Though the Internet may be seen as Habbermas' wet dream , Sharon Mazzarella notes, in her art ice, Girl Wide Web, that one of the difficulties of her study was "recruiting a racially and economically diverse group of participants" and that this "digital divide potentially silences not only individual voices in individual social milieus (like middle schools), but also entire groups within the public sphere" (197). The difficulties Mazzarella came upon and nature of computers as inherently "white-collar" create a sphere of discourse that is only accessible by material means.
Even if economics were not a factor in accessibility, the nature of class ethos limits many of the possible uses of the Internet. Typically (an unsubstantiated generalization), the working class is practical, shunning the theoretical. For them, it is not about how they can make their voice heard, as much, as it is a tool that is used to get things done. They want to know, "How do I get to Chicago?", "How do I clean my garbage disposal?", or "What do I need to change the oil for my Harley Fat Boy?" The use of the tool is not dictated by the capability of the tool, but how the tool best fits with the philosophy, ethic and goals of that social group.
Unfortunately, the tool is already limited in its use because of social perceptions and the way, in which, these perceptions shape individuals and social groups. These perceptions limit the discourse between the tool and the individual and how the individual interacts with the tool, in this case the networked computer.
How to bridge the divide? Unfortunately, "a leap from the lions head" is not the best answer. The tool--and the potential uses of the tool--need to be enculturated. Socialization of the various uses for the networked computer must become an exigency for technology and education, where, regardless of class and race, students can learn and use a the computer in more ways that just as a tool of production.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Formative Self Assesment
The difference of assessment between traditional texts and multimodal texts is no more than a matter of training, and very little at that. Assessing websites and digital compositions is no different than navigating the beaten path of rhetorical features. However, the difference of assessment begins to take shape in the move from a final evaluative assessment, where students get a letter grade and gold star from the instructor, to students who become aware of their own rhetorical choices and who are able to assess the reception of these choices on their own.
Borton and Hout note, "[when] we helps students learn to assess their own compositions...." (99).
Sorry to interrupt this quote, but students come to composition courses able to do assess their own texts, just not the standard FYC essay. The genre of the academic essay is alien to them. The instructor is the central authority, who has gained authority from consumption, not production of the academic essay.
If authority can be gained from consumption of a form, then mutlimodal and new media texts exist in the domain that students have authority over--even before setting foot into a classroom. The student can discern how these texts produce the effect that they do and how these texts move towards their ultimate goal. The exposure students gain from everyday interaction with these texts give them the ability to form their own assessment on multimodal texts, while also allowing the student to train that lens on their own work producing digital texts.
Although, as Borton and Hout argue, "it is entirely possible that the processes of creating texts that [goes] beyond the alphabetic will be less familiar to many students" (99); however, the creation of these texts--the material production of multimodal texts--using software and other digital media as creation maybe foreign to students, the rhetorical moves made in digital texts are more familiar to students, than the traditional academic essay.
Borton and Hout note, "[when] we helps students learn to assess their own compositions...." (99).
Sorry to interrupt this quote, but students come to composition courses able to do assess their own texts, just not the standard FYC essay. The genre of the academic essay is alien to them. The instructor is the central authority, who has gained authority from consumption, not production of the academic essay.
If authority can be gained from consumption of a form, then mutlimodal and new media texts exist in the domain that students have authority over--even before setting foot into a classroom. The student can discern how these texts produce the effect that they do and how these texts move towards their ultimate goal. The exposure students gain from everyday interaction with these texts give them the ability to form their own assessment on multimodal texts, while also allowing the student to train that lens on their own work producing digital texts.
Although, as Borton and Hout argue, "it is entirely possible that the processes of creating texts that [goes] beyond the alphabetic will be less familiar to many students" (99); however, the creation of these texts--the material production of multimodal texts--using software and other digital media as creation maybe foreign to students, the rhetorical moves made in digital texts are more familiar to students, than the traditional academic essay.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Remediated Voyeurism
The remediated self mutates the concept of subjectivity through the interplay of multimedia; however much the concept of self is mediated and remediated, the object--the windows of digital reality--are also remediated and reordered. This remediation of the object causes a constant dialogic shift of definition between both the object and the subject through the infinite regression of pop-up browser jacking.
The frames that define both the object and subject, define them in capitalistic terms, defining the subject as browser and the object as a consumable good. But this mere capitalistic rendering of subject/object interplay becomes far more sinister as the frame dissolves, where subject and browser become one. The nature of transparent immediacy, as Bolter would call it, reorients the user's point of view with that of the browser window "in an apparently seamless visual environment" (232). This reorientation is not simply a new perspective, but also a shift of the ideological nature of both the subject (the user) and the object (data viewed in the browser window). No longer are the subject and object defined in the simple terms of capitalism--the consumer and the consumed; They are now the voyeur and the fetish.
