Thursday, March 20, 2008
JenniCam
In the article about JenniCam, I was struck by how the camera positions Jenny at times as a child under the maternal gaze, at other times puts her in the maternal position in relation to her 'supplicants.' It is interesting how the camera serves the function with Jenny to shuttle her from adolescence to adulthood, especially when you think about how Danah Boyd championed another technology, myspace, as an integral part of socialization and adolescent development. It's worth considering the new roles technology will start playing in human development, perhaps as a surrogate for human caregiving.
I think we can agree, all of us, that developing alongside classical NEW MEDIA THEORY are the thoughts and writings of PAUL VIRILIO, which are fast outstripping our ability to develop terms. His present means of fragmentation, or textual interference, call for a RESPONSE of an INTERNET scale, an action that has hardly been discussed thus far. The new academic-contextual-textual continuum is no longer so much TENURED PROFESSORS, which have become more or less standard, as the multiplication of MINI-VIRILIOS are installed in more and more regions of the world and are available for consultation in PDF, BOOK, and even HTML/STREAMED/SCREENED form, as a veritable CRASH OF IMAGES. Even DERRIDA is outmatched. In reality, these "micro-virilios", whose capabilities will soon be comparable to the DEVELOPED PERSONAS of professional cultural critics, represent the overcoming of the classical scientifo-logical semantic.
As a matter of fact, we are moving, whether we know it or not, toward DEMOCRATIZATION OF VIRILIOISM on a planetary scale.
— I, for one, think that we should all be concerned.
As a matter of fact, we are moving, whether we know it or not, toward DEMOCRATIZATION OF VIRILIOISM on a planetary scale.
— I, for one, think that we should all be concerned.
1 Year Performances
M.River and T.Whid (MTAA) attest that “1 year performance video” is an update on Hsieh’s earlier work: “Though the work stands fully on its own, another dimension is added when it's viewed in dialogue with the work that inspired it. The choices made in updating the work we believe speaks to how our society, culture, and the creative process has changed since the original was created” (http://turbulence.org/Works/1year/info.php?page=bg). I would be a happy little blogger to learn how the artists see their work as an “update,” (in using this word they are implying a linear historical trajectory that connects Hsieh’s work and theirs) because I don’t see any real commonalities in the two pieces at all. Yes, they share a name, and yes, in each something is “enclosed” for one year, but the stakes, aesthetics, and conceptual ground differ radically in the two pieces.
To point one just one basic but seminal difference: Hsieh’s performance evokes awe and is emotionally difficult to digest—here is a caged human being, consciously rejecting all technology, tediously propagating his confinement/de-socialization until his self-appointed release. This has great emotive appeal as well as a pedagogical facet. The work reads like a meditation on a “bare life” (to borrow G. Agamben’s term) as the uncertain high-order reconciliation between the human and the animal. “1 year performance video” is a staged video loop programmed to play for one year to a registered viewer before it unveils itself (its raw data). There is no life at stake here (neither is there any possibility of true surveillance of life), only a representation of life that is mediated countless times by technology and is now playing on my monitor. It is nearly impossible for me to care about the video, much less about what will happen if I let it play for a year. There is no incitement to give much laborious thought to the piece or to feel anything about it altogether.
MTAA are aware of this: “No one needs to suffer on this one. The failure is built-in at the front end” (http://turbulence.org/Works/1year/info.php?page=bg). How then is this failure an “update” of the original? Likewise, how exactly does “1 year performance video” speak to the cultural transformations since the early 80s? I feel like the artists would be inclined to use a lot of jargon borrowed from Manovich in answering this, which has theoretical weight to be sure, but in stating that “the creative process has changed since the original was created” they are positing an essentializing slogan of “New Media” that totalizes artistic creation as a whole. I feel like this is an exaggerated and unfounded claim. Moreover, can MTAA be implying that the creative process and end-result is now hollow and somehow ontologically inferior to the “real-thing-that-once-was”?
To point one just one basic but seminal difference: Hsieh’s performance evokes awe and is emotionally difficult to digest—here is a caged human being, consciously rejecting all technology, tediously propagating his confinement/de-socialization until his self-appointed release. This has great emotive appeal as well as a pedagogical facet. The work reads like a meditation on a “bare life” (to borrow G. Agamben’s term) as the uncertain high-order reconciliation between the human and the animal. “1 year performance video” is a staged video loop programmed to play for one year to a registered viewer before it unveils itself (its raw data). There is no life at stake here (neither is there any possibility of true surveillance of life), only a representation of life that is mediated countless times by technology and is now playing on my monitor. It is nearly impossible for me to care about the video, much less about what will happen if I let it play for a year. There is no incitement to give much laborious thought to the piece or to feel anything about it altogether.
MTAA are aware of this: “No one needs to suffer on this one. The failure is built-in at the front end” (http://turbulence.org/Works/1year/info.php?page=bg). How then is this failure an “update” of the original? Likewise, how exactly does “1 year performance video” speak to the cultural transformations since the early 80s? I feel like the artists would be inclined to use a lot of jargon borrowed from Manovich in answering this, which has theoretical weight to be sure, but in stating that “the creative process has changed since the original was created” they are positing an essentializing slogan of “New Media” that totalizes artistic creation as a whole. I feel like this is an exaggerated and unfounded claim. Moreover, can MTAA be implying that the creative process and end-result is now hollow and somehow ontologically inferior to the “real-thing-that-once-was”?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
is youtube the visual crash?
"The visual crash is equivalent to a /i/failure of the phenomena/i/, a failure from which only disinformation [...] will be able to profit." Even before completely figuring out what this means, it reminded me of youtube: A crash of images causing a mess... But to unpack this further:
From AH Dictionary; a phenomenon is, "In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses." So "failure of the phenomena" means that if a globally voyeuristic network (youtube) reaches Virilio's 'crash' point of overwhelming 'overexposure,' then our perception of these objects (objects of surveillance?) will fail. Fail to what? Fail by doing what?
If "only disinformation will be able to profit," then information must have less value, so perhaps the visual crash of overexposure, of information, floods the 'visual market' (to take a page out of Virilio's book and turn the stock market into the visual market) with so much information that it crashes to become not worthless but not profitable. Rising from the crash of information then can only be disinformation. But what is disinformation? Is disinformation merely misinformation or is it information that transcends the mass of normal information (say, youtube's recently added page) to become captivating information (the one video in a billion that you email to all your friends)?
From AH Dictionary; a phenomenon is, "In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses." So "failure of the phenomena" means that if a globally voyeuristic network (youtube) reaches Virilio's 'crash' point of overwhelming 'overexposure,' then our perception of these objects (objects of surveillance?) will fail. Fail to what? Fail by doing what?
If "only disinformation will be able to profit," then information must have less value, so perhaps the visual crash of overexposure, of information, floods the 'visual market' (to take a page out of Virilio's book and turn the stock market into the visual market) with so much information that it crashes to become not worthless but not profitable. Rising from the crash of information then can only be disinformation. But what is disinformation? Is disinformation merely misinformation or is it information that transcends the mass of normal information (say, youtube's recently added page) to become captivating information (the one video in a billion that you email to all your friends)?
but mommy, i want it NOW
After reading Victor Burgin's article “Jenni's Room,” I was struck by the way in which our concept of “instant access” has changed. At the height of JenniCam's popularity around 2000, “at any time of day or night anyone who can log on to the web may look into Jenni's room” (77).
Except you couldn't, really.
What you saw was an extremely low-quality image of Jennifer's room, updated every 180 seconds. That's a frame rate over 4000 times slower than most commercial films. Nowadays, if I want to see what's going on somewhere in the world where a webcam has been placed, say Times Square, the experience is much more immersive. I am presented with several different camera angles to choose from, all of which are streamed to me live and with sound.
JenniCam has been relegated to the realm of exhibitionist art. It and its thousands of spinoffs are no longer instant enough for us to be taken at face value. I am reminded of Tara McPherson's article, “Reload,” and her description of the ways in which we have become obsessed with liveness. “...the Web references the unyielding speed of the present, linking presence and temporality in a frenetic, scrolling now. We hit refresh. We feel time move. ... Just click. Immediate gratification” (201).
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
demonstrations
What is interesting about “demonstrate” is that it feels a bit invasive. When we contemplate the possibility of have a camera tracking our motions through a public space for anyone on the internet to see and photograph, we typically react negatively. As Sean pointed out, if such cameras were to proliferate so that we could almost expect to be on one in any large public space, there would most likely be an outcry of public backlash. What is interesting is that “demonstrate” particularly invokes in us this feeling when in fact, to the extent that camera systems like the one in the piece can track and photograph us in public, we could easily be documented by anyone to an even greater extent with out our knowledge. In effect, a network of human beings bearing cameras, cameraphones, and voice recorders are as threatening to our privacy in public as any system of cameras could be. In the end, the aesthetics of “demonstrate” revolve around the fact that it only seems invasive when in comparison it really isn’t.
Something completely different: “Is it possible to practice image making by exploring all of image-space using a computer rather than by recording from the world around us?” This quote comes from John Simon’s artist’s statement about his piece “Every Icon.” First of all, if it is possible, Simon’s piece is not going to be a very efficient way to go about it. Its astronomical proportions make it a not-useful way of systematically generating imagery. Secondly, Simon’s interesting idea of exploring “image-space” doesn’t seem to really need a computer. We process all visual signals as unique snowflakes and readout on a computer screen is no different from the already infinite variety of images we find elsewhere. Computer’s could potentially be used to create a kind of navigable “image-space” which would be very interesting (four dimensional? Probably not.) but not until we can conquer astronomical figures.
Something completely different: “Is it possible to practice image making by exploring all of image-space using a computer rather than by recording from the world around us?” This quote comes from John Simon’s artist’s statement about his piece “Every Icon.” First of all, if it is possible, Simon’s piece is not going to be a very efficient way to go about it. Its astronomical proportions make it a not-useful way of systematically generating imagery. Secondly, Simon’s interesting idea of exploring “image-space” doesn’t seem to really need a computer. We process all visual signals as unique snowflakes and readout on a computer screen is no different from the already infinite variety of images we find elsewhere. Computer’s could potentially be used to create a kind of navigable “image-space” which would be very interesting (four dimensional? Probably not.) but not until we can conquer astronomical figures.
panopticism
In the Panopticism, Michel Foucault stresses that the notion of the panopticon is that of a persistent surveillance of our actions. More accurately, it is the illusion that we are constantly under surveillance. He state that “To induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who excises it.” At a prison, if there is a guard tower in the outdoor court area that looks over the whole prison but no one is able to look inside and know whether the guard is watching, then it is not necessary to put a guard in the tower all the time because the prisoners will act as if they are being watched. “Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. The inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central power from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment, but he must be sure that he may always be so.” This concept of panopticon applies to the society governance, as “Discipline” is the “physics” or an “anatomy” of power. The disciplinary society is not necessarily one with a panopticon in every street, it is one where the state controls such methods of coercion and operates them throughout society. The best form of governance is its ability to create the illusion surveillance.
Surveillence/Capture : Space/Time
One difference between the surveillance model and capture model is articulated through Virilio’s argument that “real time has superseded real space.” In world where information can travel at increasingly higher speeds (as he says in his other article, “real time abolishes the historical primacy of local time.”) location and space are increasingly unimportant.
Foucault’s discipline-mechanism, as shown by the panopticon, spatially organizes individuals: “This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place…in which each individual is constantly located…” When this model operates in society, it controls individuals by making them productive facets of a larger, hierarchal system, subtly restricting their liberty of movement. F writes that “discipline fixes; it arrests or regulates movements; it clears up confusion;…it established calculated distributions.” What is distinct here is the discipline model’s focus on spatial organization and distribution as a way of control.
On the other hand, tracking (a form of capture) registers changes and state-variations over time. Furthermore, the “grammars of actions” that Agre uses to describe the way computers represent/map already existing systems are composed of actions or “state-changes.” I think what is that any time a computer wants to capture information/data, it can only do so based on a user’s change in status—on a most basic level, a computer captures data based on changes over time. Agre says that this allows for a freedom and a mobility that is not enjoyed by people in “Tayloized” work (from the explanation a few weeks ago of Taylorism, it seems to be akin to Foucault’s disciplinary society.) This distinction between space and time is also an element in Agre’s summary of differences between the surveillance and the capture models, “The surveillance model is concerned to mark of a “private” region by means of territorial metaphors of “invasion” and the like; the capture model portrays captured activities as being constructed in real time…”
I it makes sense that computer’s capture is time based rather than space based (what Virilio and Agre are arguably implying), but it’s still interesting to speculate about how this came about. To do this, I’m going to go on a short tangent here at the end about these ideas of mobility. Is it relevant at all that we are physically immobile when we sit in front of the computer? For all of the spatial organization and control of a disciplinary society, humans were probably more physically mobile under that form of power. Even if we are virtually more mobile when our actions are being captured online rather than being under surveillance, have we sacrificed material mobility for virtual mobility? Perhaps space is no longer important not only because it has been superseded by real-time, but because we now have the navigable space of the computer described by Manovich. The experience of physical immobility sitting in front of a computer may seem silly until you consider other trends in the new media world: trading a physical body for a virtual one, confusing actual and virtual rape, and trading real space for navigable space.
