I am not a gamer. In fact, I can confidently say that the video I've most played is Galaga during lunch at the Pizza Hut across the street from my high school. For $2.50 I could buy a slice of pepperoni pizza, a 12oz can of Coke and play Galaga as long as I could stretch my $0.25 out. It's an understatement to say gaming has changed dramatically since my short lived Galaga days. I am not completely unaware of what's out there, but I am definitely not experienced. I tried my hand a couple of times at playing Tomb Raider when it first came out, but was easily frustrated at my lack of coordination and manipulation of the hand controller (is that what it's called?). But I readily remember my fascination with seeing a game like Tomb Raider with a femme fatale like Lara Croft. From a female perspective, I can only slightly relate to Schleiner's "Lara as Positive Role Model" because I had never heard of a game whose primary character was a woman: Intelligent, Boobalicious Glamazon with Weapons...what's not to like? It would be kick ass to be a deadly woman of Lara's proportions, but it's still rather unrealistic. Both Rehak and Schleiner make a clear case for Lara's conception as that of the heterosexual male fantasy.
"Male fans, however, find in Croft's semiotic territory fertile ground to extend their fetishistic involvement. Croft's followers are eager to sexualize her through the creation of erotic pictures and paratexts...'The absence of any romantic or sexual intrigue within the game narrative potentially leaves her sexuality open to conjectural appropriation on the part of the players"(pg 170)
Seriously. We have seen an ever so slightly recurring role of women as "objects" as opposed to women as "subjects" in our readings and discussions of the digital world. Our discussion in Thursday's class reiterates that point bc of the patriarchal society we live in. Rehak pointed out that of the women out there that enjoy gaming, Tomb Raider is not on the top of their list. Why? Because Lara was designed for men by men. Everything about Lara poises her as an object of desire - for men. From her unrealistic anatomical make-up to the gamers ability to "control" her. I'm not trying to say that men are pigs and they shouldn't enjoy Lara. Do what you gotta do. But I'm no extreme feminist either. Lara is a fantasy. Her fan base and the extremes they go through to build up her complex backstory and dress their girlfriends in Lara-esque style is remarkable. Not to mention the game plug-in and patch work to create "Nude Raider". "The digital star is the location on which fantasies of desire and control are projected; they embody the fears, desires, and excess of our culture in the form of obnoxiously sexualized female stars." (pg 171).
I guess I never considered how Lara Croft could be so idolized, fandomized and fantasized about, but I think alot of that has to do with the fact that I cannot be counted as one that belongs to the gaming community. However, after reading Rehak's article, I was a bit in awe to the extremes by which fans of an avatar would go to have their Lara widely appropriated and realized. It doesn't surprise me that Lara lives in the realm of the male pornographic fantasy. I guess men will get their jollies however they can.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tapscott Pt. 3: Government and social interaction
I like the idea of Democracy 2.0. The concept has great potential, given that citizens engage in “reasoned opinions”. Just as Gore made claim that television changed the way the government and its citizens engage in conversation, the Internet pushes participation in a positive direction where citizens can really converse again through digital media. Allowing for interaction in politics can change democracy in our country, truly making it democratic…where voices and opinions are heard and exchanged. But the collaboration has to come from both sides of the spectrum. Politicians need to engage as well and encourage their constituents to truly be the voice behind the representation. I know that politics is a touchy subject and Tapscott is clear in pointing out that politician need to gain and maintain trust from citizens. “Trust depends on transparency.” “Governments can sit back and wait for Net Geners to force them to become more transparent, or they can be active participants in shaping the flow of communications to citizens.” (pg267) I really think this could not be more true. We have the tools, we have the technology; we (politicians and citizens) need to cooperate and collaborate and work towards the greater good. Net Geners are poised to lead the charge.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Blog #6: Sherry Turkle - Robotics and cybercompanionship
http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Relational%20Artifacts.pdf
Sherry Turkle: Relational Artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship
Relational artifacts: “…artifacts that present themselves as having ‘states of mind’ for which an understanding of those states enriches human encounters with them.” (pg 1) aka sociable robots aka My Real Baby, Furby, Aibo, Paro, Kismet and Cog.
As the title would imply, this is an article about a comparative study of robots (relational artifacts) and the complex relationships formed with them by children and elders, specifically elders in a nursing home. In approaching this study, researched focused on two ideas:
1. Robots as Rorschach – how the relationship with robots has an effect on people emotionally and cognitively and how individuals use that relationship to express things about themselves. (psychological)
and
2. Robot as an evocative object – how the relationship with the robot lends focus to questions of “aliveness” and “about the roles of thought and feeling in defining human uniqueness.” (pg 1) (philosophical)
Previous studies done in the 1980’s found that technological objects like Speak and Spell and Merlin were primarily presented to children for cognitive use, whereas, when presented with a relational artifact, children were compelled (bc of the nature of the object: ie Furby, Aibo, or My Real Baby) to nurture it or be nurtured. There was a shift from a more cognitive understanding and use of the object to an emotional or affective one. The same held true for elders. “For robotics, nurturance is the new ‘killer app’. We connect to what we nurture.” (pg 3)
In the past studies have shown that animals have calming effects for people. Researchers were looking to see if seniors would get similar benefits with Aibo (dog)and Paro (baby harp seal) in that they might help lower stress and anxiety. Although the research done with elders found comparable effects, children were found to treat it (Aibo) like they would a stuffed animal but respond to it as if it were a real dog.
