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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.

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

A Comment Turned Post

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

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

A Film Imprisonment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

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

Beating Authenticity – A Fragmented (Frustrated!) Reading Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading is "Lonely" - Technology is "Social"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Never have I felt so alone.

Response to Niemeyer Podcast

Cyberculture: Ongoing and Future Implications for Human/Machine Hybrids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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:

Writing with Technology

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?