Foucault’s discipline-mechanism, as shown by the panopticon, spatially organizes individuals: “This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place…in which each individual is constantly located…” When this model operates in society, it controls individuals by making them productive facets of a larger, hierarchal system, subtly restricting their liberty of movement. F writes that “discipline fixes; it arrests or regulates movements; it clears up confusion;…it established calculated distributions.” What is distinct here is the discipline model’s focus on spatial organization and distribution as a way of control.
On the other hand, tracking (a form of capture) registers changes and state-variations over time. Furthermore, the “grammars of actions” that Agre uses to describe the way computers represent/map already existing systems are composed of actions or “state-changes.” I think what is that any time a computer wants to capture information/data, it can only do so based on a user’s change in status—on a most basic level, a computer captures data based on changes over time. Agre says that this allows for a freedom and a mobility that is not enjoyed by people in “Tayloized” work (from the explanation a few weeks ago of Taylorism, it seems to be akin to Foucault’s disciplinary society.) This distinction between space and time is also an element in Agre’s summary of differences between the surveillance and the capture models, “The surveillance model is concerned to mark of a “private” region by means of territorial metaphors of “invasion” and the like; the capture model portrays captured activities as being constructed in real time…”
I it makes sense that computer’s capture is time based rather than space based (what Virilio and Agre are arguably implying), but it’s still interesting to speculate about how this came about. To do this, I’m going to go on a short tangent here at the end about these ideas of mobility. Is it relevant at all that we are physically immobile when we sit in front of the computer? For all of the spatial organization and control of a disciplinary society, humans were probably more physically mobile under that form of power. Even if we are virtually more mobile when our actions are being captured online rather than being under surveillance, have we sacrificed material mobility for virtual mobility? Perhaps space is no longer important not only because it has been superseded by real-time, but because we now have the navigable space of the computer described by Manovich. The experience of physical immobility sitting in front of a computer may seem silly until you consider other trends in the new media world: trading a physical body for a virtual one, confusing actual and virtual rape, and trading real space for navigable space.
The long slow march
When we finally notice that we are being watched, why do we all of a sudden change our behavior? Why do we feel the need to project something completely different from what we actually feel like doing? It’s probably because of our fear that the authority will not approve of what we actually want to do, and that what we want is always contradicted by what we should (examples abound throughout Judeo-Christian ideology and parenting methods). Perhaps we try to portray the ideal instead of embodying the “flawed.” I notice some students change their behavior to be much more unusual, usually on the voice volume scale, when they see a tour of the campus going by. Why should our lives matter to these people we don’t even know? Why do we feel the need to treat these other people as a mirror of our lives, by which we can judge ourselves?
When I started looking at the “Demonstrate” web site, I began to think about surveillance and what would happen if they started hooking up real time cameras in more public spaces, and if they began publishing the videos and pictures for the world to see. People would probably freak out at first and revolt against the idea, but after a while, the fuss would probably die down and people would resume life as normal. My conclusion reminded me of our discussion over the uproar about the News Feed on Facebook, and how, now, people have gotten used to the idea about things being published about their actions on their profiles and on others’ home pages. Why do we change our attitudes when we have an object which becomes a mirror to ourselves? Why do we look at ourselves different in regular mirrors? Why would we eventually get used to the idea of the surveillance society? Would we actually? Has the progression to real time changed our ideas about privacy and are we slowly walking to Big Brother, but freely accepting it?
"I watched TV, it informed me, I was an ordinary man with ordinary desire.."
Right now I’m watching the 1 year performance videostream as well as Anacam. I’m sort of pissed off at both, completely bored with one, and utterly glued to the other. Frustration: nothing’s really happening on either cam; the two dudes are lying down, one on the floor and one on his bed; the “Ana” cam just shows a dark room (I think it’s a room) with a partially closed door. Oh wait, now the two guys are both typing on their computers (I’m doing the same thing). Ana’s door still hasn’t moved. Boredom: I don’t feel the need to watch someone do the same exact thing I’m doing in my room. Where’s the fun in that? Captivation: my attention is on the Anacam; when is something going to happen finally and what the hell is that something going to be? I’ve got reading and other work to do but I just want to sit here and watch until anything goes down. There’s some need for me to be watching when anything happens. I’ve got an all encompassing view of the two dudes (one’s doing push-ups!!), but this kind of access to everything they’re doing in their little cubicles isn’t quite as interesting as what I can’t see (yet?) on the Anacam. Now after realizing I’ve watched for a few minutes, I’m starting to feel like a creep ‘cause I don’t know what I’m expecting to see on Ana’s cam and whether it’s connected to Burgin’s and Barthes’ quotes on perversion and “the staging of an appearance as disappearance.” There’s something a little more harmless in watching the two dudes (back at their computers) than waiting for a glimpse of Ana in her dark, partially concealed doorway. This is too sketchy for my liking. I guess there’s some kind of underlying desire to see what you think you can’t see when someone’s in the privacy of their own home as opposed to two guys (apparently they get newspapers in their boxes) just sitting around doing what I do when I’m sitting in my sorry excuse for a living space. Maybe I’m just seeing too much of myself in these cams. Damn you Lacan!!
Also, in case anyone is interested, Death Cab For Cutie is playing in May (sorry for the plug):
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=10182779221
Also, in case anyone is interested, Death Cab For Cutie is playing in May (sorry for the plug):
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=10182779221
"The Sky is Full of Zeroes and Ones!!"
I agree with Julia about the (un)catastrophic nature of the impending “information bomb” that Paul Virilio mentions in his articles. Of course the whole of human knowledge is expanding exponentially- we have digitized our data and have the capacity to store as much as we can create. But I don’t forsee this leading to a mind-blowing “Infocalypse” because it is not going to be experienced by everyone at the same time. The data is stored, spread around, and accessed when it is required.
Just because information exists does not mean it wants to be everywhere at once. We will have a lot of data stored (a lot) but a large number does not mean catastrophe- it is expected.
I can see a risk in the preservation methods- a large amount of data could stand to be lost in the destruction of a relatively tiny chip, but by and large I assume that all the important stuff has been backed up.
However, if there is going to be an information explosion, I’d say (according to this very scientific graphical representation of the development of humans) we’re in the thick of it and heading for the worst.
(graph is from here)
Just because information exists does not mean it wants to be everywhere at once. We will have a lot of data stored (a lot) but a large number does not mean catastrophe- it is expected.
I can see a risk in the preservation methods- a large amount of data could stand to be lost in the destruction of a relatively tiny chip, but by and large I assume that all the important stuff has been backed up.
However, if there is going to be an information explosion, I’d say (according to this very scientific graphical representation of the development of humans) we’re in the thick of it and heading for the worst.
(graph is from here) 
star power
I have often wondered about the power that woman have over the (male) gaze, and whether by controlling it power is transferred to her, or whether the power remains the voyeur’s, as I think many would have it. Is a woman’s to-be-looked-at-ness a mark of her weakness––a sort of deer-in-the-headlights situation, in which she is trapped by the gaze and laid bare to it––a mark of objectification (when she, ironically, becomes the subject of a gaze), or a mark of her power over the one who’s gaze she is controlling?
Burgin’s discussion of the JenniCam raises similar questions. If Jennifer Ringley cannot control when the camera takes the pictures or who her audience is, is she still in control? If people can take the pictures of her when she is naked or when she is having sex and put them on the internet, without her knowledge, can she possibly have power in this situation?
Burgin remarks on page 86 that “Jenni plays not only the revelation and concealment of parts of her body. More significantly, it is her entire person whose coming and going she controls.” She has successfully made her entire person the object of desire, because .
By being gone for the majority of the time, her fans miss her. By being present only ever in three minute intervals, her fans want to know what is happening in between the photos. By only showing her dorm room, her fans want to know what goes on in the rest of her life, and probably, they want to know what she is like, what they don’t get to see. And isn’t this what everyone wants? For not only your body to be the desired object, but also the rest of you? Has Jennifer achieved what we all hanker after?
And this is the allure of movie stars. The popularity of tabloids reveals a desire to get to know the movies stars better. Fans want to meet them, speak to them, be recognized by the stars, even though it is they themselves who are under the public’s eye. Where they go, their watchers will follow. So my question is, I suppose, a question of desire. Does the fact that no voyeur can see all of a subject give that subject of his scrutiny the power?
Burgin’s discussion of the JenniCam raises similar questions. If Jennifer Ringley cannot control when the camera takes the pictures or who her audience is, is she still in control? If people can take the pictures of her when she is naked or when she is having sex and put them on the internet, without her knowledge, can she possibly have power in this situation?
Burgin remarks on page 86 that “Jenni plays not only the revelation and concealment of parts of her body. More significantly, it is her entire person whose coming and going she controls.” She has successfully made her entire person the object of desire, because .
By being gone for the majority of the time, her fans miss her. By being present only ever in three minute intervals, her fans want to know what is happening in between the photos. By only showing her dorm room, her fans want to know what goes on in the rest of her life, and probably, they want to know what she is like, what they don’t get to see. And isn’t this what everyone wants? For not only your body to be the desired object, but also the rest of you? Has Jennifer achieved what we all hanker after?
And this is the allure of movie stars. The popularity of tabloids reveals a desire to get to know the movies stars better. Fans want to meet them, speak to them, be recognized by the stars, even though it is they themselves who are under the public’s eye. Where they go, their watchers will follow. So my question is, I suppose, a question of desire. Does the fact that no voyeur can see all of a subject give that subject of his scrutiny the power?
Boom?
When Paul Virilio predicts that the speeding up of time in the form of web “real time” is going to result in an “information bomb” in the same way that Einstein predicted the collapse of space-time at the speed of light, what does he envision? What would an “information bomb” look like; how would it manifest itself?
His own argumentation called his thesis into question for me: he highlights the parallel, for example, between the Italian Renaissance’s formation of spatial perspective and the internet’s formation of temporal perspective. While another dimension was discovered, changing visual representation forever, nothing exploded. Visual representation was not harmed; there was no Armageddon of the way we move through space, either in art or in life. So why should I believe that the introduction of real time, which is essentially the exploration of a new dimension, will speed forward into an information explosion?
Furthermore, the “real time” projects we looked at this week seem (to me) to disprove his argumentation. John Simon’s “Every Icon” should be the perfect example of overexposure in real-time (it will create every possible image I could see on the web) but his project clearly will not have the effect of a crash.
Is the kind of “crash” he has in mind, for example, the threatening mail that Jenni received? In “Visual Crash,” he argues that real-time closes the distance between RL and surveillance, so that the information we receive visually is no longer distinguishable from what we see. I suppose that a person so accustomed to integrating the real-time actions of a virtual presence into his own consciousness could lose track of what is “real” and what is “online.” Maybe a Jennicam viewer could convince himself that he has an interactive, rather than a reactive, relationship to the images he sees, and then demand that Jenni modify her behavior according to his demands. But even that letter turned out to be a hoax.
So I guess my question is: when I think about the crash of information’s general relativity, what should I be afraid of?
His own argumentation called his thesis into question for me: he highlights the parallel, for example, between the Italian Renaissance’s formation of spatial perspective and the internet’s formation of temporal perspective. While another dimension was discovered, changing visual representation forever, nothing exploded. Visual representation was not harmed; there was no Armageddon of the way we move through space, either in art or in life. So why should I believe that the introduction of real time, which is essentially the exploration of a new dimension, will speed forward into an information explosion?
Furthermore, the “real time” projects we looked at this week seem (to me) to disprove his argumentation. John Simon’s “Every Icon” should be the perfect example of overexposure in real-time (it will create every possible image I could see on the web) but his project clearly will not have the effect of a crash.
Is the kind of “crash” he has in mind, for example, the threatening mail that Jenni received? In “Visual Crash,” he argues that real-time closes the distance between RL and surveillance, so that the information we receive visually is no longer distinguishable from what we see. I suppose that a person so accustomed to integrating the real-time actions of a virtual presence into his own consciousness could lose track of what is “real” and what is “online.” Maybe a Jennicam viewer could convince himself that he has an interactive, rather than a reactive, relationship to the images he sees, and then demand that Jenni modify her behavior according to his demands. But even that letter turned out to be a hoax.
So I guess my question is: when I think about the crash of information’s general relativity, what should I be afraid of?
Difficulty with Foucault
In Foucault's description of panoptic institutions, he claims that by subjecting them to inspections by the public, one could effectively cut the risk of tyrannical behavior to zero. This however may be an invalid assumption. There have been numerous psychological experiments involving groups of people behaving in very inhumane ways. Indeed the whole nation of Germany was swept up in the evils of Naziism, in spite of their disciplined society. Psychological experiments such as Milgram's shock experiment and the Stanford prison experiment both reveal the willingness of an individual to commit atrocities. The studies even suggest that the individual may be more prone to tyrannical behavior in the presence of a group of other individuals. Granted social interaction is complex and often unpredictable, and for every psychological phenomenon indicating one trend, their is a theory indicating the opposite, but this fact also discredits Foucault's assumption, all be it on entirely different grounds. I don't know if I'm alone, but it seems that Foucault makes many claims in his writings which are hard to support and arguments that seem farfetched almost to the point of incoherence. Maybe it's because many of his writings (I'm not sure about the Panopticism article) are translations, but I have a hard time deciding how he is trying to get us to view a certain issue, or even what issues he is addressing at certain points.