Methods of study focused on observation and conversation in natural settings: how does the technology have bearing on their personalities, life history and cognitive style? Although it was first thought that there would be a clear distinction between the robots as Rorschach and as evocative objects, it was found that the two were actually entwined. Children and elders were forming philosophical attachments that weren’t separated from their emotional needs. As previously noted, cast studies revolved around children and elders. I broke these down so you could get a better idea of the kinds of results found and see the correlations between the psychological and philosophical effects they had on the children and seniors.
Case studies with children:
Orelia (10 yrs) takes home an Aibo. Orelia makes clear distinctions about the Aibo; it is a robot and incapable of love. She would prefer a real dog because unlike the Aibo a real dog has a brain and a heart and can clearly love her, whereas Aibo has the potential to be programmed to love, but it wouldn’t be real because it is a robot. Researchers found that her younger brother had more of a connection to the Aibo as if it could be capable of emotional reciprocation…or at least he questioned if it is capable of that. Orelia felt the robot could not be trusted bc of its lack of real feeling and memory. Researchers found that Orelia's concept and lack of feeling towards the Aibo was a correlation with her relationship with her mother; cold and ungiving.
Melanie, also 10 yrs old, had a much different relationship with her temporary custody of Aibo and a My Real Baby. Researchers found that Melanie formed an emotional attachment to these robots choosing to nurture them and in return believed they loved her back. For her, they filled a void in her life that was neglected by her parents, who worked alot and left her and her sibling primarily with babysitters and nannies. This has a profound effect on her relationship with the Aibo and MRB (which she named Sophie). By nurturing and loving them, it fulfilled a void in her life that she needed. To her, Aibo and Sophie were almost real, with feelings and consciousness of Melanie's tender care of them.
Jimmy is a 1st grader with a serious illness. Researchers found that Jimmy approached the Aibo as if it were real; having consciousness and emotions. He compares the Aibo with his real dog, Sam, finding that Aibo is the better dog because it can do things that Sam cannot (like fetch or kick a ball). To Jimmy, Aibo is immortal and invincible, unable to get sick and/or die, which is something Jimmy wishes for himself. “Jimmy’s emotional connection to the medical technology that keeps him alive helps to explain his identification with Aibo and his philosophical position that robots, too, have a ‘kind of life’.” (pg 8)
Case study with seniors:
Jonathan is a 74 year old man with no family. He was given a My Real Baby. Like Orelia, Jonathan approached the relational artifact from more of an analytical perspective. He was fascinated with the way it worked (like an engineer) but made a clear delineation between real and robotic. Although MRB was just another object to him, Jonathan felt that the real benefit was in his ability to talk to MRB in a way he could not with real people. From a therapeutic perspective, Jonathan felt he could open up more to MRB because it would not judge or ridicule him about personal thoughts or events in his life. Psychologically this would prove to be very beneficial, giving Jonathan an opportunity to find closure or at least comfort in being able to discuss very private matters. However, at the end of the day, Jonathan still saw MRB as an object, incapable of love and emotions. At night he would turn it off and put it away in the closet. To him, it was a fascinating toy.
Andy, on the other hand, viewed MRB like Melanie did. Similar to Jonathan, Andy found comfort in being able to talk to MRB, but he established an emotional connection to it; wanting to nurture and love it and felt that in a way, it would love him back. He was tender and protective of MRB.
TwendyOne
Researchers found that, “Relational artifacts, as objects between the living and not living (Ramey, 2005) may have special resonance for their frail nursing home playmates. The residents themselves experience their existence in the home as a placement on the boundary between their own lives and their deaths. Like relational artifacts, they are luminal creatures.” (pg 13)
Unlike MRB, Furby, Aibo and Paro, MIT robots Kismet and Cog both have the ability to respond to “I love you” by saying “I love you.” This has led to questions of the level of authenticity we might desire or require from technology. What kind of bearing will relational artifacts have on children and elders? Is it healthy to allow this kind of authentic technology with children? What kinds of relationships are appropriate for children and elders to have with relational artifacts? These are all very good questions, an as technology continues to evolve, I think it's something we should all ask ourselves. We've seen movies like iRobot and have fabricated ideas of what technology could one day present to us. It will be interesting to see what really happens. Bottom line, I personally don't feel like a robot could ever take the place of human affection and attention. I wish Sherry Turkle and her entourage of researchers had studied seniors from a retirement community as opposed to a nursing home. (or at least include retirement communities in their studies). I wonder if the results would have been different.
Sherry Turkle: Relational Artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship
Relational artifacts: “…artifacts that present themselves as having ‘states of mind’ for which an understanding of those states enriches human encounters with them.” (pg 1) aka sociable robots aka My Real Baby, Furby, Aibo, Paro, Kismet and Cog.
As the title would imply, this is an article about a comparative study of robots (relational artifacts) and the complex relationships formed with them by children and elders, specifically elders in a nursing home. In approaching this study, researched focused on two ideas:
1. Robots as Rorschach – how the relationship with robots has an effect on people emotionally and cognitively and how individuals use that relationship to express things about themselves. (psychological)
and
2. Robot as an evocative object – how the relationship with the robot lends focus to questions of “aliveness” and “about the roles of thought and feeling in defining human uniqueness.” (pg 1) (philosophical)
Previous studies done in the 1980’s found that technological objects like Speak and Spell and Merlin were primarily presented to children for cognitive use, whereas, when presented with a relational artifact, children were compelled (bc of the nature of the object: ie Furby, Aibo, or My Real Baby) to nurture it or be nurtured. There was a shift from a more cognitive understanding and use of the object to an emotional or affective one. The same held true for elders. “For robotics, nurturance is the new ‘killer app’. We connect to what we nurture.” (pg 3)
In the past studies have shown that animals have calming effects for people. Researchers were looking to see if seniors would get similar benefits with Aibo (dog)and Paro (baby harp seal) in that they might help lower stress and anxiety. Although the research done with elders found comparable effects, children were found to treat it (Aibo) like they would a stuffed animal but respond to it as if it were a real dog.
