal empowerment" (20). I'm not saying that visuals should not be used. Moreover, I realize that visuals can deepen meaning of text, especially when the connection between visual and text is not obvious. Instead, I caution Stroupe and others to not rush to dismiss what Elbow has to offer in terms of taking time to develop oneself.
Instead of discounting Elbow's focus on self-development, one might view Castro with a more critical eye. With Castro's web-based ideology, a focus on the self still occurs as the "Web-author is free to indulge in a breezy, self-conscious style" while the "Web user is free to go where s/he likes" (23). Such freedom is desirable, but might lead to further self-indulgence as one "gets to" cater to his/her own desires. Certainly appealing, but if everyone gets their way, what happens to the notion of conflict? Conflict motivates reaction thus growth between conflicting parties as they work to sort out differences. Sometimes, not getting one's way can be the best thing for the development of self --and-- society.
READER LIBERATION!
The Fabrication of Drones - Using Machines to Battle the Formation of Machines
I want to comment, briefly, on J.L. Lemke's article "Metamedia Literacy: Transforming Meanings and Media." Finally I see someone writing about a very serious problem: the lack of critical thought appearing in education. Lemke compares the "curricular learning paradigm" with the "interactive learning paradigm" (84). He argues that the curricular learning paradigm, found in today's schools, is where "someone else decides what you need to know and will arrange for you to learn it in a fixed order on a fixed schedule" (84). This results in a "common curriculum" (86). (Can we say standardized tests and learning? Actually, let's call this it the common curriculum cult or the fabrication of productive, passive drones…)
I agree with Lemke that "we want people who are at least a little critical and skeptical about information" and that they have the ability to decipher the reliability of the information being taught (85). In the interactive learning paradigm, members of society can access information freely opposed to being imposed upon with a set of ideas in a confined setting (the classroom with a captive audience) (85). In such a free learning environment, one no longer remains subject to an "author's priorities, scope, and sequence…" (87). [Though, I will confess, this portion was at the bottom of my blog, but I moved it to the front because, as the author, I want to manipulate my readers into reading this first… Authors will forever be able to manipulate readers, maybe in even more subtle ways, when users have the impression that they are not being manipulated…]
As I will note below, however, such freedom to information has its own self-indulgent dangers. Lemke writes, "We can change reality [via technology] by acts of will or small motor commands - we can be sorcerers…" (90). In essence, we can play God. I remember this story about this guy and this gal called Adam and Eve. They were tempted to eat from the "Tree of Knowledge." And look what happened. [Whether you believe this happened or not, the moral of the "story" still stands…] Which is better? A blissfully ignorant life - the life of a slave or drone - OR one where humanity becomes God (or many gods). Which is more dangerous? Can we have a situation where we can choose to be one or the other - or should we simultaneously be a slave to a God and a God who has slaves?
The Individual vs. The Collective and Who Owns What
The notion of both a hybrid identity and expression offers a new perspective on owning space, especially when this space resides on the Web. Craig Stroupe provides good argument for the possibility for and potential of "visualizing English" in his article "Visualizing English: Recognizing the Hybrid Literacy of Visual and Verbal Authorship on the Web." With this notion of shared space for expression, contact zones develop between the individual and the collective body of society.
Stroupe writes that David Siegel describes a "new work paradigm" where "success depends less on the individual writer…and more upon the coordination of a team…" (14). Using Siegel, Stroupe infers that English Studies needs to reduce its high regard of "the individual" as a lone producer and as a symbol of authority when "Web-based communication makes verbal expertise only one among many forms of literacy…" [emphasis added] (14). I can see why English Studies praises the individual. The individual is identifiable. Names belong to work produced so that accountability and credit can be established. The individual can be rewarded and this induces competition.
English Studies can hardly be faulted for this psychology when it is the mentality of a capitalist society to credit the individual. (I do not, necessarily, find fault with competition - I think it can be a motivating force. After all, to remain "competitive" in society, I must master using the Web and its tools because it is becoming an essential part of succeeding in this technological culture. Competition has hardly ceased to exist, nor should it. Without something to fight for or compete against, for what should anyone strive?)
Stroupe does bring about an honest realization though: how often is an individual really an individual in the production of a text? Ideas from others find their way into the individual and it makes it appear the individual is the "original thinker." Works cited pages in documents written by only one author clearly represent the fact multiple voices DO appear in the work and in a way, allow for credit to be given to the other players.)
How will human psychology respond to this "new work paradigm" (shared space) since it certainly is a reality society faces with the advent of this technology? We all remember how teamwork seems to function in class: there is a leader and then there are followers. Within teams, there are always varying degrees of involvement and production, especially with competition entering the scene. How will this "work" be rewarded? And will every member of the team be rewarded equally? Who decides? Moreover, will the visual eventually gain more praise than verbal text? It certainly seems so. Big blocks of text (such as the ones I have here) are never preferred. So, will we see a continued hybrid form of expression or will we begin to see a shift of privileging other forms? (Essentially, privilege will always exist, just in different forms.) Faster is better… at least, that is what this technological society seems to privilege most.