"Honesty through paranoia"
I'm having a hard time separating the surveillance model and the capture model. In fact, I feel the two are inseparable in modern society. I'm at a loss to find an example of surveillance that doesn't capture the information it surveys. Nor can I find an example of capturing information that doesn't survey the subjects of capture. One example that Agre presents is the experiment of tracking in the offices of Xerox, where employees where a self-locating badge. I feel like this follows both models of capture and surveillance. The information of the employees' whereabouts is instantly relayed to a database with the ultimate goal of making the workplace more effecient. I feel if anyone were 'out of place', this information could be instantly processed, and the situation rectified. Maybe I'd be an extra-paranoid employee, but information can be captured and processed so quickly that I'd be extra careful where I went throughout my workday. Another example is my Dad's laptop from work. He won't let me touch it. He has no idea how his company tracks its use, but he isn't willing to chance it with non-work related material. He responds to the capture of his information in the same way you respond to a security camera - you don't know if anyone is watching, but you act as though somebody is.
I see how the two differ - the model of the Panopticon versus the model of information capture, one being more transient and the other more permanent. The two, however different in operation, produce similar results in the groups to which they are applied.
I see how the two differ - the model of the Panopticon versus the model of information capture, one being more transient and the other more permanent. The two, however different in operation, produce similar results in the groups to which they are applied.
JenniCam Message
“Freud reminds us that it is not by looking that we may learn what people are doing when they look, or when they shield themselves from the gaze of others, or - like Jennifer Ringley - when they expose themselves to the other’s gaze”
Jennifer Ringley has set up her own panoptical environment. Perhaps by exposing herself to an invisible audience she feels she will live her life better; perhaps she is trying to send a message to the world that she has nothing to be guilty of (unlike Baldwin’s Giovanni who had pathological guilt leading to his need for privacy); maybe Jenni felt like the publicity would help her out in the future (after all, she sold her bed on Ebay [for $$$], she inspired several commodities [$$$] and most likely made a profit off of her website [$$$$$$$$]); it’s also possible that she is simply afraid of being nonexistent and lonely and that the camera gives her meaning; or perhaps Jenni really is merely an exhibitionist who loves the attention. Whichever is most correct, the most accurate statement that can be made about Jenni is the following: she made a bold statement.
Several people these days are afraid of judgment. While it may be impossible to know if Jenni acted any differently in front of the camera than she would in real life, she clearly does not fear people judging her or misconstruing her actions and visual messages. While “any verbal address implies an addressee,” (87) Jenni’s visual images are not directed toward anyone in particular. She’s left open for judgment by all sorts of people…. even her parents…
Also, since college years are all about independancy and making decisions, control often becomes an issue. As her college years come to an end, she may feel like she lacks control in all aspects of her life -- and the camera may give her that sense of control that she can’t find elsewhere. Ultimately, she controls what part of her room can be seen, what parts of her body can be seen, and what she does in front of the camera. She stated, “I don’t feel like I’m giving up my privacy. Just because people can see me doesn’t mean it affects me. I’m still alone in my room, no matter what.” I think this contradicts what she says after she graduates - when asked why she set up a camera in her apartment, she said that she felt lonely without it. This expresses her need to be “‘alone in the presence of someone’” (84). Thus, she does view the camera as a sort of audience, someone always there with her.
This also raises controversy on the idea of privacy. Does Jenni have to tell people that they are being filmed when they walk into her room? The article states that she engages in sexual intercourse… which is inevitably filmed… but does her sexual partner (if not her boyfriend) know of the invisible window that he is being exposed through? I wonder if she tells them. If not, I personally consider that kind of morally wrong.
Lastly, why are people so interested in taking part in the surveillance of other people? Why do humans enjoy watching other people’s lives? Like David Letterman said on the youtube video I posted, “People are lonely and desperate. . . they’re reaching out, they want to see life somewhere else taking place. It’s comforting.” Everyone is so interested in Jenni and “lonely adult children keep watch through their windows for Jenni to come home from work” (87). This makes human nature look sad. There are also reality TV shows, like The Real World, and America’s Next Top Model, and even fictional drama TV shows that people love to watch. Why do we get so much pleasure out of watching other people live, make decisions, and make mistakes?
Jennifer Ringley has set up her own panoptical environment. Perhaps by exposing herself to an invisible audience she feels she will live her life better; perhaps she is trying to send a message to the world that she has nothing to be guilty of (unlike Baldwin’s Giovanni who had pathological guilt leading to his need for privacy); maybe Jenni felt like the publicity would help her out in the future (after all, she sold her bed on Ebay [for $$$], she inspired several commodities [$$$] and most likely made a profit off of her website [$$$$$$$$]); it’s also possible that she is simply afraid of being nonexistent and lonely and that the camera gives her meaning; or perhaps Jenni really is merely an exhibitionist who loves the attention. Whichever is most correct, the most accurate statement that can be made about Jenni is the following: she made a bold statement.
Several people these days are afraid of judgment. While it may be impossible to know if Jenni acted any differently in front of the camera than she would in real life, she clearly does not fear people judging her or misconstruing her actions and visual messages. While “any verbal address implies an addressee,” (87) Jenni’s visual images are not directed toward anyone in particular. She’s left open for judgment by all sorts of people…. even her parents…
Also, since college years are all about independancy and making decisions, control often becomes an issue. As her college years come to an end, she may feel like she lacks control in all aspects of her life -- and the camera may give her that sense of control that she can’t find elsewhere. Ultimately, she controls what part of her room can be seen, what parts of her body can be seen, and what she does in front of the camera. She stated, “I don’t feel like I’m giving up my privacy. Just because people can see me doesn’t mean it affects me. I’m still alone in my room, no matter what.” I think this contradicts what she says after she graduates - when asked why she set up a camera in her apartment, she said that she felt lonely without it. This expresses her need to be “‘alone in the presence of someone’” (84). Thus, she does view the camera as a sort of audience, someone always there with her.
This also raises controversy on the idea of privacy. Does Jenni have to tell people that they are being filmed when they walk into her room? The article states that she engages in sexual intercourse… which is inevitably filmed… but does her sexual partner (if not her boyfriend) know of the invisible window that he is being exposed through? I wonder if she tells them. If not, I personally consider that kind of morally wrong.
Lastly, why are people so interested in taking part in the surveillance of other people? Why do humans enjoy watching other people’s lives? Like David Letterman said on the youtube video I posted, “People are lonely and desperate. . . they’re reaching out, they want to see life somewhere else taking place. It’s comforting.” Everyone is so interested in Jenni and “lonely adult children keep watch through their windows for Jenni to come home from work” (87). This makes human nature look sad. There are also reality TV shows, like The Real World, and America’s Next Top Model, and even fictional drama TV shows that people love to watch. Why do we get so much pleasure out of watching other people live, make decisions, and make mistakes?
Student Thinkers
In reading Burgin’s essay on “Jenni’s Room” I questioned the status of critical thinking on new media objects. Professor Chun mentioned in her lecture on Monday that Brown students are being trained to think critically. Burgin makes this explicitly clear in his essay when he makes the distinction (footnote 8) that he is analyzing the character Jenni broadcasted online and not Jenny the girl behind the camera. By positing himself as a critical thinker, our reading of Burgin trains us in this critical method. Yet Jenni is a human, two people are living for a year in cubicles in “1 Year Performance Video,” and I am wondering where humanity plays in our critical thinking. Burgin leaves Jenni as merely a signifier for us thinkers. Virilio mentions the ethics involved in looking about media, but his discussion focuses on military and political realities. Thinking about the youtube video shown in class on Monday, my question is how our work as critical thinkers in school is controlled? How we change as members of society by being critical thinkers? Is resistance to academia freeing or are we unable to break out of this commodified, technological, academic system.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Disciplining The Mind
After reading Panopticism, I feel betrayed by the American educational system. No, I feel angry. No, wait, shocked. Ok, maybe just confused. Regardless, all this talk about Santa Clause and internalized discipline and "swarming of disciplines," and docile bodies got me thinking.
In lecture today, it struck me. Not only do lectures function like the Panopticon, but so does the our educational system, something Foucault just barely acknowledges at the end of this piece. As small children, we participate in highly structured, supervised activities. As we grow a little older, we are given pictures to color, work sheets to fill out, and sentences to write. We turn these in to the teacher, and the assignments are returned with a gold star sticker or a smiley face. In high school, we're given pop quizzes to ensure we've done the reading, and, as extra insurance, teachers check even our reading notes and paper outlines. By the time we finally reach college, we're simply expected to do the work, no questions asked. For the most part, no one is checking up on us anymore. This is especially true at Brown due to the fact that there is no GPA calculation and all classes can be taken pass/fail. Despite all this "freedom," for the most part, we do all the work anyway. Why? Out of fear. We're scared that if we don't, an invisible hand will come down and expel us from university, effectively ruining the rest of our lives.
Forget prisoners being so caught up in the power structure that they don't realize they're actually the ones with the power; let's talk about the higher education system! The GPAs, the letter grades, and the SAT scores come together to form a perfect example of the what Foucault calls "the power of mind over mind." A little later on, Bentham himself explicitly says that the control the Panopticon model yields is applicable to "any institution" (his italics, not mine.)
This is a difficult argument for me to make. I know the pressure I put on myself to do well academically and career-wise is somewhat intrinsic to my nature, but a good part of it is due to 19 years of prodding by my parents. Yes, I want to succeed and "do the right thing." But, now I wonder if this desire is really my own. Maybe it's just something that has been so thoroughly instilled in me by a passive aggressive disciplinary methodology that I don't realize it's not really who I am?
Foucault's analysis is confusing and somewhat troubling. But it's not something I can think too long on. I really have too much reading (which no one is going to actually check if I read) to do.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Viruses: from Dibbell 2/95 to CNN 3/08
The front page of CNN.com reads, “From iPods to navigation systems, some of today's hottest gadgets are landing on store shelves with some unwanted extras from the factory -- pre-installed viruses that steal passwords, open doors for hackers and make computers spew spam.”
The full article, entitled “Electronic gadgets latest sources of computer viruses,” blames workers in China for the cyber pandemic: “…a careless worker [plugs in] an infected music player into a factory computer used for testing…” and voila. This sheds light on the invisibility and quick and easy dissemination of today’s virus which could potentially come “from anywhere,” which is not controlled, and which penetrates the distributed network that we read about in Galloway.
In a related article on phishing (“Cyberthieves go phishing to rob banks”), CNN says that the essential characteristic of computer viruses has morphed from chaos-causing to somber crime-propagating. This transformation has made viruses more dangerous to users, with the number of “‘high-severity vulnerabilities’ up by 28 percent in 2007 compared with 2006.” Moreover, viruses are becoming harder to detect, according to CNN: for example, “Most users, even the savvy ones, wouldn't know that their server settings have been hijacked.” This is quite at odds with Dibbell’s portrayal of viruses in “Viruses are Good for You” as extensions of individuals’ street graffiti into cyberspace—graffiti, after all, is neither high-risk nor invisible.
It is difficult to take seriously Dibbell’s naïve, messianic end of cyber-history in which the fear of computer viruses will be overcome and in which we will shake “fellow earthlings’ shaping hands” (1). Dibbell characterizes the virus simply as a violator of the unity of purpose that defines one’s computer system, or as “noise on the line” (5). This characterization is outdated in light of the transformation of virus nature aforementioned. The motivation behind a virus is less to violate unity of purpose than it is to infringe on privacy and infiltrate loci of important information, and this is more villainous than “bad attitude” (4).
After making lame comparisons of viruses to cockroaches (eloquently put as “little boogers you can’t see”) and guns, CNN’s “Electronic gadgets…” calls for stricter (more centralized) quality control in factories and urges users to update their antivirus software. This is only a small step to managing the ever-evolving hazards in a distributed network. Ecological management of a “chaotic digital soup” (Dibbell 2) is of course a laborious topic and I don’t intend on expounding on it here.
The full article, entitled “Electronic gadgets latest sources of computer viruses,” blames workers in China for the cyber pandemic: “…a careless worker [plugs in] an infected music player into a factory computer used for testing…” and voila. This sheds light on the invisibility and quick and easy dissemination of today’s virus which could potentially come “from anywhere,” which is not controlled, and which penetrates the distributed network that we read about in Galloway.
In a related article on phishing (“Cyberthieves go phishing to rob banks”), CNN says that the essential characteristic of computer viruses has morphed from chaos-causing to somber crime-propagating. This transformation has made viruses more dangerous to users, with the number of “‘high-severity vulnerabilities’ up by 28 percent in 2007 compared with 2006.” Moreover, viruses are becoming harder to detect, according to CNN: for example, “Most users, even the savvy ones, wouldn't know that their server settings have been hijacked.” This is quite at odds with Dibbell’s portrayal of viruses in “Viruses are Good for You” as extensions of individuals’ street graffiti into cyberspace—graffiti, after all, is neither high-risk nor invisible.