Methods of study focused on observation and conversation in natural settings: how does the technology have bearing on their personalities, life history and cognitive style? Although it was first thought that there would be a clear distinction between the robots as Rorschach and as evocative objects, it was found that the two were actually entwined. Children and elders were forming philosophical attachments that weren’t separated from their emotional needs. As previously noted, cast studies revolved around children and elders. I broke these down so you could get a better idea of the kinds of results found and see the correlations between the psychological and philosophical effects they had on the children and seniors.
Case studies with children:
Orelia (10 yrs) takes home an Aibo. Orelia makes clear distinctions about the Aibo; it is a robot and incapable of love. She would prefer a real dog because unlike the Aibo a real dog has a brain and a heart and can clearly love her, whereas Aibo has the potential to be programmed to love, but it wouldn’t be real because it is a robot. Researchers found that her younger brother had more of a connection to the Aibo as if it could be capable of emotional reciprocation…or at least he questioned if it is capable of that. Orelia felt the robot could not be trusted bc of its lack of real feeling and memory. Researchers found that Orelia's concept and lack of feeling towards the Aibo was a correlation with her relationship with her mother; cold and ungiving.
Melanie, also 10 yrs old, had a much different relationship with her temporary custody of Aibo and a My Real Baby. Researchers found that Melanie formed an emotional attachment to these robots choosing to nurture them and in return believed they loved her back. For her, they filled a void in her life that was neglected by her parents, who worked alot and left her and her sibling primarily with babysitters and nannies. This has a profound effect on her relationship with the Aibo and MRB (which she named Sophie). By nurturing and loving them, it fulfilled a void in her life that she needed. To her, Aibo and Sophie were almost real, with feelings and consciousness of Melanie's tender care of them.
Jimmy is a 1st grader with a serious illness. Researchers found that Jimmy approached the Aibo as if it were real; having consciousness and emotions. He compares the Aibo with his real dog, Sam, finding that Aibo is the better dog because it can do things that Sam cannot (like fetch or kick a ball). To Jimmy, Aibo is immortal and invincible, unable to get sick and/or die, which is something Jimmy wishes for himself. “Jimmy’s emotional connection to the medical technology that keeps him alive helps to explain his identification with Aibo and his philosophical position that robots, too, have a ‘kind of life’.” (pg 8)
Case study with seniors:
Jonathan is a 74 year old man with no family. He was given a My Real Baby. Like Orelia, Jonathan approached the relational artifact from more of an analytical perspective. He was fascinated with the way it worked (like an engineer) but made a clear delineation between real and robotic. Although MRB was just another object to him, Jonathan felt that the real benefit was in his ability to talk to MRB in a way he could not with real people. From a therapeutic perspective, Jonathan felt he could open up more to MRB because it would not judge or ridicule him about personal thoughts or events in his life. Psychologically this would prove to be very beneficial, giving Jonathan an opportunity to find closure or at least comfort in being able to discuss very private matters. However, at the end of the day, Jonathan still saw MRB as an object, incapable of love and emotions. At night he would turn it off and put it away in the closet. To him, it was a fascinating toy.
Andy, on the other hand, viewed MRB like Melanie did. Similar to Jonathan, Andy found comfort in being able to talk to MRB, but he established an emotional connection to it; wanting to nurture and love it and felt that in a way, it would love him back. He was tender and protective of MRB.
TwendyOne
Researchers found that, “Relational artifacts, as objects between the living and not living (Ramey, 2005) may have special resonance for their frail nursing home playmates. The residents themselves experience their existence in the home as a placement on the boundary between their own lives and their deaths. Like relational artifacts, they are luminal creatures.” (pg 13)
Unlike MRB, Furby, Aibo and Paro, MIT robots Kismet and Cog both have the ability to respond to “I love you” by saying “I love you.” This has led to questions of the level of authenticity we might desire or require from technology. What kind of bearing will relational artifacts have on children and elders? Is it healthy to allow this kind of authentic technology with children? What kinds of relationships are appropriate for children and elders to have with relational artifacts? These are all very good questions, an as technology continues to evolve, I think it's something we should all ask ourselves. We've seen movies like iRobot and have fabricated ideas of what technology could one day present to us. It will be interesting to see what really happens. Bottom line, I personally don't feel like a robot could ever take the place of human affection and attention. I wish Sherry Turkle and her entourage of researchers had studied seniors from a retirement community as opposed to a nursing home. (or at least include retirement communities in their studies). I wonder if the results would have been different.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Taspcott Pts 1 & 2
(Forgive the lateness of Tapscott Part 1.)
Part I: It's always interesting to compare Baby Boomers, Gen Xers/Y's, and today's Net Geners. I myself fall under the Generation X category but know that from a technological and digital level, I'm on the tail end of immersion. However, when I read about Net Geners and all they information and media they consume, it's truly amazing. "It's not surprising that Net Geners display such tolerance and even wisdom, compared to previous generations. They have been exposed to a ton of scientific, medical, and other pertinent information that wasn't available to their parents."(pg 84) Tapscott further points out that because Net Geners have access to this unlimited information they have made them advocates of freedom, customization, scutiny, honesty, integrity, collaboration, innovation...well, you get the idea. They're actively changing our world. I often wonder what life will be like 10 years from now. I'm a full time student studying digital technology and culture; I am astounded by the information out there and how our digitally diverse world continues to evolve. It makes me wonder what life will be like when my 3 year old is a full blown active member of the digital world. What will the technology be like for him? What will he be able to teach me one day? What and how will his generation change the world? I've been asking myself these and similar questions a lot lately. I'm curious what the answers will be.