The Problem of Self-Indulgence
What Stroupe really seems to want less of is English Studies' focus on elaborationism, which is based on the notion that higher forms of consciousness can only be achieved through formality in the reading/composing process (15). It appears that those who engage in "formality" appear impersonal and (unfairly or unreasonably) elevated due to standards set in the history of English Studies. Without "visualizing English" (or, what Stroupe seems to want: "visualizing one's arrogance"), one remains ignorant to their self-indulgence because it is rewarded in the current-day English Studies environment - one that is criticized for rejecting "difference" and multiple forms of expression.
Stroupe pits Peter Elbow against Elizabeth Castro to illustrate the benefits of Web expression. He does this by unfairly illustrating that Elbow's expressivism only maintains self-indulgence whereas Castro's method is expansive and results in enriched societal connections.
Of course, next to Castro, Elbow appears stuffy, out-dated, and unreasonable in terms of his call for intimacy with words, which Stroupe seems to paint as intimacy with self. After all, Castro offers helpful editing tools, options for creativity, and a heightened focus on audience, opposed to focus on self - definitely more attractive on first glance.
I must ask: why is focusing on self-improvement a negative thing, especially when it comes to the way one thinks? Elbow's method invites, and even requires, contradiction for growth as a thinker and writer (21). True acts of self-indulgence never take time to consider another perspective.
What I really find beneficial in Elbow's method is his focus on words talking to words, which argues against using visuals because they offer immediate, simple, and literal access to meaning (21). While Castro speaks of speed in terms of visuals (will a user be able to download or easily view images?) Elbow has a point - should access be so immediate? Should meaning be revealed so easily? After all, "only those who resist the expedient and who master what is difficult will achieve personal empowerment" (20). I'm not saying that visuals should not be used. Moreover, I realize that visuals can deepen meaning of text, especially when the connection between visual and text is not obvious. Instead, I caution Stroupe and others to not rush to dismiss what Elbow has to offer in terms of taking time to develop oneself.
Instead of discounting Elbow's focus on self-development, one might view Castro with a more critical eye. With Castro's web-based ideology, a focus on the self still occurs as the "Web-author is free to indulge in a breezy, self-conscious style" while the "Web user is free to go where s/he likes" (23). Such freedom is desirable, but might lead to further self-indulgence as one "gets to" cater to his/her own desires. Certainly appealing, but if everyone gets their way, what happens to the notion of conflict? Conflict motivates reaction thus growth between conflicting parties as they work to sort out differences. Sometimes, not getting one's way can be the best thing for the development of self --and-- society.
Writing with Technology and Living with Technology (Part II)
This is a poetic expression - in words - illuminated through the visual presentation of the recitation and practice of the words. Powerful.
"Look at these crooked, crooked hands,
I actually use them for something.
It's hard to believe but they are able to type,
And I can draw and use a tablet with them,
even a mouse.
Here I go, I will type for you.
I will show you that I can type.
People are sometimes impressed that I can type.
Fast. Fast. So fast.
It comes naturally. I don't even think as I hit the keys.
Click. Click. Click. Clack.
Some people can't even type.
I'm grateful I can at least do this.
I often think when I look at myself in the mirror,
that it's amazing that I'm even alive.
A machine helps me take breaths.
An electric wheelchair to let me move around.
And here I am typing.
Communicating through a computer.
Making videos that can be seen anyone.
Anyone with the net.
It doesn't make any sense at times.
And I've come to sometimes not be impressed.
It's almost a crime not to be impressed.
But we're overwhelmed.
And the extraordinary becomes more ordinary.
I hope my hands have touched you,
through your eyes
to your heart."
Here is the video representation:
"Look at these crooked, crooked hands,
I actually use them for something.
It's hard to believe but they are able to type,
And I can draw and use a tablet with them,
even a mouse.
Here I go, I will type for you.
I will show you that I can type.
People are sometimes impressed that I can type.
Fast. Fast. So fast.
It comes naturally. I don't even think as I hit the keys.
Click. Click. Click. Clack.
Some people can't even type.
I'm grateful I can at least do this.
I often think when I look at myself in the mirror,
that it's amazing that I'm even alive.
A machine helps me take breaths.
An electric wheelchair to let me move around.
And here I am typing.
Communicating through a computer.
Making videos that can be seen anyone.
Anyone with the net.
It doesn't make any sense at times.
And I've come to sometimes not be impressed.
It's almost a crime not to be impressed.
But we're overwhelmed.
And the extraordinary becomes more ordinary.