It is difficult to take seriously Dibbell’s naïve, messianic end of cyber-history in which the fear of computer viruses will be overcome and in which we will shake “fellow earthlings’ shaping hands” (1). Dibbell characterizes the virus simply as a violator of the unity of purpose that defines one’s computer system, or as “noise on the line” (5). This characterization is outdated in light of the transformation of virus nature aforementioned. The motivation behind a virus is less to violate unity of purpose than it is to infringe on privacy and infiltrate loci of important information, and this is more villainous than “bad attitude” (4).
After making lame comparisons of viruses to cockroaches (eloquently put as “little boogers you can’t see”) and guns, CNN’s “Electronic gadgets…” calls for stricter (more centralized) quality control in factories and urges users to update their antivirus software. This is only a small step to managing the ever-evolving hazards in a distributed network. Ecological management of a “chaotic digital soup” (Dibbell 2) is of course a laborious topic and I don’t intend on expounding on it here.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Whoopsies...
I as well did not hear about the group postings... rats. And this is also late... drats.
Danah Boyd's article certainly answered its title, "Why Youth Heart Social Network Sites." Providing a list of reasons ranging from the specific need of a teen-only public sphere in today's adult-oriented world, to the generic need of teens to fit in and be cool, Boyd has told me exactly why I do the things I do. I used to be a conscientious objector to Facebook and Myspace (I imagine most Brown students, or at least the ones taking this class, share a similar history), but I wanted to keep in touch with some friends from a summer camp and so I made a Facebook account. I do not have a MySpace, and I never did, although my band used the site because we couldn't figure out how to upload streaming music files on our actual website. Facebook soon became a large part of my life, and I eagerly enjoy the social voyeurism and minor drama that adds spice to my otherwise boring, insignificant life. Ironically enough, that was an instance of the difficulty in online communication--no easy way to indicate sarcasm. But continuing on!
The article mostly pointed to things I already knew about teen social behavior. But one thing that really sparked my imagination, that Boyd barely mentioned, is the presence of contradiction in the way adult society views teenage life. There were a lot of slashes and semicolons in that section, if I recall. Boyd says, "We sell sex to teens but prohibit them
from having it; we tell teens to grow up but restrict them from the vices and freedoms of
adult society" (21). The adult public tends to either idealize teens or demonize them, criticizing gang violence and teen loitering while simultaneously marketing heavily to them. I wonder what social trend this symbolizes, or if this has anything to do with Boyd's statement about the generational gap being brought on by the advent of high schools and technological disparities. But it certainly is true; most anguish and confusion in teen life is brought on by this confusion. The contradictions in the adult view of teenagers certainly reflect the choice that users of MySpace have in either being, as Boyd calls it, cool or lame: a user can either be peer-oriented, use swear words and proclaim risky activities admired by peers, or acquiesce to parent wishes and, if not pursue, at least not admit to pursuing such goals.
Really, why is it that roller rinks, activity centers, and drive-in movie theaters have disappeared? Today's teen population is as robust and consumer-oriented as ever. This is less a question of digital media and more one of anthropology, but it's interesting nonetheless. Perhaps it's a reflection of the emphasis of choice, privacy, and individualism that has become even more apparent in the days since the fifties, when such choices were popular and the teen subculture was still similar to what it is today. Even the contradiction in today's malls--teens are a nuisance while simultaneously the reason why they exist--could perhaps just be an extension of the contradiction of being a teenager. There is a need to rebel, to be different from one's parents and communicate in a peer-only world, but simultaneously be ready to assimilate to the world's norms and expectations. I can relate personally; one time, when I was caught drinking by my parents in high school, my mom scolded me while my father merely smiled and nodded. My mother wanted to protect me from risky behavior, but my father may have been satisfied that I was a socialite, partying with friends rather than sheepishly pursuing less reckless behavior. I imagine most other teens lived through something similar.
Is there anything to do to address this contradiction, and perhaps make it a little easier on teens to understand what, exactly, is expected of them? Probably not. The appearance of generational gaps are well entrenched in American society, as well as across the globe, coming along with the widespread availability of high school and college. Peer networks are essential in assimilating into society, and it's not like getting rid of them will make it any easier to grow up. Plus, Nietzsche says life's a contradiction anyway, and in order not to avoid nihilistic despair we have to pretend it isn't, which is itself another contradiction... so might as well get used to the contradictions early.
I had forgotten how hard it was being a teenager. Good thing it's all done now, and my days of needing a peer-oriented community are over. Time to sign off, I have a notification on Facebook I need to check out.
--Dan Ricker
Danah Boyd's article certainly answered its title, "Why Youth Heart Social Network Sites." Providing a list of reasons ranging from the specific need of a teen-only public sphere in today's adult-oriented world, to the generic need of teens to fit in and be cool, Boyd has told me exactly why I do the things I do. I used to be a conscientious objector to Facebook and Myspace (I imagine most Brown students, or at least the ones taking this class, share a similar history), but I wanted to keep in touch with some friends from a summer camp and so I made a Facebook account. I do not have a MySpace, and I never did, although my band used the site because we couldn't figure out how to upload streaming music files on our actual website. Facebook soon became a large part of my life, and I eagerly enjoy the social voyeurism and minor drama that adds spice to my otherwise boring, insignificant life. Ironically enough, that was an instance of the difficulty in online communication--no easy way to indicate sarcasm. But continuing on!
The article mostly pointed to things I already knew about teen social behavior. But one thing that really sparked my imagination, that Boyd barely mentioned, is the presence of contradiction in the way adult society views teenage life. There were a lot of slashes and semicolons in that section, if I recall. Boyd says, "We sell sex to teens but prohibit them
from having it; we tell teens to grow up but restrict them from the vices and freedoms of
adult society" (21). The adult public tends to either idealize teens or demonize them, criticizing gang violence and teen loitering while simultaneously marketing heavily to them. I wonder what social trend this symbolizes, or if this has anything to do with Boyd's statement about the generational gap being brought on by the advent of high schools and technological disparities. But it certainly is true; most anguish and confusion in teen life is brought on by this confusion. The contradictions in the adult view of teenagers certainly reflect the choice that users of MySpace have in either being, as Boyd calls it, cool or lame: a user can either be peer-oriented, use swear words and proclaim risky activities admired by peers, or acquiesce to parent wishes and, if not pursue, at least not admit to pursuing such goals.
Really, why is it that roller rinks, activity centers, and drive-in movie theaters have disappeared? Today's teen population is as robust and consumer-oriented as ever. This is less a question of digital media and more one of anthropology, but it's interesting nonetheless. Perhaps it's a reflection of the emphasis of choice, privacy, and individualism that has become even more apparent in the days since the fifties, when such choices were popular and the teen subculture was still similar to what it is today. Even the contradiction in today's malls--teens are a nuisance while simultaneously the reason why they exist--could perhaps just be an extension of the contradiction of being a teenager. There is a need to rebel, to be different from one's parents and communicate in a peer-only world, but simultaneously be ready to assimilate to the world's norms and expectations. I can relate personally; one time, when I was caught drinking by my parents in high school, my mom scolded me while my father merely smiled and nodded. My mother wanted to protect me from risky behavior, but my father may have been satisfied that I was a socialite, partying with friends rather than sheepishly pursuing less reckless behavior. I imagine most other teens lived through something similar.
Is there anything to do to address this contradiction, and perhaps make it a little easier on teens to understand what, exactly, is expected of them? Probably not. The appearance of generational gaps are well entrenched in American society, as well as across the globe, coming along with the widespread availability of high school and college. Peer networks are essential in assimilating into society, and it's not like getting rid of them will make it any easier to grow up. Plus, Nietzsche says life's a contradiction anyway, and in order not to avoid nihilistic despair we have to pretend it isn't, which is itself another contradiction... so might as well get used to the contradictions early.
I had forgotten how hard it was being a teenager. Good thing it's all done now, and my days of needing a peer-oriented community are over. Time to sign off, I have a notification on Facebook I need to check out.
--Dan Ricker
wot wot
I'm interested by a few things that this week's readings touch upon. First, the significance of a customizable profile as digital body. Sartre mentions at one point that an individual can never view himself as an object, an other, this is a power that we all intuitively know people have over us--that's why we feel embarrassment. Along that train of thought, each person is really two people--I am I, who see, and there is Max, who is seen. In general we have only very limited control over our external form, it takes enormous amounts of practice to learn how to project the desired image of ourselves to other people. Things like Facebook allow one to extend these things infinitely and at leisure--there is no spirit of the stairs online. If you come up with a beautiful insult or rejoinder long after an argument you can still post it up and in future other people will see it too. That was a bad example, but perhaps I make my point clear.
I wonder if there are any writers like the guy from "A Rape in Cyberspace" talking about online forum culture, which is an entirely separate phenomenon from social networking sites, and I think a fairly interesting one. MUDs are horribly outdated, but much of the terminology is still used on a number of forums. I'm a member of a particularly infamous forum, which contains among other things separate subforums for music, literature, general questions, academic questions, debates, and so forth. Each one has its own rules, which are enforced by moderators as on most forums. There's also a particularly interesting forum whose only purpose is to belittle other users. People who "hang out" in that subforum enjoy locating a specimen who they think is ripe to be made fun of, and then search through their post history--not just on that website, but on any others that the user has made locatable in his career on the forum, intentionally or not. People can create their own identities, but that means that when the public gets a hold of them there isn't even the comforting celebrity cushion of "You don't know me! You just know what the newspapers/television/radio say!"--after all, if it's online, you probably put it there on purpose.
I wonder if there are any writers like the guy from "A Rape in Cyberspace" talking about online forum culture, which is an entirely separate phenomenon from social networking sites, and I think a fairly interesting one. MUDs are horribly outdated, but much of the terminology is still used on a number of forums. I'm a member of a particularly infamous forum, which contains among other things separate subforums for music, literature, general questions, academic questions, debates, and so forth. Each one has its own rules, which are enforced by moderators as on most forums. There's also a particularly interesting forum whose only purpose is to belittle other users. People who "hang out" in that subforum enjoy locating a specimen who they think is ripe to be made fun of, and then search through their post history--not just on that website, but on any others that the user has made locatable in his career on the forum, intentionally or not. People can create their own identities, but that means that when the public gets a hold of them there isn't even the comforting celebrity cushion of "You don't know me! You just know what the newspapers/television/radio say!"--after all, if it's online, you probably put it there on purpose.
Human Relationships and Social Networking Sites
I too seem to have missed the announcement about partnered blog postings somehow, so I apologize for that. Also sorry this post is so late, this is the first time I have been home for more than ten minutes today.
Danah Boyd in her article “Why Teens (Heart) Social Network Sites” makes reference to people who consciously object to using social networking sites. Formerly, I refused to use facebook or myspace or any similar sites. I had neither AOL instant messenger nor MSN messenger nor even a cell phone for quite some time. Some kids are simply “too cool” says Boyd. I was one of those kids, but upon further investigation of my motives for refusing to use these social devices I have found that I actually had quite a few things right. One thing I would constantly say when asked why I did not use myspace or facebook was, “Facebook and myspace are for people who want to think they have more friends than they really do.” There is a lot of truth in this somewhat brash statement. How many of your facebook friends are people you see or talk to on a regular basis? How many of them would you actually refer to as friends in the real world? Probably many less than you have on your page. I have about 120 people on my "friends" list, which seems to be a modest number in comparison to most other people. I know that I probably talk to less than half of these people, much less are truly my friends. In fact there are some people whom I talk to almost solely on the Internet at times. Perhaps they should change the label to acquaintances.
Another objection I had was that social networking sites actually pushed people further away rather than bringing them closer together. Though it may be convenient to use facebook to contact people it is certainly not the most personal method of communication. Facebook makes it a lot easier to talk to people without ever having any significant contact with them. When people write on each other’s walls there is no real conversation going on. It might be easier to message you friend on Facebook then to call them. The idea that social networking brings people closer together is a façade. It merely makes it simpler to contact and keep track of people without having any true human contact with these people. Social networking sites further separate people from their own humanity and reduce the personal aspect of human relationships.
I never actually considered the political aspect of Facebook or myspace too thoroughly (though I know at least one person who refuses to use facebook on this basis). Not having a Facebook or myspace profile certainly reduces certain social opportunities, but I believe that refusing to have one increases the quality of social opportunities. As with everything, there are pros and cons. Had someone not made a myspace profile for me, however long ago it was, I might still be the social networking cynic that I once was. I still am to a degree, but I have a facebook account that I check regularly. There is no denying that it is an addicting concept. As these sites become more and more pervasive we must keep track very closely of how they may alter our relationships, making sure not to lose the things about these relationships that we value so greatly
PUBLIC
Apparently I did not hear about the group blog postings, so I will be doing my own and hope that I still get partial credit. My mistake.