Part II: Net Generation Norms and the transformation of work
I really enjoyed reading this section of our reading. Tapscott almost made work sound fantastical and utopian, but sweet, sweet, sweet! Several years ago, I worked for Apple Computer. It was a call center in Austin and I basically did data entry for K-12 schools - sales support. It wasn't a glamorous job, but it was one of the most relaxed working environments I'd ever been in. (Just look at Steve Jobs, Mr. Blue Jeans and T-shirt) But the idea that work environments are moving away from the fluorescent lit cubicles in big buildings; uptight and authority driven. The idea that those conditions could change: the freedom to work when and where we want, to collaborate and find new innovative ways to customize our work and business processes, to try new things/jobs, and that we can scrutinize what companies to work for. Net Geners want all these things and more, with the icing being that they (we) can have fun and be creative in our work. I think one of the most difficult things in life is finding something you love to do - specifically to make a living. I had my first job at 15 working at a christian bookstore. Since then I've tried a lot of diverse jobs but haven't found something that I'm truly passionate about. But when I think of what a job and life could be with the freedom to work under relaxed, fun and creative conditions and schedule hours that allow me to make time for my family...well, the idea is shear nirvana.
Part I: It's always interesting to compare Baby Boomers, Gen Xers/Y's, and today's Net Geners. I myself fall under the Generation X category but know that from a technological and digital level, I'm on the tail end of immersion. However, when I read about Net Geners and all they information and media they consume, it's truly amazing. "It's not surprising that Net Geners display such tolerance and even wisdom, compared to previous generations. They have been exposed to a ton of scientific, medical, and other pertinent information that wasn't available to their parents."(pg 84) Tapscott further points out that because Net Geners have access to this unlimited information they have made them advocates of freedom, customization, scutiny, honesty, integrity, collaboration, innovation...well, you get the idea. They're actively changing our world. I often wonder what life will be like 10 years from now. I'm a full time student studying digital technology and culture; I am astounded by the information out there and how our digitally diverse world continues to evolve. It makes me wonder what life will be like when my 3 year old is a full blown active member of the digital world. What will the technology be like for him? What will he be able to teach me one day? What and how will his generation change the world? I've been asking myself these and similar questions a lot lately. I'm curious what the answers will be.
Part II: Net Generation Norms and the transformation of work
I really enjoyed reading this section of our reading. Tapscott almost made work sound fantastical and utopian, but sweet, sweet, sweet! Several years ago, I worked for Apple Computer. It was a call center in Austin and I basically did data entry for K-12 schools - sales support. It wasn't a glamorous job, but it was one of the most relaxed working environments I'd ever been in. (Just look at Steve Jobs, Mr. Blue Jeans and T-shirt) But the idea that work environments are moving away from the fluorescent lit cubicles in big buildings; uptight and authority driven. The idea that those conditions could change: the freedom to work when and where we want, to collaborate and find new innovative ways to customize our work and business processes, to try new things/jobs, and that we can scrutinize what companies to work for. Net Geners want all these things and more, with the icing being that they (we) can have fun and be creative in our work. I think one of the most difficult things in life is finding something you love to do - specifically to make a living. I had my first job at 15 working at a christian bookstore. Since then I've tried a lot of diverse jobs but haven't found something that I'm truly passionate about. But when I think of what a job and life could be with the freedom to work under relaxed, fun and creative conditions and schedule hours that allow me to make time for my family...well, the idea is shear nirvana.
Nakamura Chapter 5: Measuring Race on the Internet
One of the last few comments Nakamura made near the end of her Introduction revolved around the explosion in racial and ethnic idently content on the Web: African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans are the fast growing groups of Web users,..."(pg 34). She really expands on this thought on page 180, stating, "The most important development in terms of Internet users between 2000 and 2005 is the radical increase in the number of women and ethnic and racial minorities online." Although surveys of Internet use had a tendency not to focus on race, the opposite is beginning to take place. In the past, the Internet was seen primarily as being dominated by white males, however we are beginning to see a shift in numbers. What I found most interesting about the numbers wasn't that African Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics were using the Internet more (as in parity to whites) but rather the content for which they were using the Internet. Nakamura focuses on the Pew Foundation's Internet usage report. In this report Internet usage is broken down into categories: "Fun", "Information Seeking", "Major Life Activities", and "Transactions". Of these categories, the Pew report found that majority of racial minorities spent their time doing things that fell under the "Fun" category as opposed to whites. It was implied that whites perhaps spend their time more on things like checking the weather or doing some online investing etc. However, Nakamura is quick to point out that it's rather unfair to assume what racial minorities are doing on the Web is less important than whites. Who decides what qualifies as "fun", "information seeking" or a "major life activity"?
It just so happens that as I sat down to write this blog last night, an episode of South Park came on Comedy Central. It was a re-run but ironically the very episode that had come to mind when I read Chapter 5. Here Comes The Neighborhood: http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103583
I really only want you to watch the first minute, in which Token (the only black kid in South Park) does his class project using his laptop and dad's video projector. It just seemed like a funny coincidence that I should be reading about racial minorities and the Internet and see this South Park episode...
