My Blog List
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Turkle
How does Turkle's claim challenge Mike Wesch's call for digital community and connection, if at all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as a starting place, as I began the piece, I immediately became defensive and biased against Turkle because of her phrasing, to wit: "We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when we’re on dates" my emphasis. The first hour of the first class was dedicated to talking about the difference between Prensky's digital natives and digital immigrants. By treating Facebook as a noun rather than a verb, Ms. Terkle positions herself as an inexorable immigrant, a stodgy Luddite. She is now the Internet equivalent of the cantankerous neighbor, bemoaning the loss of the "good old days." It makes me the closed-minded pot in this situation, but I know I will have a hard time sympathizing with the thesis of a closed-minded kettle. I'll read the article now...
***
Terkle's claim challenges Wesch's on the grounds that there is a difference between conversation (authentic) and connection (inauthentic), and that the inescapable proliferation of digital technology facilitates only the most shallow of human relations.
Her most recent book may be subtitled Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other, but she doesn't substantiate that claim (also made in paragraph 20) with anything other than specious anecdotes, if at all. "We want to customize our lives," she says. "We want to move in and out of where we are because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. We have gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party." But when has it ever been different? Hasn't technology just made it easier? Hasn't the idea of the strong, untethered, decisive, uncompromising and pioneering iconoclast been part of the American mythology? Witness President T. Roosevelt, Ani DiFranco, Pete Seeger, et al. In Terkle's mind, (this current) technology is not just ornamental, it profoundly affects the development of human relations, which to her, is what makes life worth living.
The author forwards her thesis in paragraph 12: "No matter how valuable," she says, "(online interactions) do not substitute for conversation." We are, according to Ms. Terkle, mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. And in doing so, committing ourselves and (more importantly - it is implied - human posterity) to a future of bowling alone.
From what I have read, it appears that tonight's author and Dr. Wesch agree that the human animal is experiencing a somatic and psychological evolution at the hands of technology. I imagine Ms. Terkle watching "The Machine is Us/ing Us" and agreeing wholeheartedly. Terkle and Wesch differ in that she sees this as a problem to be rectified through a preservation of authentic interaction, read face-to-face conversation.
The debate is not without precedent or analogues. Ms. Terkle would likely find kindred spirits in Alice Waters & Carlo Petrini and the Slow Food Movement. Conversely, Mike Wesch probably gets excited by the work of Heston Blumenthal and those (however erroneously) associated with "molecular gastronomy." Air conditioning vs. front porches, distance learning vs. "in-person" classes, Google Wallet vs. writing a check - the opinion of each thinker can be extrapolated to understand their likely position on each.
Ms. Terkle makes an interesting point about the more obvious examples of human attempts at conversation with technology. The interaction of a pensioner with a toy is pitiful in her eyes, and if only those misguided Siri interlocutors would see it for what it is, they would see their place in the decline of whatever... Radiolab covered this idea in an interesting episode called "Talking to Machines" wherein the hosts, with Ms. Terkle's help, relate the story of ELIZA, Joseph Weizenbaum's AI machine that he ultimately disowned as disingenuous. Also mentioned in this episode is the more widely known Cleverbot, the inheritor of ELIZA's legacy.
In addition to refuting Wesch's claim that connection is relationship, Ms. Terkle also calls for a preservation and reappreciation of solitude, which for her is, "our ability to be separate and gather ourselves." It would seem that this desire to be alone is opposed to her call for connectivity via conversation, but Terkle's self needs time alone in order to develop itself and prepare for human interaction in which the parties are encountering but not using each other, "...as spare parts to support our increasingly fragile selves." "So our flight from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection," she says. Terkle's vision of conversation necessitates the maturity of the self, both alone and together, and so she will be content with her Cape Cod dunes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as a starting place, as I began the piece, I immediately became defensive and biased against Turkle because of her phrasing, to wit: "We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when we’re on dates" my emphasis. The first hour of the first class was dedicated to talking about the difference between Prensky's digital natives and digital immigrants. By treating Facebook as a noun rather than a verb, Ms. Terkle positions herself as an inexorable immigrant, a stodgy Luddite. She is now the Internet equivalent of the cantankerous neighbor, bemoaning the loss of the "good old days." It makes me the closed-minded pot in this situation, but I know I will have a hard time sympathizing with the thesis of a closed-minded kettle. I'll read the article now...