So let's talk about "Why Youth (Heart) Social Networking Sites". I feel that much of it has to do with the rise of the Internet occuring during our generation. The Internet is now another way to escape from one's parents. These sites might also act like one of Baudrillard's simulations. We are using the Internet as a "second life", where we are free from conditional rules. I believe that the article is very accurate towards what teens believe the networking sites to be. They are all about how we want to project ourselves. But of course, how we project ourselves entirely depends on who we want to see it. An adult's myspace profile generally works as a dating profile, with accurate statistics and to-the-point answers. Teen's pages range from flashy and all-inclusive to plain with short and witty answers, depending on the group with whom the person associates.
I think our developing understanding of publicity in new media plays a huge role in the use and importance of networking sites. The new public domain is democratic, entirely free, and a different realm altogether, and that makes these sites more interesting than ever.
So let's talk about "Why Youth (Heart) Social Networking Sites". I feel that much of it has to do with the rise of the Internet occuring during our generation. The Internet is now another way to escape from one's parents. These sites might also act like one of Baudrillard's simulations. We are using the Internet as a "second life", where we are free from conditional rules. I believe that the article is very accurate towards what teens believe the networking sites to be. They are all about how we want to project ourselves. But of course, how we project ourselves entirely depends on who we want to see it. An adult's myspace profile generally works as a dating profile, with accurate statistics and to-the-point answers. Teen's pages range from flashy and all-inclusive to plain with short and witty answers, depending on the group with whom the person associates.
I think our developing understanding of publicity in new media plays a huge role in the use and importance of networking sites. The new public domain is democratic, entirely free, and a different realm altogether, and that makes these sites more interesting than ever.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
late post on Deleuze: gender roles and naturalization in the society of control
At one point last weekend, over dinner, I found myself chatting with friends and one boyfriend about his decidedly negative reaction to the vagina dentata––the toothed vagina, which is active rather than passive (I promise I have a point). This ultimately led to a discussion on whether or not the modern woman’s gender role––particularly the vagina’s passive engagement in sex––could change, or whether or not it was innate. On the subject of the possibility of changing gender roles, one friend offered, “I once read something about them being more complex now than they were even in the middle ages,” by which she meant (I found upon a cross examination) that because they were more complex, the modern gender roles (both) are more confining and controlling––the greater complexity, I took this to mean, leaves less leeway. These complexities, I thought, must be a result of the fact that we are simply less conscious of the gender roles.
Which brings me right back to Deleuze’s society of control vs. Foucault’s society of discipline).
Firstly, we are controlled by protocol, rather than rules, which in the end means that we have to figure it out for ourselves, so, as with the segments of our life, we don’t know where modern society’s “rules” begin and end. Which complicates things. The society of control is controlling because, as we’ve discussed, we aren’t really aware that we are being controlled––just as Deleuze’s aspiring young men brag about their enthusiasm for joining the competitive forces of Wall Street.
[Also, to comment on Alice/Zach’s post, they provided and excellent example of being forced to conform when thinking consciously that they were pursuing freedom and opportunities (in other words, “America”). I think the paradox they describe in the beginning is fascinating––that in order to be a part of the free self-expressing society’s of cyberspace in which you can be a dolphin or have “blue eyes… suggestive… of untamed eroticism,” or present yourself as being awesome and having a ton of friends while skirting the label “MySpace whore,” you still are forced to define and present your identity (and certainly, defining yourself curtails a certain amount of freedom that we typically have to express different parts of our personality), and you have to do it in accordance with social protocol. Furthermore, rather than being truly free no, you have to behave in accordance with protocol, for fear of being toaded.]
And we aren’t aware that we are being controlled because we are controlling ourselves. It’s what Boyd describes as “impression management” (she’s quoting Goffman), as teens do on MySpace. She describes this (or Goffman does, I’m not sure which) as a natural development. But I’m not entirely sure that defining your identity in text form is natural, rather, it seems to take on the guise of the natural.
And now I come to the end of my rather convoluted tangent to make my rather convoluted original point: modern women tend to think that their gender role in modern society is innate, is natural, is something that they are born with and therefore don’t examine quite as closely as they might (unless of course that woman is exposed to the Brown community for 24 hrs). Their role is something they absorb from the world (and its media) around them, and that role has been naturalized by that world. They are not taught it, it simply is that way. The ambiguity of the society of control lies in the fact that its protocol has become naturalized, and we consider ours to be the natural state of society/the world.
Consider (for the fiftieth time) the Matrix: its power lay in the fact that people thought it was real, and so they never questioned it––though really, it was just in their heads.
Which brings me right back to Deleuze’s society of control vs. Foucault’s society of discipline).
Firstly, we are controlled by protocol, rather than rules, which in the end means that we have to figure it out for ourselves, so, as with the segments of our life, we don’t know where modern society’s “rules” begin and end. Which complicates things. The society of control is controlling because, as we’ve discussed, we aren’t really aware that we are being controlled––just as Deleuze’s aspiring young men brag about their enthusiasm for joining the competitive forces of Wall Street.
[Also, to comment on Alice/Zach’s post, they provided and excellent example of being forced to conform when thinking consciously that they were pursuing freedom and opportunities (in other words, “America”). I think the paradox they describe in the beginning is fascinating––that in order to be a part of the free self-expressing society’s of cyberspace in which you can be a dolphin or have “blue eyes… suggestive… of untamed eroticism,” or present yourself as being awesome and having a ton of friends while skirting the label “MySpace whore,” you still are forced to define and present your identity (and certainly, defining yourself curtails a certain amount of freedom that we typically have to express different parts of our personality), and you have to do it in accordance with social protocol. Furthermore, rather than being truly free no, you have to behave in accordance with protocol, for fear of being toaded.]
And we aren’t aware that we are being controlled because we are controlling ourselves. It’s what Boyd describes as “impression management” (she’s quoting Goffman), as teens do on MySpace. She describes this (or Goffman does, I’m not sure which) as a natural development. But I’m not entirely sure that defining your identity in text form is natural, rather, it seems to take on the guise of the natural.
And now I come to the end of my rather convoluted tangent to make my rather convoluted original point: modern women tend to think that their gender role in modern society is innate, is natural, is something that they are born with and therefore don’t examine quite as closely as they might (unless of course that woman is exposed to the Brown community for 24 hrs). Their role is something they absorb from the world (and its media) around them, and that role has been naturalized by that world. They are not taught it, it simply is that way. The ambiguity of the society of control lies in the fact that its protocol has become naturalized, and we consider ours to be the natural state of society/the world.
Consider (for the fiftieth time) the Matrix: its power lay in the fact that people thought it was real, and so they never questioned it––though really, it was just in their heads.
We were interested in boyd's section on impression management and the idea of people writing their virtual selves into being. "Impression management," writes boyd, "is a part of a larger process where people seek to define a situation through their behavior." (page 12) She points out that, in a way, impression management over a site like myspace gives people more control by letting them carefully consider what they want to portray. She also mentions that this can easily lead to misinterpretations. To us it seems like many people believe that they really are given more control over their virtual selves, while ignoring the inevitable misinterpretations by parts of their social network. People often sculpt their profiles with a particular audience in mind. They may gain control of how a certain group of people understands their virtual self, while confusing or misleading other groups. People have intended audiences in mind while designing their profiles, but other groups still shape what they display. Some people seem to make profiles with the intended audience of acquaintances they don't know well or are just getting to know. But their closer friends still shape these profiles. They have to stay true to their offline selves to a certain extent (or make it clear that it's a joke) since their close friends are often the same online and offline.
-Steve C. and Alex! E.
-Steve C. and Alex! E.
A-B-C
I'm reading through the Boyd right now and the whole strong/weak tie thing is making more sense. I don't know what you guys want to discuss. Something that caught my eye was the fact that MySpace profiles can be "hacked" in a sense - the engine interprets HTML and CSS manually entered by the user, whereas Facebook cannot - it's much more strict. This provides room for those two different types of people - those who can code and those who cannot (although anyone can write HTML). I enjoyed her connecting the cluttered "pimped out" profiles to a teenagers messy room - MySpace profiles are usually terrible looking.
I was interested in the "hacking" idea, too, especially in the context of "writing identity."
Last week Marissa posted this quote from Snow Crash:
"Did you win your sword fight?"
"Of course I won the fucking sword fight," Hiro says. "I'm the greatest sword fighter in the world."
"And you wrote the software."
"Yeah. That, too," Hiro says.
For the privileged code-literate, social networking online gives them new and different social leverage. It's not just a question of the regulated functions that the web site designers create, but the possibility of creating real-life social connections based on online capability. If a guy in your class knows how to put music videos on his MySpace page, but you can't code well enough to do that, then you create some kind of real-life social link (maybe a weak tie?) when you ask him for coding help. That kid is always going to "win the sword fight" online, but he's also going to be able to carry that prestige into the off-line world.
Also, I totally agree: MySpace pages look AWFUL.
My Myspace page is (or was at times if it isn't now) actually pretty classy, in my opinion (www.myspace.com/crowjonah) even though I have long since stopped caring about it.
The hacking is interesting, and in a way facebook has made the true elitism of the hacker class much more distinct, because whereas in Myspace anyone can use a Profile Pimper or Generator or whatever because of the susceptibility of the system, facebook began by effectively disallowing any kind of unconventional customization, but has since opened it up to the 3rd party developments of Apps, which requires true coding knowledge, but is still limited in the extent to which it can modify a profile. For a while it was a neat trick to be able to embed a video clip into a Myspace comment, but YouTube has made that skill obsolete. Photobucket and Flickr provide instant copy-pastable code for images, and statcounter.com will take all the effort out of tracking your visitors by giving you IP and geographical information through the functionality of a few lines of computer generated code and instructions on where to put it in your profile.
And none of these things fly on facebook.
Facebook also doesn't have the musical draw that Boyd found so crucial to Myspace.
Facebook has fallen just short of fully mapping out ties (imagine www.theyrule.net with your own friends) with the Mutual Friends section, etc.
Writing identity is also interesting and makes me think, again, of the difference between facebook and Myspace. I have friends who use both, I have used both at different times in my life, and I have found that by allowing the (almost) total customization of the profile, Myspace allows a person to 'write' their identity much more in accordance with how they want themselves to be seen. While it may be argued that it is impossible to write a 'real life' identity on a website at all, facebook provides a much more accurate mapping of a person due to the tendencies towards a more objective, multi-perspective, self-checking, free-flow of information. On Myspace I can upload 4 flattering pictures of myself, but on Facebook my friends can tag me in hundreds of more truthful portraits. The Wall-to-Wall works in a similar way.
The ability of the sword fighter to carry his prestige into the real world lies entirely in the real world's willingness to accept the validity of the online world. What happens for the disenfranchised and conscientious objectors, and the people who don't participate "because its stupid"? I know they may be in the minority, but I also still know plenty of people that I respect and admire that hold these positions. This seems to connect to the infection of workers that Granovetter spoke of, in that in order for something to gain social momentum it must be picked up by the central, more well-connected members in order to spread. But in this case the infection is in the form of a tool for being well-connected. It almost seems tautological.
You're right- the "I think it's stupid" crowd is a totally legitimate group, and I definitely used to be in that category. My parents were never internet savvy enough to know whether or not to be worried, and I just didn't care enough to get involved online. I didn't think it was "stupid," perse -I just didn't give it much thought. Interestingly, my first social networking experience happened when my friend built a LiveJournal page for my 17th birthday, as Boyd noted. Of course I'm whole-heartdly on faceook now (I can code a little in Java, and as Andy pointed out, everyone writes HTML), Andy has a pretty amazing music site, and (against all odds ;oP) you have a very classy MySpace page. I guess this validates Boyd's social networking "field work," but she might misrepresent the interconnectivity of on- and off- line relationships.
I know Boyd focuses on the "youth" and their use of networked publics, but I think another demographic is important to look at, namely adults seeking jobs and businessmen seeking connections. This summer I worked for a small communications firm in the city, and my boss was all about www.linkedin.com, which is a social networking site for small businesses.
The conscientious objector to social networking sites may have a good argument in "because it's stupid". As Nadine points out on page 14 of Boyd, "Taking someone off your Top 8 is your new passive aggressive power play when someone pisses you off." This exhibits the frivolity of facebook/myspace (when used by teens looking to 'fit in'), versus the pure function of a site like linkedin. Granovetter had stated that weak ties will, more often than strong ties, lead to finding a job. The ties forged on any social networking site are weak at best - especially when no real world correspondence has occurred. Furthermore, almost all jobs I've ever applied to have been through an internet form - submit a resume, cover letter, and a referral, and the nameless, faceless employer will get back to you. I guess the 'strength' of weak ties is often overlooked.
The "I"s: Andrew C. Miller, Julia Horwitz, Crow Norlander
I was interested in the "hacking" idea, too, especially in the context of "writing identity."
Last week Marissa posted this quote from Snow Crash:
"Did you win your sword fight?"
"Of course I won the fucking sword fight," Hiro says. "I'm the greatest sword fighter in the world."
"And you wrote the software."
"Yeah. That, too," Hiro says.