But I digress, this isn't about South Park but how Nakamura has made careful note of Internet (and computer) usage by minorities (including women) over the last decade and that the digital divide isn't just about the have's and have not's but about perception of what digitally divides us when we use the Internet. What is the content? How do different ethnic groups compare to each other? Why is it that what whites are doing is ranked with more genuine importance than racial minorities?
It just so happens that as I sat down to write this blog last night, an episode of South Park came on Comedy Central. It was a re-run but ironically the very episode that had come to mind when I read Chapter 5. Here Comes The Neighborhood: http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103583
I really only want you to watch the first minute, in which Token (the only black kid in South Park) does his class project using his laptop and dad's video projector. It just seemed like a funny coincidence that I should be reading about racial minorities and the Internet and see this South Park episode...
But I digress, this isn't about South Park but how Nakamura has made careful note of Internet (and computer) usage by minorities (including women) over the last decade and that the digital divide isn't just about the have's and have not's but about perception of what digitally divides us when we use the Internet. What is the content? How do different ethnic groups compare to each other? Why is it that what whites are doing is ranked with more genuine importance than racial minorities?
Friday, February 12, 2010
Blog #5: G-Force
I’m a little nervous about this blog assignment. As Julie so plainly pointed out, Nakamura makes several important arguments about race and the networked interfaces. This might sound like a rather lame excuse, but it’s been a LONG time since I’ve had the chance to sit down and watch a movie. However, most recently I have had the enormous pleasure of watching mostly children’s movies with my 3 year old. The movie I decided to use as a basis for comparison for this assignment is called G-Force, a kids flick.
Okay, I am already afraid of what you’re thinking. Believe me I think I’m stretching a bit here, but I’m going to give it my best shot. Nakamura writes about random access and the iPod advertisement campaign (pages 111-113). It is posited (ha ha Nakamura!) that the iPod’s random-access technology (ie “shuffle” feature lets the machine “randomly” choose what to play) and a visual ad campaign produces “racialized bodies that correspond to specific typed genres of music,” and, “The notion that one can click through musical genres using software like Apple’s iTunes and download music to correspond to the omnipresent racialzed bodies in the ad links together the volitional mobility of the interfaced music shop with that of the consumer of the hipness and coolness of black expressive culture itself.” (p112) She points out that, as in The Matrix trilogy, the dancing silhouettes are a paradox “full of racialized color” and are/have signifiers of “Afros” in the phenol/stereo/typical ways you and I have come to recognize. This Afro-futuristic style (as in The Matrix) is a signifier of “cool.” She gives examples from Claudia Springer and Donnell Alexander illustrating how black characters and/or black people in general set the standard for cool. Both agree that black “cool” represents style and flair. By using this black “cool” theme in their ads, Apple has unwittingly separated blackness from other identities and races. “While digital music may operate under the logic of ‘random access,’ users create paths and narratives through exercising their desires that are far from random but rather produce predictable configurations of bodies, types, and images.” (pg 113)
Alrighty then. G-Force. Again, this is a stretch. I am not so much honing in on the “random access” bit as I am the black “cool” bit. "Armed with the latest in high-tech spy equipment, and with the F.B.I. on their tails, the fur flies as they race against the clock to save the world.” The main characters in this film are Darwin, Blaster, Juarez, and Hurley. Darwin (Sam Rockwell, a “white” guy) is our hero, saving the day and keeping his team together. Blaster (Tracy Morgan) is our “cool” black character; a “need for speed” action junkie and weapons expert with hip-hop flair and the hots for Juarez (Penelope Cruz). Juarez is the token female, so to speak; she’s the sophisticated kick ass martial arts diva playing hard to get. Hurley (Jon Favreau) is the dopey pet shop escapee turned side kick to Darwin who sorta helps save the day…well, they all help, but you know what I mean.
I think this movie represents everything stereotypical in relation to race, identity, and elitist genres. Blaster and Juarez are clearly the token ethinic representation needed for showing kids acceptance and diversification of "color." As with most stereotypical movies, Darwin is the team leader; the "white" guy and represents the glue that holds it all together while his back-up (always playing second) are the ethnic characters. Although all characters are highly trained and techies of every state-of-the-art digital media, it is Darwin who ends up being the hostess with the mostess: computer savvy and hi-tech inventor. This ties in with another one of the Nakamuras's many arguments about marginal black figures being in the background of white interface users. "Marginal blackness works to make whiteness even whiter by contrast: a necessary act in the contest of globalization, where transculturation threatens to fatally blur racial lines." (pg 108) Blaster and Juarez both kinda represent the "metaphor of the black servant to white interface users..." (pg 108) Blaster specifically is our link to the black "cool" (duh.)but more than that, he also represents the black servant; smart, strong, sassy, but second to Darwin.