***
Terkle's claim challenges Wesch's on the grounds that there is a difference between conversation (authentic) and connection (inauthentic), and that the inescapable proliferation of digital technology facilitates only the most shallow of human relations.
Her most recent book may be subtitled Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other, but she doesn't substantiate that claim (also made in paragraph 20) with anything other than specious anecdotes, if at all. "We want to customize our lives," she says. "We want to move in and out of where we are because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. We have gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party." But when has it ever been different? Hasn't technology just made it easier? Hasn't the idea of the strong, untethered, decisive, uncompromising and pioneering iconoclast been part of the American mythology? Witness President T. Roosevelt, Ani DiFranco, Pete Seeger, et al. In Terkle's mind, (this current) technology is not just ornamental, it profoundly affects the development of human relations, which to her, is what makes life worth living.
The author forwards her thesis in paragraph 12: "No matter how valuable," she says, "(online interactions) do not substitute for conversation." We are, according to Ms. Terkle, mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. And in doing so, committing ourselves and (more importantly - it is implied - human posterity) to a future of bowling alone.
From what I have read, it appears that tonight's author and Dr. Wesch agree that the human animal is experiencing a somatic and psychological evolution at the hands of technology. I imagine Ms. Terkle watching "The Machine is Us/ing Us" and agreeing wholeheartedly. Terkle and Wesch differ in that she sees this as a problem to be rectified through a preservation of authentic interaction, read face-to-face conversation.
The debate is not without precedent or analogues. Ms. Terkle would likely find kindred spirits in Alice Waters & Carlo Petrini and the Slow Food Movement. Conversely, Mike Wesch probably gets excited by the work of Heston Blumenthal and those (however erroneously) associated with "molecular gastronomy." Air conditioning vs. front porches, distance learning vs. "in-person" classes, Google Wallet vs. writing a check - the opinion of each thinker can be extrapolated to understand their likely position on each.
Ms. Terkle makes an interesting point about the more obvious examples of human attempts at conversation with technology. The interaction of a pensioner with a toy is pitiful in her eyes, and if only those misguided Siri interlocutors would see it for what it is, they would see their place in the decline of whatever... Radiolab covered this idea in an interesting episode called "Talking to Machines" wherein the hosts, with Ms. Terkle's help, relate the story of ELIZA, Joseph Weizenbaum's AI machine that he ultimately disowned as disingenuous. Also mentioned in this episode is the more widely known Cleverbot, the inheritor of ELIZA's legacy.
In addition to refuting Wesch's claim that connection is relationship, Ms. Terkle also calls for a preservation and reappreciation of solitude, which for her is, "our ability to be separate and gather ourselves." It would seem that this desire to be alone is opposed to her call for connectivity via conversation, but Terkle's self needs time alone in order to develop itself and prepare for human interaction in which the parties are encountering but not using each other, "...as spare parts to support our increasingly fragile selves." "So our flight from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection," she says. Terkle's vision of conversation necessitates the maturity of the self, both alone and together, and so she will be content with her Cape Cod dunes.
Media Education Foundation
Reflect on the website. What interested you most? What surprised you? How does this relate to the three anchors of our course?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
While browsing the videos on the site, I was drawn to the Byron Hurt document Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes which I notice is on tap for tomorrow's class. As I watched, a line from the T.I./Rihanna song "Live Your Life" came to mind: "I got love for the game but hey, I'm not in love with all of it." Though Mr. Hurt and some of his interview subjects admit to embodying destructive aspects of hip-hop, the film does not emanate from a locus of apology. Instead, his mission is to grapple with, "...those limited and ultimately self-defeating ideas about manhood that hurt men as well as women." Less about answers than about exploration, he closes by restating why he set out on the project in the first place, "I longed for a broader vision of manhood in the music i grew up with - the music that I love." The three quotes below are from the film.