For the privileged code-literate, social networking online gives them new and different social leverage. It's not just a question of the regulated functions that the web site designers create, but the possibility of creating real-life social connections based on online capability. If a guy in your class knows how to put music videos on his MySpace page, but you can't code well enough to do that, then you create some kind of real-life social link (maybe a weak tie?) when you ask him for coding help. That kid is always going to "win the sword fight" online, but he's also going to be able to carry that prestige into the off-line world.
Also, I totally agree: MySpace pages look AWFUL.
My Myspace page is (or was at times if it isn't now) actually pretty classy, in my opinion (www.myspace.com/crowjonah) even though I have long since stopped caring about it.
The hacking is interesting, and in a way facebook has made the true elitism of the hacker class much more distinct, because whereas in Myspace anyone can use a Profile Pimper or Generator or whatever because of the susceptibility of the system, facebook began by effectively disallowing any kind of unconventional customization, but has since opened it up to the 3rd party developments of Apps, which requires true coding knowledge, but is still limited in the extent to which it can modify a profile. For a while it was a neat trick to be able to embed a video clip into a Myspace comment, but YouTube has made that skill obsolete. Photobucket and Flickr provide instant copy-pastable code for images, and statcounter.com will take all the effort out of tracking your visitors by giving you IP and geographical information through the functionality of a few lines of computer generated code and instructions on where to put it in your profile.
And none of these things fly on facebook.
Facebook also doesn't have the musical draw that Boyd found so crucial to Myspace.
Facebook has fallen just short of fully mapping out ties (imagine www.theyrule.net with your own friends) with the Mutual Friends section, etc.
Writing identity is also interesting and makes me think, again, of the difference between facebook and Myspace. I have friends who use both, I have used both at different times in my life, and I have found that by allowing the (almost) total customization of the profile, Myspace allows a person to 'write' their identity much more in accordance with how they want themselves to be seen. While it may be argued that it is impossible to write a 'real life' identity on a website at all, facebook provides a much more accurate mapping of a person due to the tendencies towards a more objective, multi-perspective, self-checking, free-flow of information. On Myspace I can upload 4 flattering pictures of myself, but on Facebook my friends can tag me in hundreds of more truthful portraits. The Wall-to-Wall works in a similar way.
The ability of the sword fighter to carry his prestige into the real world lies entirely in the real world's willingness to accept the validity of the online world. What happens for the disenfranchised and conscientious objectors, and the people who don't participate "because its stupid"? I know they may be in the minority, but I also still know plenty of people that I respect and admire that hold these positions. This seems to connect to the infection of workers that Granovetter spoke of, in that in order for something to gain social momentum it must be picked up by the central, more well-connected members in order to spread. But in this case the infection is in the form of a tool for being well-connected. It almost seems tautological.
You're right- the "I think it's stupid" crowd is a totally legitimate group, and I definitely used to be in that category. My parents were never internet savvy enough to know whether or not to be worried, and I just didn't care enough to get involved online. I didn't think it was "stupid," perse -I just didn't give it much thought. Interestingly, my first social networking experience happened when my friend built a LiveJournal page for my 17th birthday, as Boyd noted. Of course I'm whole-heartdly on faceook now (I can code a little in Java, and as Andy pointed out, everyone writes HTML), Andy has a pretty amazing music site, and (against all odds ;oP) you have a very classy MySpace page. I guess this validates Boyd's social networking "field work," but she might misrepresent the interconnectivity of on- and off- line relationships.
I know Boyd focuses on the "youth" and their use of networked publics, but I think another demographic is important to look at, namely adults seeking jobs and businessmen seeking connections. This summer I worked for a small communications firm in the city, and my boss was all about www.linkedin.com, which is a social networking site for small businesses.
The conscientious objector to social networking sites may have a good argument in "because it's stupid". As Nadine points out on page 14 of Boyd, "Taking someone off your Top 8 is your new passive aggressive power play when someone pisses you off." This exhibits the frivolity of facebook/myspace (when used by teens looking to 'fit in'), versus the pure function of a site like linkedin. Granovetter had stated that weak ties will, more often than strong ties, lead to finding a job. The ties forged on any social networking site are weak at best - especially when no real world correspondence has occurred. Furthermore, almost all jobs I've ever applied to have been through an internet form - submit a resume, cover letter, and a referral, and the nameless, faceless employer will get back to you. I guess the 'strength' of weak ties is often overlooked.
The "I"s: Andrew C. Miller, Julia Horwitz, Crow Norlander
Windows and Internet Identity + Performative Language
According to Boyd, social networking enables teens to create their personal, individual identity by imagining themselves as part of a public. She writes, “publics play a crucial role in the development of individuals…by interacting with unfamiliar others, teenagers are socialized into society. without publics, there is no coherent society.” As individuals create profiles, customized representations of their identities, they imagine the reactions of an imaginary audience, a “public” they desire to join. Social networking allows the individual to constitute his self-hood through a hyper-customized profile that visually defines a contrived individual identity, while simultaneously makes him conform to a given public that is “a collection who share a common understanding of the world, a shared identity, a claim to inclusiveness, a consensus regarding the collective interest.” Unlike in real life, the individual’s identity cannot be fluid, adapting situationally to present different identities to different publics—it must be fixed. It is interesting and somewhat paradoxical that in order to become a part of the collective networked public, one must actively construct an unique, customized, and defined representation of individual identity.
This paradox reminds me of the concept of the window in Keenan’s article. Keenan discusses different interpretations of windows, asking whether windows reinforce self-hood through gaze or whether they bridge the gap between self and other, public and private. The window that constructs the self is a “humanist window, the “window door,” the vertical frame that matches and houses the standing, looking, and representing figure of the subject.” (126) Keenan writes later that “the window defines the place and possibilities of the subject…” (132) However, Keenan’s window also challenges the separate self by opening it to a public. He defines the public as all that is different and other to the subject, not as “a collection of private individuals experiencing their commonality.” (133) The window also lets in light, opening the individual to the public and deconstituting his subjectivity: “the enlightenment of this other light exposes me to all that is different in and beyond me.” (136) I’m quoting all this to highlight the dual, paradoxical functioning of the window, which both reinforces and challenges subjectivity.
“The window is the opening in the wall constitutive of the distinction between public and private, and also the breaching of that distinction itself.” Perhaps social-networking sites are windows, constructing and deconstruct individual subjectivity. Myspace requires an individual to construct a profile that reinforces his selfhood and identity, yet its openness and connectivity joins this individual to a public which makes privacy impossible. Even the interface of social networking sites, the computer screen, imitates the a window.
On another note, Keenan’s window and Myspace also have similarities in their conceptions of language and speech/writing as active. Keenan’s final point is a comparison of light passing through a window to language, which is also public because it deconstructs subjectivity. “What if the peculiarity of the public were…the rupture in and of the subject’s presence to itself that we have come to associate with writing or language in general? Language exceeds the subject, opens up a window to the other in the monad…” My interpretation of this is that language, and especially writing, is public because it connects an absent subject to whoever his language addresses. (I’m not sure if this is correct, but I wonder if this idea of language/writing as deconstructing subjectivity is comparable to Barthes' Death of an Author?) But more than simply surpassing its origin, language is always performative: “If we make images and express ourselves, we do so only at the risk of the selves we so desperately long to present and represent…Language intervenes in the lives of those who seek to use it…” (138)
On Myspace, language and writing are also actions—Boyd argues that when we create our identities online, writing replaces behavior. Teens “write their community into being.” This confusion of speech and action was a big idea in a lot of the readings this week, such as Viruses Are Good for You and A Rape in Cyberspace. A final question—were speech and action conflated with the advent of the internet, as the Virus piece suggests, or, as Keenan says, has language always been a public performance that both reinforces and challenges subjectivity?
--Alice Hines and Zach Smith
This paradox reminds me of the concept of the window in Keenan’s article. Keenan discusses different interpretations of windows, asking whether windows reinforce self-hood through gaze or whether they bridge the gap between self and other, public and private. The window that constructs the self is a “humanist window, the “window door,” the vertical frame that matches and houses the standing, looking, and representing figure of the subject.” (126) Keenan writes later that “the window defines the place and possibilities of the subject…” (132) However, Keenan’s window also challenges the separate self by opening it to a public. He defines the public as all that is different and other to the subject, not as “a collection of private individuals experiencing their commonality.” (133) The window also lets in light, opening the individual to the public and deconstituting his subjectivity: “the enlightenment of this other light exposes me to all that is different in and beyond me.” (136) I’m quoting all this to highlight the dual, paradoxical functioning of the window, which both reinforces and challenges subjectivity.
“The window is the opening in the wall constitutive of the distinction between public and private, and also the breaching of that distinction itself.” Perhaps social-networking sites are windows, constructing and deconstruct individual subjectivity. Myspace requires an individual to construct a profile that reinforces his selfhood and identity, yet its openness and connectivity joins this individual to a public which makes privacy impossible. Even the interface of social networking sites, the computer screen, imitates the a window.
On another note, Keenan’s window and Myspace also have similarities in their conceptions of language and speech/writing as active. Keenan’s final point is a comparison of light passing through a window to language, which is also public because it deconstructs subjectivity. “What if the peculiarity of the public were…the rupture in and of the subject’s presence to itself that we have come to associate with writing or language in general? Language exceeds the subject, opens up a window to the other in the monad…” My interpretation of this is that language, and especially writing, is public because it connects an absent subject to whoever his language addresses. (I’m not sure if this is correct, but I wonder if this idea of language/writing as deconstructing subjectivity is comparable to Barthes' Death of an Author?) But more than simply surpassing its origin, language is always performative: “If we make images and express ourselves, we do so only at the risk of the selves we so desperately long to present and represent…Language intervenes in the lives of those who seek to use it…” (138)
On Myspace, language and writing are also actions—Boyd argues that when we create our identities online, writing replaces behavior. Teens “write their community into being.” This confusion of speech and action was a big idea in a lot of the readings this week, such as Viruses Are Good for You and A Rape in Cyberspace. A final question—were speech and action conflated with the advent of the internet, as the Virus piece suggests, or, as Keenan says, has language always been a public performance that both reinforces and challenges subjectivity?
--Alice Hines and Zach Smith
Ambiguity or Exposure
Jamilya's:
In Danah Boyd’s essay she analyzes MySpace and its use to teenagers in this day and age. Her analysis, however, is done in a very general way and it doe
s indeed focus on MySpace, which isn’t the social site used the most here at Brown. My “weak link”, Sam, and I decided to examine one another’s Facebook profiles, doing a little of comparing and analysis, attempting to learn a bit more about another. Now I’m a frequent user of Facebook, just like so many of my fellow Brown classmates. My profile has quite some information; with one screen shot it wasn’t even possible to see my whole profile, even with all my profile boxes collapsed. When I first saw Sam’s Facebook profile, which I couldn’t even access without him inviting me, I immediately realized how much less information he seemed to have, in comparison with me. Looking at my profile [above right] I wasn’t even able to take a full screen shot of what I wrote for my “Information” box. Then I saw Sam’s “Information” [lower left] there was a considerable less amount of information. This somehow relates to Boyd’s reference to “impression management.” While I choose to write an extremely long novel in my 
profile description to create a certain kind of impression, Sam chooses to hardly write anything at all. Thus which creates a better impression, a lot of information, or lack there of? Perhaps we’re aiming for difference audiences, thus our descriptions appeal to different people.
In any case, what can be taken from this juxtaposition is how two people (approx same age, same school) can see/understand/use/participate in/interpret the value/benefit of a social networking site differently.
In Danah Boyd’s essay she analyzes MySpace and its use to teenagers in this day and age. Her analysis, however, is done in a very general way and it doe
s indeed focus on MySpace, which isn’t the social site used the most here at Brown. My “weak link”, Sam, and I decided to examine one another’s Facebook profiles, doing a little of comparing and analysis, attempting to learn a bit more about another. Now I’m a frequent user of Facebook, just like so many of my fellow Brown classmates. My profile has quite some information; with one screen shot it wasn’t even possible to see my whole profile, even with all my profile boxes collapsed. When I first saw Sam’s Facebook profile, which I couldn’t even access without him inviting me, I immediately realized how much less information he seemed to have, in comparison with me. Looking at my profile [above right] I wasn’t even able to take a full screen shot of what I wrote for my “Information” box. Then I saw Sam’s “Information” [lower left] there was a considerable less amount of information. This somehow relates to Boyd’s reference to “impression management.” While I choose to write an extremely long novel in my 
profile description to create a certain kind of impression, Sam chooses to hardly write anything at all. Thus which creates a better impression, a lot of information, or lack there of? Perhaps we’re aiming for difference audiences, thus our descriptions appeal to different people. Boyd also discusses how conversations, which were originally in private spheres, merge into the public sphere, through the use of comments, in Facebook called a The Wall. Many teenagers use comments and The Wall, constantly sending messages “back and forth, creating a form of conversation…taking social interactions between friends into the public sphere for others to witness.” Sam, however, doesn’t even have The Wall on his profile, not really bringing conversations to the public sphere, which is something I apparently do. Considering the differences between our profiles it is definitely apparent that we have different uses for this particular social network site. Sam’s Facebook profile definitely does differ from the description of a regular MySpace profile, as described in Boyd’s essay. Sam’s profile is indeed private, not much information, no public conversations and no pictures of him displayed on his profile. He seems to have strong control over what people see of his profile/being. My profile, however, seems to be a lot of exposure, the opposite of Sam’s. I can’t say if exposure or ambiguity is better when it comes to social sites, but it definitely does reflect on how different we socialize. [To look at a full screenshot of each of our profiles follow these links: Sam’s Profile, Jamilya’s Profile]
Sam's:
Jamilya and I thought it might be interesting to comment on/describe each other's Facebook profiles in order to show how profiles can be differently constructed using the same networking site. This difference shows that we have a different way/approach to online networking.