Okay. That's the best I got today. I know it could be a stronger argument and comparison, but seeing how I've been working on this for blog all day and I'm late submitting it, I'll just stop here and hope for the best. Nakamura had a lot to say in this chapter and I was happy to read it. I learned a lot and wish I had a better example to use for this blog entry. I guess I should try to get out more...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vny3o6gLa8
Okay, I am already afraid of what you’re thinking. Believe me I think I’m stretching a bit here, but I’m going to give it my best shot. Nakamura writes about random access and the iPod advertisement campaign (pages 111-113). It is posited (ha ha Nakamura!) that the iPod’s random-access technology (ie “shuffle” feature lets the machine “randomly” choose what to play) and a visual ad campaign produces “racialized bodies that correspond to specific typed genres of music,” and, “The notion that one can click through musical genres using software like Apple’s iTunes and download music to correspond to the omnipresent racialzed bodies in the ad links together the volitional mobility of the interfaced music shop with that of the consumer of the hipness and coolness of black expressive culture itself.” (p112) She points out that, as in The Matrix trilogy, the dancing silhouettes are a paradox “full of racialized color” and are/have signifiers of “Afros” in the phenol/stereo/typical ways you and I have come to recognize. This Afro-futuristic style (as in The Matrix) is a signifier of “cool.” She gives examples from Claudia Springer and Donnell Alexander illustrating how black characters and/or black people in general set the standard for cool. Both agree that black “cool” represents style and flair. By using this black “cool” theme in their ads, Apple has unwittingly separated blackness from other identities and races. “While digital music may operate under the logic of ‘random access,’ users create paths and narratives through exercising their desires that are far from random but rather produce predictable configurations of bodies, types, and images.” (pg 113)
Alrighty then. G-Force. Again, this is a stretch. I am not so much honing in on the “random access” bit as I am the black “cool” bit. "Armed with the latest in high-tech spy equipment, and with the F.B.I. on their tails, the fur flies as they race against the clock to save the world.” The main characters in this film are Darwin, Blaster, Juarez, and Hurley. Darwin (Sam Rockwell, a “white” guy) is our hero, saving the day and keeping his team together. Blaster (Tracy Morgan) is our “cool” black character; a “need for speed” action junkie and weapons expert with hip-hop flair and the hots for Juarez (Penelope Cruz). Juarez is the token female, so to speak; she’s the sophisticated kick ass martial arts diva playing hard to get. Hurley (Jon Favreau) is the dopey pet shop escapee turned side kick to Darwin who sorta helps save the day…well, they all help, but you know what I mean.
I think this movie represents everything stereotypical in relation to race, identity, and elitist genres. Blaster and Juarez are clearly the token ethinic representation needed for showing kids acceptance and diversification of "color." As with most stereotypical movies, Darwin is the team leader; the "white" guy and represents the glue that holds it all together while his back-up (always playing second) are the ethnic characters. Although all characters are highly trained and techies of every state-of-the-art digital media, it is Darwin who ends up being the hostess with the mostess: computer savvy and hi-tech inventor. This ties in with another one of the Nakamuras's many arguments about marginal black figures being in the background of white interface users. "Marginal blackness works to make whiteness even whiter by contrast: a necessary act in the contest of globalization, where transculturation threatens to fatally blur racial lines." (pg 108) Blaster and Juarez both kinda represent the "metaphor of the black servant to white interface users..." (pg 108) Blaster specifically is our link to the black "cool" (duh.)but more than that, he also represents the black servant; smart, strong, sassy, but second to Darwin.
Okay. That's the best I got today. I know it could be a stronger argument and comparison, but seeing how I've been working on this for blog all day and I'm late submitting it, I'll just stop here and hope for the best. Nakamura had a lot to say in this chapter and I was happy to read it. I learned a lot and wish I had a better example to use for this blog entry. I guess I should try to get out more...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vny3o6gLa8
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Cyborg Manifesto
What a great essay! As with most of the reading assigned (or not) for this class, I didn't know what to expect when I read Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century". I was astounded! I'm willing to bet that most guys might not be able to fully appreciate this, but it's rather empowering as a female to read feminist theory from a brilliant scholar and feminist like Donna Haraway. In titling her essay "A Cyborg Manifesto" Haraway calls to attention parallel theories originating with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and "The Communist Manifesto" with socialist-feminism and the feminist identity in a patriarchal world. It is a call to action.
The "cyborg" represents a metaphor for the breach of boundaries between science, technology and the socialist-feminist; a breach between animal and machine where biology and technology are so entwined you cannot tell one from the other. Haraway's metaphor of the cyborg is "an effort to contribute to socialist-feminist culture and theory in a postmodernist, non-naturalist mode and in the utopian tradition of imagining a world without gender..."(pg 2)
It is presupposed that women/females inherently or biologically have an instant connections to each other; that our identities have common ground. However, as Haraway points out, "There is nothing about being 'female' that naturally binds women. There is not even such a state as 'being' female, itself a highly complex category constructed in contested sexual scientific discourses and other social practices." (pg 6) The cyborg, being neither animal or machine, is a metaphor for the hi-tech cultural restructuring of society from an organic and biological society to one of a "polymorphous information system". To illustrate her point, she charts this transition from old "Western" dualism of ideologies to the new technological networks and calls it the "informatics of domination". I would love to reproduce that list in this entry but it's pretty long and needs to be separated into two columns to make the correlations between the two.
Cyborgs are the embodiment of our disembodied females selves; disassembled and reassembled animal and machine.
"The machine is us, our processes, an aspect of our embodiment. We can be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us. We are responsible for boundaries; we are they. Up till now (once upon a time), female embodiment seemed to be given, organic, necessary; and female embodiment seemed to mean skill in mothering and its metaphoric extensions. Only by being out of place could we take intense pleasure in machines, and then with excuses that this was organic activity after all, appropriate to females. Cyborgs might consider more seriously the partial, fluid, sometimes aspect of sex and sexual embodiment. Gender might not be global identity after all, even if it has profound historical breadth and depth."