I hope my hands have touched you,
through your eyes
to your heart."
Here is the video representation:
Friday, April 4, 2008
Introductions
"People never touched one another. The custom had become obsolete, owing to the Machine." - E.M. Forster in his "The Machine Stops."
Blog Purpose
I don't blog regularly because my blogs usually end up being long and many do not care to read something that, on first glance, is so long (maybe a consequence to the need for "instant" gratification technology might encourage - or to the other things we have to get to because we're so busy thanks to our technology…).
In any case, this blog will function, for me primarily, as a way to write and sort out my thoughts regarding the material of this class and to share my thoughts with whomever wishes to read them. I realize that I always apologize for the length of my writings, but I'm not going to do that here. If anything, I'm going to ask that others write *more*.
My Introduction
It's Christmas morning. I'm about six-years-old, and I just opened up my first record player along with a set of forty-fives - The Monkees. I played those records in all their scratch and pop glory, over and over, but eventually, I had to advance to cassette tapes. Tapes were easier to access, and my sister and I could record our make-believe radio shows on them. It wasn't until I was twelve that I owned my first CD - Tears for Fears Greatest Hits. It was another gift. I never saw a reason to buy CDs myself. Cassettes worked great, and were less expensive - definitely attractive to someone who never received an allowance.
Resistant to change and to technological advance, I proudly called myself a luddite. With religious bedtime stories of the apocalypse, which included details about the mark of the beast - a microchip implanted inside of every person where acceptance of it meant giving one's soul to the devil - I did not perceive that technological advances were beneficial. Computers were good only for playing "Hopper" and "Where is Carmen San Diego?" oh, and of course, "Oregon Trail."
Then, the desire for a social life hit. My girlfriends in high school talked about this "chatting" phenomenon - and their parents actually let them do it! I was curious about talking with someone, anyone, over the Internet about anything at all. I could talk with someone in Australia or England! I had a pen pal from South Dakota, and we snail mailed each other, but with chatting, communication was instant.
My parents believed that the Internet was a safe haven for molesters and serial killers (and to this day, my parents still believe this). I was allowed to chat only on a Catholic chat site; however, as an adult, I have advanced into IMing using AOL IM and Yahoo Messenger. In "real life," I was unpopular and had difficulty making friends because I was quiet and kept mostly to myself. But online, I was alive, expressing myself through my favorite medium: writing. I've met over thirty people, in-person, from online chat sessions and have formed actual friendships with people that have lasted well over six years.
I started seeing a divide, however - especially when I would talk about dating people from online. There were those that were in favor of meeting people this way, and those that -seriously- weren't. Though I was on the "luddite" side of things, I saw, and experienced, only benefits in my personal relationships with this technology. I even built my own personal Website, which I replaced with my current-day Myspace page.
Emailing is also a preferred form of communication for me (instead of the phone). I can think about what I want to say, how I want to say it, and have the privilege of using backspace and delete; however, accidentally sending an email to an unintended recipient - usually the person the email was about - is NEVER a good thing. My cell phone is used more for texting than actual calling, also.
I have gone through quite the evolution. Currently, I sit at a desk with a computer for most of my day. From my luddite point of view, this doesn't exactly sound ideal - to have a machine be my daily companion. But it's a fact. Do I understand computers? Hell no. Right next to my work computer, I have a quote: To Err is Human To Really Screw Up You Need A Computer. Though I couldn't agree more with the quote, it is, now, impossible to live without computers. I feel very blessed that my e-Machine (which I bought in 2000, and which I realize outdates me threefold in the computer world) has not died on me or given me any problem because I wouldn't even know where to begin to fix it. Motherboard, RAM, cable, video and sound card are terms I know only as terms, not really as functions. Similarly, I know of HTML, http, ftp, and other related terms, but could never define them.
I still consider myself to be part-luddite. I drive an old car and believe a car should be a car - not a computer. I still want to read "real" in-my-hand books. I think technology is responsible for making life easier, thus busier and more hectic and stressful. I believe that the paper money trail is disappearing with the prevalence of plastic and that this could be dangerous (okay, so I still have some conspiracy theories lurking around in my head from my childhood…). The floaters in my eyes and my reduced tear production are also probably a consequence of staring at a computer all day. I believe that technology brings many, many benefits - but I worry that these benefits might overshadow the potential consequences…
Moreover, the great irony is: I am still conflicted on technology and its role in the classroom. In every oral presentation or lesson I give, technology plays a role. I even attempted to form a discourse community, similar to this one, in a class, which proved highly successful in the end. I'm becoming more used to the idea that technology should be used in the classroom; however, I feel education is becoming something that is marketed and sold to students via technological appeal. This does not mean that I do not see its benefits. As I grow and become more and more accustomed to technology, I'm sure my opinion will change. I guess my real concern has to do with attention spans and incentive: how are these things changing with the advent of technology in the classroom? Are we tied more to our machines than to each other, or even, to our own selves?