"I jokingly say that I'm in recovery from hip hop. It's like being in a domestic violence situation - your home is hip-hop and your man beats you." 3:50 - Sarah Jones, performance artist.
"There's a whole lineage of black men wanting to deny their own frailty." 12:47 - Dr. Jelani Cobb, Ph. D., Spelman College.
"Men who have more power - men who have financial power and workplace authority, and forms of abstract power like that, don't have to be as physically powerful because they can exert their power in other ways." 16:31 - Dr. Jackson Katz, Ph.D., anti-sexism activist.
One thing that surprised me was the website physical layout and component parts. I don't have a real clear idea of what I thought I might see, just something (more) digitally sophisticated. The site is traditionally organized and utilitarian, which probably hews closer to their mission statement than anything with bells and whistles. I think I was looking for a Twitter feed, maybe? I also think the graphic would look better if it were the full width of the screen. I'm sure they are very busy and cash-strapped, and I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but to criticize the form and content of media on an underdeveloped Website comes off as irresponsible. I doesn't even really look fully legitimate, not any more so than a well-done blog anyway. On another, less whiny note, I was not surprised to learn that The Media Education Foundation is headquartered in Northampton, MA.
As to how the site fits into the anchors:
I think that Anchor #1 is sort of like reading travel brochures for your home town - you have an intimate experience of it, but perhaps don't understand how it fits into a larger scheme. The Media Ed. site is a good resource for digital natives to get knowledge and perspective on the environment in which they are reared, but perhaps haven't had the time or occasion to observe with objectivity.
This site, in light of Anchors 2 &3 suggests that time can authentically be spent on looking critically at popular culture and the effect of its various vehicles upon us. A sort of digital epidemiology which has much to say about how our conception of, "...equity and inclusion..." have historically been heavily influenced by what is considered, "...'normal,' 'natural,' and 'good.'"
Full version of Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
While browsing the videos on the site, I was drawn to the Byron Hurt document Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes which I notice is on tap for tomorrow's class. As I watched, a line from the T.I./Rihanna song "Live Your Life" came to mind: "I got love for the game but hey, I'm not in love with all of it." Though Mr. Hurt and some of his interview subjects admit to embodying destructive aspects of hip-hop, the film does not emanate from a locus of apology. Instead, his mission is to grapple with, "...those limited and ultimately self-defeating ideas about manhood that hurt men as well as women." Less about answers than about exploration, he closes by restating why he set out on the project in the first place, "I longed for a broader vision of manhood in the music i grew up with - the music that I love." The three quotes below are from the film.
"I jokingly say that I'm in recovery from hip hop. It's like being in a domestic violence situation - your home is hip-hop and your man beats you." 3:50 - Sarah Jones, performance artist.
"There's a whole lineage of black men wanting to deny their own frailty." 12:47 - Dr. Jelani Cobb, Ph. D., Spelman College.
"Men who have more power - men who have financial power and workplace authority, and forms of abstract power like that, don't have to be as physically powerful because they can exert their power in other ways." 16:31 - Dr. Jackson Katz, Ph.D., anti-sexism activist.
One thing that surprised me was the website physical layout and component parts. I don't have a real clear idea of what I thought I might see, just something (more) digitally sophisticated. The site is traditionally organized and utilitarian, which probably hews closer to their mission statement than anything with bells and whistles. I think I was looking for a Twitter feed, maybe? I also think the graphic would look better if it were the full width of the screen. I'm sure they are very busy and cash-strapped, and I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but to criticize the form and content of media on an underdeveloped Website comes off as irresponsible. I doesn't even really look fully legitimate, not any more so than a well-done blog anyway. On another, less whiny note, I was not surprised to learn that The Media Education Foundation is headquartered in Northampton, MA.