Social-feminism is the dichotomy of politics and feminism. It is the embodiment of the labor of women and the roles we assume in a male-dominated or patriarchal world. We must make ourselves like cyborgs. A hybrid of animal and machine; genderless, sexless, raceless beings staking claims and calling to action our political foundations. Haraway concludes that cyborg imagery "is an imagination of a feminist speaking in tongues to strike fear into the circuits of the supersavers of the new right. It means both building and destroying machines, identities, categories, relationships, space stories. Though both are bound in the spiral dance, I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess."
http://wmst490.drkissling.com/spring2009/files/cyborg_manifesto.pdf
The "cyborg" represents a metaphor for the breach of boundaries between science, technology and the socialist-feminist; a breach between animal and machine where biology and technology are so entwined you cannot tell one from the other. Haraway's metaphor of the cyborg is "an effort to contribute to socialist-feminist culture and theory in a postmodernist, non-naturalist mode and in the utopian tradition of imagining a world without gender..."(pg 2)
It is presupposed that women/females inherently or biologically have an instant connections to each other; that our identities have common ground. However, as Haraway points out, "There is nothing about being 'female' that naturally binds women. There is not even such a state as 'being' female, itself a highly complex category constructed in contested sexual scientific discourses and other social practices." (pg 6) The cyborg, being neither animal or machine, is a metaphor for the hi-tech cultural restructuring of society from an organic and biological society to one of a "polymorphous information system". To illustrate her point, she charts this transition from old "Western" dualism of ideologies to the new technological networks and calls it the "informatics of domination". I would love to reproduce that list in this entry but it's pretty long and needs to be separated into two columns to make the correlations between the two.
Cyborgs are the embodiment of our disembodied females selves; disassembled and reassembled animal and machine.
"The machine is us, our processes, an aspect of our embodiment. We can be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us. We are responsible for boundaries; we are they. Up till now (once upon a time), female embodiment seemed to be given, organic, necessary; and female embodiment seemed to mean skill in mothering and its metaphoric extensions. Only by being out of place could we take intense pleasure in machines, and then with excuses that this was organic activity after all, appropriate to females. Cyborgs might consider more seriously the partial, fluid, sometimes aspect of sex and sexual embodiment. Gender might not be global identity after all, even if it has profound historical breadth and depth."
Social-feminism is the dichotomy of politics and feminism. It is the embodiment of the labor of women and the roles we assume in a male-dominated or patriarchal world. We must make ourselves like cyborgs. A hybrid of animal and machine; genderless, sexless, raceless beings staking claims and calling to action our political foundations. Haraway concludes that cyborg imagery "is an imagination of a feminist speaking in tongues to strike fear into the circuits of the supersavers of the new right. It means both building and destroying machines, identities, categories, relationships, space stories. Though both are bound in the spiral dance, I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess."
http://wmst490.drkissling.com/spring2009/files/cyborg_manifesto.pdf
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Captain's Blog
Star date: February 4, 2010
We are in the fourth week of the semester and my head is a maelstrom of technological terms, concepts and ideas. On the first day of classes it became apparent, much to my dismay, that I would be required to keep a blog for two of my 4 classes. I am no stranger to blogs, having started one after the birth of my son. But considering I'm a DTC major, it seems pretty obvious why it was required for me to keep a new one.
I spent the better part of this week dividing my reading time between Dennis Baron's A Better Pencil and Lisa Nakamura's Digital Race. I went to bed last night with the intention of letting my thoughts about blogs, FB, MySpace, AIM icons and the like steep overnight before I sat down to compose this entry. Little did I know it would wind up haunting my dreams causing restless sleep and still no real idea of what to write.
I never considered writing to be something that was hard for me. Until now. Even though I have a FB account and periodically update my status, blogging was more of a means of communicating the milestones of my son to friends and family who were far away. Not that they aren't interested in what's going on with me, but he (my son) is what's usually going on with me. It never occurred to me to blog personal thoughts or emotions of my daily life. I've always been aware of the risks involved in a public blog, even FB status updates. I'm not dumb enough to vent about people (unless it's some random person nobody knows) or my job because...why? Does anybody really care what I think? I haven't posted an entry to my/my son's personal blog since September (shame on me). The pressure to write something intelligent on my personal blog didn't exist in the way it does for this school blog. Most of the time (including now) I feel like all I do is ramble. I write the way I talk, pouring thoughts, words and sentences as I might say them out loud in conversation. I became aware of following the "rules" of Netiquette only after a friend pointed it out to me in an email...long before I ever had a blog or FB account. They didn't do it because I was breaking the rules, but more as a way to keep me in the loop. Even then I thought it was dumb. I found email, IM, text and blogging to be impersonal compared to face-to-face interactions and it wasn't until someone told me THAT WRITING IN ALL CAPS WAS SHOUTING that I made sure not to write in with the caps lock on, even though I rarely used caps to begin with when composing emails or texts.
For the most part, blogging is sorta fun, depending on the subject matter. I can certainly appreciate the risks involved from an educational standpoint (correct spelling and grammar) and a privacy standpoint. Regardless, I can positively say that no matter who is blogging and what they're blogging about, the content can impact people in different meaningful (or meaningless) ways. We are all authors in our own right. Hooray for us!
http://www.thelaceyreport.blogspot.com
http://thumpers-hole.net/wordpress
http://cupcakeblog.com
We are in the fourth week of the semester and my head is a maelstrom of technological terms, concepts and ideas. On the first day of classes it became apparent, much to my dismay, that I would be required to keep a blog for two of my 4 classes. I am no stranger to blogs, having started one after the birth of my son. But considering I'm a DTC major, it seems pretty obvious why it was required for me to keep a new one.
I spent the better part of this week dividing my reading time between Dennis Baron's A Better Pencil and Lisa Nakamura's Digital Race. I went to bed last night with the intention of letting my thoughts about blogs, FB, MySpace, AIM icons and the like steep overnight before I sat down to compose this entry. Little did I know it would wind up haunting my dreams causing restless sleep and still no real idea of what to write.