Blog Purpose
I don't blog regularly because my blogs usually end up being long and many do not care to read something that, on first glance, is so long (maybe a consequence to the need for "instant" gratification technology might encourage - or to the other things we have to get to because we're so busy thanks to our technology…).
In any case, this blog will function, for me primarily, as a way to write and sort out my thoughts regarding the material of this class and to share my thoughts with whomever wishes to read them. I realize that I always apologize for the length of my writings, but I'm not going to do that here. If anything, I'm going to ask that others write *more*.
My Introduction
It's Christmas morning. I'm about six-years-old, and I just opened up my first record player along with a set of forty-fives - The Monkees. I played those records in all their scratch and pop glory, over and over, but eventually, I had to advance to cassette tapes. Tapes were easier to access, and my sister and I could record our make-believe radio shows on them. It wasn't until I was twelve that I owned my first CD - Tears for Fears Greatest Hits. It was another gift. I never saw a reason to buy CDs myself. Cassettes worked great, and were less expensive - definitely attractive to someone who never received an allowance.
Resistant to change and to technological advance, I proudly called myself a luddite. With religious bedtime stories of the apocalypse, which included details about the mark of the beast - a microchip implanted inside of every person where acceptance of it meant giving one's soul to the devil - I did not perceive that technological advances were beneficial. Computers were good only for playing "Hopper" and "Where is Carmen San Diego?" oh, and of course, "Oregon Trail."
Then, the desire for a social life hit. My girlfriends in high school talked about this "chatting" phenomenon - and their parents actually let them do it! I was curious about talking with someone, anyone, over the Internet about anything at all. I could talk with someone in Australia or England! I had a pen pal from South Dakota, and we snail mailed each other, but with chatting, communication was instant.
My parents believed that the Internet was a safe haven for molesters and serial killers (and to this day, my parents still believe this). I was allowed to chat only on a Catholic chat site; however, as an adult, I have advanced into IMing using AOL IM and Yahoo Messenger. In "real life," I was unpopular and had difficulty making friends because I was quiet and kept mostly to myself. But online, I was alive, expressing myself through my favorite medium: writing. I've met over thirty people, in-person, from online chat sessions and have formed actual friendships with people that have lasted well over six years.
I started seeing a divide, however - especially when I would talk about dating people from online. There were those that were in favor of meeting people this way, and those that -seriously- weren't. Though I was on the "luddite" side of things, I saw, and experienced, only benefits in my personal relationships with this technology. I even built my own personal Website, which I replaced with my current-day Myspace page.
Emailing is also a preferred form of communication for me (instead of the phone). I can think about what I want to say, how I want to say it, and have the privilege of using backspace and delete; however, accidentally sending an email to an unintended recipient - usually the person the email was about - is NEVER a good thing. My cell phone is used more for texting than actual calling, also.
I have gone through quite the evolution. Currently, I sit at a desk with a computer for most of my day. From my luddite point of view, this doesn't exactly sound ideal - to have a machine be my daily companion. But it's a fact. Do I understand computers? Hell no. Right next to my work computer, I have a quote: To Err is Human To Really Screw Up You Need A Computer. Though I couldn't agree more with the quote, it is, now, impossible to live without computers. I feel very blessed that my e-Machine (which I bought in 2000, and which I realize outdates me threefold in the computer world) has not died on me or given me any problem because I wouldn't even know where to begin to fix it. Motherboard, RAM, cable, video and sound card are terms I know only as terms, not really as functions. Similarly, I know of HTML, http, ftp, and other related terms, but could never define them.
I still consider myself to be part-luddite. I drive an old car and believe a car should be a car - not a computer. I still want to read "real" in-my-hand books. I think technology is responsible for making life easier, thus busier and more hectic and stressful. I believe that the paper money trail is disappearing with the prevalence of plastic and that this could be dangerous (okay, so I still have some conspiracy theories lurking around in my head from my childhood…). The floaters in my eyes and my reduced tear production are also probably a consequence of staring at a computer all day. I believe that technology brings many, many benefits - but I worry that these benefits might overshadow the potential consequences…
Moreover, the great irony is: I am still conflicted on technology and its role in the classroom. In every oral presentation or lesson I give, technology plays a role. I even attempted to form a discourse community, similar to this one, in a class, which proved highly successful in the end. I'm becoming more used to the idea that technology should be used in the classroom; however, I feel education is becoming something that is marketed and sold to students via technological appeal. This does not mean that I do not see its benefits. As I grow and become more and more accustomed to technology, I'm sure my opinion will change. I guess my real concern has to do with attention spans and incentive: how are these things changing with the advent of technology in the classroom? Are we tied more to our machines than to each other, or even, to our own selves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