Before going into detail in explicating the construction of Jamilya's (I'll use J.) profile, it is important to note that it is open to anyone belonging to the Brown University network. Therefore, I could view her profile (i.e. see/understand "who she is" because in Boyd's terms, "[people] write their being into existence") without even knowing her. The fact that it was "open" to me let me gain specific knowledge into who she is even though I might not have met her.
J. has filled out most of the basic "generic form." This primary form consists of her school, sex, hometown, year of birth, networks she belongs to, sexual orientation, religious and political views. She has not filled out the latter two. She has, however, personalized the generic form by not including the year of her birth even though she filled out the date and month of her birthday. This act of answering a question partially could be read by some as concealment. One could, for example, wonder why the year has not been included if the rest has. Questions arise, connotation ensues, and conclusions are made.
Online profiling leads to hyper-interpretation. One could also question why some questions in the basic form have not been answered and posted on the profile. The fact that they exist and left blank signifies something because one had to deliberately choose not to answer the questions. This is not to judge J. of what she decided to include/exclude, it is just to point out the decision making that happens when one creates an online profile and how it can have interpretive consequences, negative or positive.
Aside from the basic generic form, J. has many Facebook applications. They are too complex to analyze in detail so I will just say that the fact that J. has applications shows that she has strong interactions with an online network. Especially so when the applications require participation of friends. One such application is "Bumper Sticker." This application allows people to post stickers on her profile for her and the public's (limited to Brown) enjoyment. J. and her friends can interact with each other by sharing funny things on a public page. What happens when these stickers are viewed by an unknown public to her? Interpretation, and then conclusions. If one has stickers of pets, one will interpret those as being a sign that she and her friends like pets. Since the stickers are removable by the profile owner, the act of "doing nothing" shows that she also likes pets (to a degree unknown to us, unless there is repetition which would signal a high degree of liking). This is, I admit, slippery terrain to analyze because maybe she hates pets and just didn't remove the sticker before I saw it. However, this does not matter, because what matters is that a reader interprets what he sees, regardless of the intention(s) behind the presence/absence of elements.
From all this, what I can say is that social networking happens through the communication with others whether voluntarily or not (someone at Brown who does not know J. can sort of figure out who she is/what she is like in the same way as her online friends); and by exchanging and sharing (or not sharing) information that is always subject to interpretation.
Interpretation seems to me to be the most important aspect to online networking, which is why my Facebook is so bare. However, I cannot escape interpretation because the fact that my profile is bare can be interpreted just as well. Perhaps not having a Facebook is also subject to interpretation....
--Sam E. and Jamilya R.C.--
Look in the Gap
Schuyler Maclay and Adam Hoffman
“For while the facts attached to any event born of a MUD’s strange ethereal universe may march in straight, tandem lines separated neatly into the virtual and the real, its meaning lies always in the gap.”
-Dibbell, pg 16
Dibbel writes that even when we consider a world consisting of the virtual and the real, meaning always lies in the gap between the two. This is the case whether one is considering online social networking sites like Facebook, or an elaborate virtual world like Second Life.
When presented with an online virtual world like Second Life, one at first assumes that an implicit goal is to create a world that is in many ways independent of our own. But as Dibbel points out, this is an unrealistic expectation. However, this doesn’t mean that Second Life and its brethren have failed. Rather, we should see their purpose as crucially tied to their relationship with real life. If I create an avatar on Second Life and act a certain way, what is meaningful might not be the characteristics of the avatar itself but how it compares to the real me. It is not what we create in digital environments that matters, instead what is meaningful is the transformation.
The comparison between people and their digital identities on social networking sites is similarly fruitful. In fact, Boyd’s argument hinges on not just what teenage life is like, nor what MySpace or social identities are like, but instead she focus on the relationships and the conflicts which arise between the two.
Viruses, Violence and Virulence
In Viruses Are Good for You, Dibell makes a very convincing argument for the creation of viruses as a creation of life.
Discussing Hellraiser’s graffiti-definition of the virus, at one point Dibell makes a comparison between the writing of the virus and the spraying (though more artistically than a dog might) of one’s identity on the “cold urban landscape.”
Considering the convincing argument Dibell makes that viruses take their creators’ message “I’m Alive” global, [we] were reminded of the “cold urban landscape” of the modern age, when technological leaps ahead caused a mass movement of primitivism, as desire to get back to “humanity,” “community,” “life,” and “nature.”
This purely human instinct to make his presence known on a vast and endless scale surely mimics this primitivism. But the more interesting aspect of the primitive/modernism vs. Virus/graffiti comparison is its desire to subvert norms of behavior and––dare [we] say––protocol.
And primitivism, by definition, is a destructive force. Or rather, one could argue that breaking the protocol is necessarily a destructive act. Mr. Bungle, that nefarious multi-minded character, did not understand the protocol of the LambdaMOO society, and his breaking of it was certainly destructive and violent. (And honestly how much more primitive do you get than the boys floor of an NYU dorm?)
Only in the digital age, there are digital forms of the same (namely, computer viruses) human intention. They are intended to subvert and even overturn the protocol of both the computer programs they infect themselves, and also the social protocol of personal property. Virus makers use the digital medium (programming) to subvert the digital media’s control-via-protocol that it holds on the rest of us, and on our “personal shit.”
Just as on MySpace and LambdaMOO, viruses are performing identities. Only viruses are on the fringes. But the instinct is universal and basely human (or primitive, if you will). And similar to MySpace and LambdaMOO, the virus-writers create an online community.
There is a new space (cyberspace) and as mankind, it is in our nature to spray all over it. And by co-opting the digital medium, as virus writers do, it is that much more successful––as W. mentioned in lecture, “the unique characteristics of new media are programmability and ubiquity.”
Love,
Gem and Maud
Discussing Hellraiser’s graffiti-definition of the virus, at one point Dibell makes a comparison between the writing of the virus and the spraying (though more artistically than a dog might) of one’s identity on the “cold urban landscape.”
Considering the convincing argument Dibell makes that viruses take their creators’ message “I’m Alive” global, [we] were reminded of the “cold urban landscape” of the modern age, when technological leaps ahead caused a mass movement of primitivism, as desire to get back to “humanity,” “community,” “life,” and “nature.”
This purely human instinct to make his presence known on a vast and endless scale surely mimics this primitivism. But the more interesting aspect of the primitive/modernism vs. Virus/graffiti comparison is its desire to subvert norms of behavior and––dare [we] say––protocol.
And primitivism, by definition, is a destructive force. Or rather, one could argue that breaking the protocol is necessarily a destructive act. Mr. Bungle, that nefarious multi-minded character, did not understand the protocol of the LambdaMOO society, and his breaking of it was certainly destructive and violent. (And honestly how much more primitive do you get than the boys floor of an NYU dorm?)
Only in the digital age, there are digital forms of the same (namely, computer viruses) human intention. They are intended to subvert and even overturn the protocol of both the computer programs they infect themselves, and also the social protocol of personal property. Virus makers use the digital medium (programming) to subvert the digital media’s control-via-protocol that it holds on the rest of us, and on our “personal shit.”
Just as on MySpace and LambdaMOO, viruses are performing identities. Only viruses are on the fringes. But the instinct is universal and basely human (or primitive, if you will). And similar to MySpace and LambdaMOO, the virus-writers create an online community.
There is a new space (cyberspace) and as mankind, it is in our nature to spray all over it. And by co-opting the digital medium, as virus writers do, it is that much more successful––as W. mentioned in lecture, “the unique characteristics of new media are programmability and ubiquity.”
Love,
Gem and Maud
no mom, you can't look at my facebook
Why do teens feel that while many people they know (almost their entire peer public) should be able to have access to all of the information and the projection of self that is represented on their social networking profile, while mom and dad must be left completely out of the loop? Danah Boyd addresses this question in "Why Youth <3 Social Network Sites." The need for social networking sites in the lives of teens and youth in general proves a need that they have traditionally always had: feeling like accessories in the constantly parentally guarded public that they have an opportunity to exist in, they feel as though they have no public at all. Only a few stellar youth are able to captivate the public as individuals, to appear as more than either a "good kid" or a "bad kid." Hence social networking sites create a new public, specifically composed of the users friends and peers, and therefore a comfortable place to express self and interact in a public way. The insertion of the broader, anti-teen public, such as a parent, ruins this public.
However, I have come to accept that this perfect and accepting public of peers is something of an impossible utopia. Now I regulate the content of my facebook with the assumption that caches of it, viewed by some webmining employer, may someday form the core of my resume. On the other hand, I assume that my future employers will look at my current facebook assuming I did not intend it for viewing by a broader public. At best, I am staying a step ahead of the game, at worst, my facebook is tamer than it really needs to be. The idea that facebook could become a resume (or an unwanted attachment to a college application) exemplifies many of the fears that publics (and privates) have to deal with in the face of new media technologies. While we may become savier userse of the technology, the risk of one public crossing into another is palpable.
However, I have come to accept that this perfect and accepting public of peers is something of an impossible utopia. Now I regulate the content of my facebook with the assumption that caches of it, viewed by some webmining employer, may someday form the core of my resume. On the other hand, I assume that my future employers will look at my current facebook assuming I did not intend it for viewing by a broader public. At best, I am staying a step ahead of the game, at worst, my facebook is tamer than it really needs to be. The idea that facebook could become a resume (or an unwanted attachment to a college application) exemplifies many of the fears that publics (and privates) have to deal with in the face of new media technologies. While we may become savier userse of the technology, the risk of one public crossing into another is palpable.
“i only B-leev what i read on teh internets”
Knowing very little about each other, being weak links and all, Sean and I decided to learn about one other through our facebook profiles before having an in depth discussion. We wrote down assumptions and conclusions gathered from information on each others profiles, and talked about how accurate they were.
Facebook First Impressions
Impressions of Hannah, by Sean:
Friends in common: I would guess that she is pretty relaxed and easy going, or that she lived on a freshmen hall with a handful of my good friends, probably more likely the latter since I did not meet her through any of my friends.
Concentration of Visual Art and Engineering: Maybe she is into architecture? Doesn’t seem like a typical pairing?
Music: Very eclectic in taste, seems to like alternative bands
Movies: She likes the smaller name blockbusters or ones with good color composition, a la Moulin Rouge and Sin City
186 total friends: doesn’t friend just anybody
Bakery application and banana stand group: has a goofy but somewhat tame sense of humor
“I’ve made a huge mistake”: Either really likes classic movie quotes, or has low self-esteem?
About me section: I only believe what I read on the internet.
_________________
Impressions of Sean, by Hannah:
Picture: Sean in neon sunglasses and a tux- he must be pretty goofy, and have a sense of humor.
Friends: 158 – he must be pretty popular, or outgoing
From Mass: Probably gets to go home a lot.
Classes: He’s taking VA10- that’s the only class we have in common besides MCM, who does he have? I want to see some drawings…
Activities: Transfer Student Counselor- is he a transfer student? Either that or he’s really nice and has time to show people around.
Quotes: Better than most, not all lame inside jokes.
Art App: Profile doesn’t have a ton of stupid applications, just this art one- that’s a good sign. I don’t have to feed his werewolf or whatever.
Concentrations: MCM and Literary Arts? ‘nuff said.
Groups: Freerice! Likes learning vocabulary words and feeding the hungry. Cool.
__________________
Then, we talked for real:
Through this quick experiment, we discovered that many of the assumptions we make from “facebook stalking” become a fake signifier of the individual’s personality, and more a factual signifier to the reader of disembodied characteristics of a profile person and not a physical person.
Hannah: For example, Sean misinterpreted my quote (to be fair, I didn’t cite it) to be from a classic movie, and assumed I like classic movies. I’m not a huge fan, really, and the quote is actually from Arrested Development. However, I can assume from his assumption that he must like classic movies….
Sean: Hannah misinterpreted the amount of time I would spend at home or would be able to. I only go home on breaks, even though I live very close to campus. Just because my hometown is close does not mean I spend less time here than most people. From her assumption though, I can assume that maybe she wishes she could spend more time at home?
By engaging this experiment and further discussing the article and our own past experiences with MySpace and Facebook, we came to a conclusion about social networks which challenged Boyd’s conclusion about how online social networks are essential to helping teens learn social cues and rules for an adult world while still existing in an adolescent sphere of crises. We don’t think that social networks are preparing teens for the societal constraints of adulthood, rather they are simply a microcosm mirror for their everyday life in high school, a fancy accessory to extend non vital communication beyond lunch and study hall.