I never considered writing to be something that was hard for me. Until now. Even though I have a FB account and periodically update my status, blogging was more of a means of communicating the milestones of my son to friends and family who were far away. Not that they aren't interested in what's going on with me, but he (my son) is what's usually going on with me. It never occurred to me to blog personal thoughts or emotions of my daily life. I've always been aware of the risks involved in a public blog, even FB status updates. I'm not dumb enough to vent about people (unless it's some random person nobody knows) or my job because...why? Does anybody really care what I think? I haven't posted an entry to my/my son's personal blog since September (shame on me). The pressure to write something intelligent on my personal blog didn't exist in the way it does for this school blog. Most of the time (including now) I feel like all I do is ramble. I write the way I talk, pouring thoughts, words and sentences as I might say them out loud in conversation. I became aware of following the "rules" of Netiquette only after a friend pointed it out to me in an email...long before I ever had a blog or FB account. They didn't do it because I was breaking the rules, but more as a way to keep me in the loop. Even then I thought it was dumb. I found email, IM, text and blogging to be impersonal compared to face-to-face interactions and it wasn't until someone told me THAT WRITING IN ALL CAPS WAS SHOUTING that I made sure not to write in with the caps lock on, even though I rarely used caps to begin with when composing emails or texts.
For the most part, blogging is sorta fun, depending on the subject matter. I can certainly appreciate the risks involved from an educational standpoint (correct spelling and grammar) and a privacy standpoint. Regardless, I can positively say that no matter who is blogging and what they're blogging about, the content can impact people in different meaningful (or meaningless) ways. We are all authors in our own right. Hooray for us!
http://www.thelaceyreport.blogspot.com
http://thumpers-hole.net/wordpress
http://cupcakeblog.com
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
DTC 475 Haraway Article Shout Out!
Hello group. For Friday's blog assignment, I'm calling Donna Haraway's article: The Cyborg Manifesto as mine.
Thanks,
Dena.
Thanks,
Dena.
A Better Pencil
I don't want to sound incredulously surprised, but I have really enjoyed the assigned books for this class. It's hard to know where to begin with my thoughts on A Better Pencil, but the first thing that came to mind while reading the first few chapters revolved around the art of penmanship. I have to admit, I have a bit of a stationary fetish, or at least I did when I had time to sit down and hand write notes. I've lived here in the NW since 2002, having left all my family and closest friends behind in Austin, TX. Although my primary form of communication has always been the phone, a long time high school friend and I began snail mail correspondence almost immediately after I moved here. As life (marriage, babies, divorce, everyday stuff) would have it, we've had to stop writing and have moved to Facebook, but I miss the days of sitting down to with pen and pretty paper to write out my "how are yous" and funny little anecdotes. What a pleasure it was to open the mailbox and see her familiar handwriting on the envelope!
Nowadays things are different. Today when I open my mailbox I find bills and junk mail advertisments. Long lost are the handwritten letters that would bring the inevitable smile to my face and heart. (le sigh) I have often wondered what will become of the practice (and art) of penmanship. I remember elementary school days practicing "handwriting" both print and cursive; writing and repeating letter after letter and being graded on how well or poorly my handwriting was. When I was in high school book reports and research papers were always handwritten although using a typewriter or the ever astounding word processor were options but never required. Do they even teach handwriting to children today? Will my son know what it means to bring home 1st or 2nd grade homework that revolves around practicing his penmanship? Or will he be required to learn to type properly on a computer keyboard? At the very least I know he'll learn to write with a trusty No. 2 pencil or pen. I'm counting on it since I have vowed to have his first legible written name tranposed with permanent ink onto my skin.
I know I'm only skimming the surface on what Dennis Baron has written about in A Better Pencil, but the depth of his research and observations about writing throughout the course of time is not one to be taken lightly. Technology, as we have learned, has changed the course of writing. Did writing make people dumb, as Plato suggested? Hardly. Has the typewriter and computer altered the course of written word? Yes. However, as Dennis Baron pointed out, although the technology, ranging from clay tablets to pencils to typewriters to computers has changed the way "writing" is done, "...when the newness of the latest writing upgrade wears off, the content, as always, will have to make it on its own." (pg 15) This could not be more true.
Nowadays things are different. Today when I open my mailbox I find bills and junk mail advertisments. Long lost are the handwritten letters that would bring the inevitable smile to my face and heart. (le sigh) I have often wondered what will become of the practice (and art) of penmanship. I remember elementary school days practicing "handwriting" both print and cursive; writing and repeating letter after letter and being graded on how well or poorly my handwriting was. When I was in high school book reports and research papers were always handwritten although using a typewriter or the ever astounding word processor were options but never required. Do they even teach handwriting to children today? Will my son know what it means to bring home 1st or 2nd grade homework that revolves around practicing his penmanship? Or will he be required to learn to type properly on a computer keyboard? At the very least I know he'll learn to write with a trusty No. 2 pencil or pen. I'm counting on it since I have vowed to have his first legible written name tranposed with permanent ink onto my skin.
I know I'm only skimming the surface on what Dennis Baron has written about in A Better Pencil, but the depth of his research and observations about writing throughout the course of time is not one to be taken lightly. Technology, as we have learned, has changed the course of writing. Did writing make people dumb, as Plato suggested? Hardly. Has the typewriter and computer altered the course of written word? Yes. However, as Dennis Baron pointed out, although the technology, ranging from clay tablets to pencils to typewriters to computers has changed the way "writing" is done, "...when the newness of the latest writing upgrade wears off, the content, as always, will have to make it on its own." (pg 15) This could not be more true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)