In some ways this binary was already present, except that the static framework placed a concrete barrier between the subject and object. Though the browser window is still present, the reorientation of perspective places the framework outside the peripheral view of the subject. The subject's presences is situated between the ideologies of the Enlightenment and Romantic. Unlike the Romantics, the remediated self does not want to actively search for reality nor, like the subject of the Enlightenment, does it want to be just a window shopper: it wants to be the window; it wants annihilation, where reality passively occurs in the bounds of the subject's frame, not aware of the subject's presence.
Situating the subject as the window does not orient it's gaze in just one direction. I am not claiming that the subject's gaze returns upon its self, but situates the browser in ways that it views other subjects, which also view the object of fetish.
As illustration--a vulgar illustration--the web phenomena of 2girls1cup. The object of the video did not gain its popularity just because of the video's nature, but because of the numerous webcam reaction of people watching the original. This phenomena turned both the video and the viewers as objects of fetish. In both cases, the subject is passively allowing the reality of the videos to pass through the browser. The subject is not an active participant in either case, but a voyeur hiding in the bushes watching the virtual and the real world.
The frames that define both the object and subject, define them in capitalistic terms, defining the subject as browser and the object as a consumable good. But this mere capitalistic rendering of subject/object interplay becomes far more sinister as the frame dissolves, where subject and browser become one. The nature of transparent immediacy, as Bolter would call it, reorients the user's point of view with that of the browser window "in an apparently seamless visual environment" (232). This reorientation is not simply a new perspective, but also a shift of the ideological nature of both the subject (the user) and the object (data viewed in the browser window). No longer are the subject and object defined in the simple terms of capitalism--the consumer and the consumed; They are now the voyeur and the fetish.
In some ways this binary was already present, except that the static framework placed a concrete barrier between the subject and object. Though the browser window is still present, the reorientation of perspective places the framework outside the peripheral view of the subject. The subject's presences is situated between the ideologies of the Enlightenment and Romantic. Unlike the Romantics, the remediated self does not want to actively search for reality nor, like the subject of the Enlightenment, does it want to be just a window shopper: it wants to be the window; it wants annihilation, where reality passively occurs in the bounds of the subject's frame, not aware of the subject's presence.
Situating the subject as the window does not orient it's gaze in just one direction. I am not claiming that the subject's gaze returns upon its self, but situates the browser in ways that it views other subjects, which also view the object of fetish.
As illustration--a vulgar illustration--the web phenomena of 2girls1cup. The object of the video did not gain its popularity just because of the video's nature, but because of the numerous webcam reaction of people watching the original. This phenomena turned both the video and the viewers as objects of fetish. In both cases, the subject is passively allowing the reality of the videos to pass through the browser. The subject is not an active participant in either case, but a voyeur hiding in the bushes watching the virtual and the real world.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Acsess and Validation of Digital Media
It seems, that if we, as a society, as Jay Bolter notes in Writing Space, move towards digital media as the primary medium that there are possible detriments that undercut the ethos of the open and democratic forum of online publication. The blog, the wiki, the list-serve, the discussion board will need validation and this will happen by some form of governance.
Information is the most valuable commodity in our society. The valuation of any commodity causes systems of governance and oversight to be created to validate that commodity. Information, in the form of online publications, will by its very nature be censored and restricted in both its publication and access by its commodification. Systems of peer-review, or worse, systems controlled by government or corporate entities, will restrict the nature of writing and media on the web, in order to better catalog and sort the information being posted in online arenas. The restriction of digital production, necessitates a lack of access to writing on the web by valuing certain forms of information, causing users to have screen names and passwords to gain entry to information posted in these forums, which will be controlled by whatever entity is in control.
This may seem alarmist, but the value and power of the Internet comes from the ability of its users to go where they want and produce what they want. Unlike books, whose information is valued because of the material nature of production, publication in digital forms is easy and cheap. Because of this nature, in combination with a move towards "valid" forms of digital publication, it seems only certain that someone--or something--will step to valide the media published in digital environments.
Information is the most valuable commodity in our society. The valuation of any commodity causes systems of governance and oversight to be created to validate that commodity. Information, in the form of online publications, will by its very nature be censored and restricted in both its publication and access by its commodification. Systems of peer-review, or worse, systems controlled by government or corporate entities, will restrict the nature of writing and media on the web, in order to better catalog and sort the information being posted in online arenas. The restriction of digital production, necessitates a lack of access to writing on the web by valuing certain forms of information, causing users to have screen names and passwords to gain entry to information posted in these forums, which will be controlled by whatever entity is in control.
This may seem alarmist, but the value and power of the Internet comes from the ability of its users to go where they want and produce what they want. Unlike books, whose information is valued because of the material nature of production, publication in digital forms is easy and cheap. Because of this nature, in combination with a move towards "valid" forms of digital publication, it seems only certain that someone--or something--will step to valide the media published in digital environments.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