Teens spread gossip, cause drama over wall posts and comments, and can verbally attack others in order to claim social status. This is all caused by their acknowledgment of participating in a networked public, but appropriating their adolescent high school social rules onto that networked public instead of acknowledging it as an adult space that might overall have different social cues and controls. Therefore, being fluent in MySpace is not actually crucial to adolescent development because the way it’s used lends itself to trivial gossip and meaningless exhibitionism. Perhaps it’s better in the long run for teens to avoid it, giving them a chance to learn how to interact socially with people in real life instead of virtual life. Real world communication skills translated into a virtual context are far more successful than applying online colloquialisms into real life professional situations. Although it should be obvious when it’s appropriate to say ‘lol’ in conversation, it seems to be used more and more outside of casual text based communication. Further, the move towards publicizing one’s life through online journals or profiles can be increasingly detrimental as a person becomes older, since this information can never be completely erased. Everything is cached. This blurs the line between what is private and what is not, as people generally have trouble accepting the networked public as totally and completely public. They know anyone can see what they write as comments, but at the same time want to forget the fact that others, whom the messages were not intended for, can read those messages and store that information in their brains. The problem comes with the assumption that in public people will “mind their own business,” but why would you ignore what someone has made so easily available?
-Sean H. and Hannah S.
Facebook First Impressions
Impressions of Hannah, by Sean:
Friends in common: I would guess that she is pretty relaxed and easy going, or that she lived on a freshmen hall with a handful of my good friends, probably more likely the latter since I did not meet her through any of my friends.
Concentration of Visual Art and Engineering: Maybe she is into architecture? Doesn’t seem like a typical pairing?
Music: Very eclectic in taste, seems to like alternative bands
Movies: She likes the smaller name blockbusters or ones with good color composition, a la Moulin Rouge and Sin City
186 total friends: doesn’t friend just anybody
Bakery application and banana stand group: has a goofy but somewhat tame sense of humor
“I’ve made a huge mistake”: Either really likes classic movie quotes, or has low self-esteem?
About me section: I only believe what I read on the internet.
_________________
Impressions of Sean, by Hannah:
Picture: Sean in neon sunglasses and a tux- he must be pretty goofy, and have a sense of humor.
Friends: 158 – he must be pretty popular, or outgoing
From Mass: Probably gets to go home a lot.
Classes: He’s taking VA10- that’s the only class we have in common besides MCM, who does he have? I want to see some drawings…
Activities: Transfer Student Counselor- is he a transfer student? Either that or he’s really nice and has time to show people around.
Quotes: Better than most, not all lame inside jokes.
Art App: Profile doesn’t have a ton of stupid applications, just this art one- that’s a good sign. I don’t have to feed his werewolf or whatever.
Concentrations: MCM and Literary Arts? ‘nuff said.
Groups: Freerice! Likes learning vocabulary words and feeding the hungry. Cool.
__________________
Then, we talked for real:
Through this quick experiment, we discovered that many of the assumptions we make from “facebook stalking” become a fake signifier of the individual’s personality, and more a factual signifier to the reader of disembodied characteristics of a profile person and not a physical person.
Hannah: For example, Sean misinterpreted my quote (to be fair, I didn’t cite it) to be from a classic movie, and assumed I like classic movies. I’m not a huge fan, really, and the quote is actually from Arrested Development. However, I can assume from his assumption that he must like classic movies….
Sean: Hannah misinterpreted the amount of time I would spend at home or would be able to. I only go home on breaks, even though I live very close to campus. Just because my hometown is close does not mean I spend less time here than most people. From her assumption though, I can assume that maybe she wishes she could spend more time at home?
By engaging this experiment and further discussing the article and our own past experiences with MySpace and Facebook, we came to a conclusion about social networks which challenged Boyd’s conclusion about how online social networks are essential to helping teens learn social cues and rules for an adult world while still existing in an adolescent sphere of crises. We don’t think that social networks are preparing teens for the societal constraints of adulthood, rather they are simply a microcosm mirror for their everyday life in high school, a fancy accessory to extend non vital communication beyond lunch and study hall.
Teens spread gossip, cause drama over wall posts and comments, and can verbally attack others in order to claim social status. This is all caused by their acknowledgment of participating in a networked public, but appropriating their adolescent high school social rules onto that networked public instead of acknowledging it as an adult space that might overall have different social cues and controls. Therefore, being fluent in MySpace is not actually crucial to adolescent development because the way it’s used lends itself to trivial gossip and meaningless exhibitionism. Perhaps it’s better in the long run for teens to avoid it, giving them a chance to learn how to interact socially with people in real life instead of virtual life. Real world communication skills translated into a virtual context are far more successful than applying online colloquialisms into real life professional situations. Although it should be obvious when it’s appropriate to say ‘lol’ in conversation, it seems to be used more and more outside of casual text based communication. Further, the move towards publicizing one’s life through online journals or profiles can be increasingly detrimental as a person becomes older, since this information can never be completely erased. Everything is cached. This blurs the line between what is private and what is not, as people generally have trouble accepting the networked public as totally and completely public. They know anyone can see what they write as comments, but at the same time want to forget the fact that others, whom the messages were not intended for, can read those messages and store that information in their brains. The problem comes with the assumption that in public people will “mind their own business,” but why would you ignore what someone has made so easily available?
-Sean H. and Hannah S.
Facebook: My Friends for Your Pleasure
At times, Facebook seems to be more about publicizing my social life to others than about making it rapidly accessible for me. In order to be able to search through and contact all of my friends, I have to (or am strongly encouraged to) make my photograph, trivial interests, and current friend-banter available to anyone who might view my profile, as well as make public a list of people I claim as friends. There is no way for me to designate whether the persons in my Facebook social circle are friends or acquaintances--I can't qualify the strength of the ties.
I find the control imposed upon me by Facebook most bothersome in what it does to my (and others') conception of public and private communication. Posting on a friend's wall is almost too easy: navigate to his or her profile, type in a text area, and click a button. In an instant, my message (necessarily short, max 1000 characters) is visible to anyone in the social, institutional, or regional network my friend and I share. Not only that, but interlopers may also see every word ever exchanged between me and this friend via wall posts by clicking "Wall-to-Wall." You may see why this bothers me.
Now, if only networked publics like Facebook were not so good at establishing norms (of communication, in this case). If I received even half as many private Facebook messages as I do wall posts, I would feel comfortable sending one without the fear that my friend might read too much intimacy into my message --and be totally happy that everything I had to say to my friend remained between us. Oh, for a day in e-life without the performativity of The Wall. Because there's almost nothing so important to tell that I'd consider it worth shouting across the Main Green in April.
I find the control imposed upon me by Facebook most bothersome in what it does to my (and others') conception of public and private communication. Posting on a friend's wall is almost too easy: navigate to his or her profile, type in a text area, and click a button. In an instant, my message (necessarily short, max 1000 characters) is visible to anyone in the social, institutional, or regional network my friend and I share. Not only that, but interlopers may also see every word ever exchanged between me and this friend via wall posts by clicking "Wall-to-Wall." You may see why this bothers me.
Now, if only networked publics like Facebook were not so good at establishing norms (of communication, in this case). If I received even half as many private Facebook messages as I do wall posts, I would feel comfortable sending one without the fear that my friend might read too much intimacy into my message --and be totally happy that everything I had to say to my friend remained between us. Oh, for a day in e-life without the performativity of The Wall. Because there's almost nothing so important to tell that I'd consider it worth shouting across the Main Green in April.
Identity
From Ken Estrellas + Jessie Wang:
Under Identity performance from the reading “The role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life”, Danah Boyd indicates that “people have more control online-they are able to carefully choose what information to put forward, thereby eliminating visceral reactions that might have seeped out in everyday communication.” This is a key factor separating one’s online identity from their offline identity. The internet, as a mediated space, allows people to portray themselves as who they want to be rather than who they really are in offline societies. Each social network user has the total control over the texts, messages and photos he or she posts online. “Please don’t post this photo on Facebook!” become the instant reaction for “bad” photos, further exemplifying the distinction between the online identity one tries to create and the offline identity one tries to ignore.
Online identities are directly tied to the notion of credibility, context, and frame in the exploration of real vs. virtual identities. A person's primary audience online consists of people that they know offline. And because of this direct link between online and offline identities, peoples' actions and presentations of themselves are often being judged from both perspectives. This difference between the impression people present online and offline could bring trouble to their offline life, when others consider it “being fake”.
Rethinking Plato's Dialogues.. In the Ivy Room!!
In reading the Dibbell, we initially started discussing the idea of legality and illegality in the virtual as opposed to the real world…
Nick: I thought it was funny to think about committing a “crime” in the MOO and what that meant in the way of consequences for “myself” both in the real and virtual worlds..
Allie: Yeah. I also think that goes well with the idea of how legality and crime have to do with the body and the biological…Like viruses are still so rooted in the words of the natural world like “jungle” and “worm,” but then virtual rape is no longer a gross physical violation but a “breach in civility” as one MOOer calls it.
N: Buliding on the idea of “rape” and expanding it from a personal act to a more general invasion of larger ideas/groups of people. Ie. New World exploration and the spread of new disease/contagion in populations.
A: Right! And because the people spreading diseases were the colonizers (like the Spanish bringing smallpox to the Americas) they weren’t punished at all, even when the spread was an intentional method of genocide, because they were the authorities in the situation.
N: Coming back to the Wired article and paralleling it to the consequences of colonization, there’s something to be gained from the spread of viruses, just like the work done by the people mentioned in Wired.. But there are some harms associated with the whole process..
A: Do you think in terms of viruses the advances outweigh the dangers, or vice versa, or something else? Should we be playing with this fire, or leaving it alone?
N: I feel like the computer variety of viruses, no matter how similar they are in nature to biological diseases, lack some of the larger, looming consequences that smallpox or syphilis are linked to. But still, the argument can be made the computer viruses threaten the accumulation and preservation of knowledge in the virtual..
A: Alright. I think that line of reasoning could also be applied to virtual rape—the consequences might not be as damaging for the victim or as grave for the perpetrator than if the action were to occur in RL. Emmeline, for example, identifies herself as a “survivor” or virtual and physical rape, but I feel like “surviving” virtual rape would be a very different experience than surviving physical rape. I mean, how different would it be if she were a survivor of physical rape rather than virtual rape “many times over?”
N: Interesting. The way I eventually came to think of virtual and “real” rape was that both have a very common psychological trauma to them; part of the emotional and psychological problems that accompany rape victims is the association of fear and violation with the event, purely psychological factors. The initial act is accessed through two very different means (virtual versus real), yet the aftermath is the same.
A: Ok. I think we’ve opened up a few cans of worms (no pun intended) to make for good section this week. Want to call it a night?
N: Agreed.
Nick: I thought it was funny to think about committing a “crime” in the MOO and what that meant in the way of consequences for “myself” both in the real and virtual worlds..
Allie: Yeah. I also think that goes well with the idea of how legality and crime have to do with the body and the biological…Like viruses are still so rooted in the words of the natural world like “jungle” and “worm,” but then virtual rape is no longer a gross physical violation but a “breach in civility” as one MOOer calls it.
N: Buliding on the idea of “rape” and expanding it from a personal act to a more general invasion of larger ideas/groups of people. Ie. New World exploration and the spread of new disease/contagion in populations.
A: Right! And because the people spreading diseases were the colonizers (like the Spanish bringing smallpox to the Americas) they weren’t punished at all, even when the spread was an intentional method of genocide, because they were the authorities in the situation.
N: Coming back to the Wired article and paralleling it to the consequences of colonization, there’s something to be gained from the spread of viruses, just like the work done by the people mentioned in Wired.. But there are some harms associated with the whole process..
A: Do you think in terms of viruses the advances outweigh the dangers, or vice versa, or something else? Should we be playing with this fire, or leaving it alone?
N: I feel like the computer variety of viruses, no matter how similar they are in nature to biological diseases, lack some of the larger, looming consequences that smallpox or syphilis are linked to. But still, the argument can be made the computer viruses threaten the accumulation and preservation of knowledge in the virtual..
A: Alright. I think that line of reasoning could also be applied to virtual rape—the consequences might not be as damaging for the victim or as grave for the perpetrator than if the action were to occur in RL. Emmeline, for example, identifies herself as a “survivor” or virtual and physical rape, but I feel like “surviving” virtual rape would be a very different experience than surviving physical rape. I mean, how different would it be if she were a survivor of physical rape rather than virtual rape “many times over?”
N: Interesting. The way I eventually came to think of virtual and “real” rape was that both have a very common psychological trauma to them; part of the emotional and psychological problems that accompany rape victims is the association of fear and violation with the event, purely psychological factors. The initial act is accessed through two very different means (virtual versus real), yet the aftermath is the same.
A: Ok. I think we’ve opened up a few cans of worms (no pun intended) to make for good section this week. Want to call it a night?
N: Agreed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)