As to how the site fits into the anchors:
I think that Anchor #1 is sort of like reading travel brochures for your home town - you have an intimate experience of it, but perhaps don't understand how it fits into a larger scheme. The Media Ed. site is a good resource for digital natives to get knowledge and perspective on the environment in which they are reared, but perhaps haven't had the time or occasion to observe with objectivity.
This site, in light of Anchors 2 &3 suggests that time can authentically be spent on looking critically at popular culture and the effect of its various vehicles upon us. A sort of digital epidemiology which has much to say about how our conception of, "...equity and inclusion..." have historically been heavily influenced by what is considered, "...'normal,' 'natural,' and 'good.'"
Full version of Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Coca-Cola
Picture, if you will, a fresh-faced kindergartner in light-up shoes and a stiff backpack excitedly hurrying around the playground of their new elementary school. For educators like us, this is the quintessential portrait of a bright, incorruptible student taking their first potential-filled public steps in the schooling realm. We are not the only ones looking on from a distance and feeling the future swell, however. Seen another way, the child, in their advertised shoes, carrying an advertised backpack, wearing advertised clothes, was dropped off from an advertised automobile, after they bathed using advertised products, and eaten a breakfast of advertised foods. The cast of Mad Men would likely see this as a triumph, and for better or worse, advertising and branding are inextricable from the free-market economy in which we live, bring up children, receive the benefits of a democratic society, and experience perhaps the greatest degree of personal freedom anywhere in the world. It may be the cost, but the author of "Why I Said No to Coca-Cola" wants to know: what's the price?
John Sheehan, said author and the former vice president of the school board of Douglas County, Colorado was, in the late 1990s, the lone dissenter in a vote to sanction "...one of the most lucrative beverage contracts in the nation..." (Sheehan 17). For Mr. Sheehan, the price of allowing the clout and machinations of one of the most effectively marketed brands to buy its way inside public schools was too high. How high? He makes it clear that the board, in ultimately welcoming the deal, were then, and probably are now indebted much more than the $27.7 million that Coke paid for the 3-school, 10-year contract. In his words:
I started out relatively supportive of the use of advertising in schools, as long as it was done "judiciously." But gradually, I changed my opinion. Now I can no longer accept the notion of our schools becoming brokers for advertising space, or worse yet, middlemen in the merchandising of products directly to our students. (17)
To summarize his concerns:
1. "There is no such thing as opening the floodgates just a little bit." (18)
2. Allowing behemoth brands into schools could potentially lead to a time when "...our educational goals might be influenced or even set by private companies targeting our students with their narrow messages." (17)
3. Granting Coca-Cola almost 30 million dollars worth of access to a captive, historically receptive audience is a "breach of...trust." (18)
4. "It sends the message to our voters and legislators that we can let them off the hook - " (18). Essentially, it tears a rent in the civic relationship between taxpayers and school populations. It shifts the financial responsibility off of the community and onto the mercurial whims of an infinitely wealthy deus ex machina.
Just a little sly Tom Waits humor from 1976's Small Change.
John Sheehan, said author and the former vice president of the school board of Douglas County, Colorado was, in the late 1990s, the lone dissenter in a vote to sanction "...one of the most lucrative beverage contracts in the nation..." (Sheehan 17). For Mr. Sheehan, the price of allowing the clout and machinations of one of the most effectively marketed brands to buy its way inside public schools was too high. How high? He makes it clear that the board, in ultimately welcoming the deal, were then, and probably are now indebted much more than the $27.7 million that Coke paid for the 3-school, 10-year contract. In his words:
I started out relatively supportive of the use of advertising in schools, as long as it was done "judiciously." But gradually, I changed my opinion. Now I can no longer accept the notion of our schools becoming brokers for advertising space, or worse yet, middlemen in the merchandising of products directly to our students. (17)
To summarize his concerns:
1. "There is no such thing as opening the floodgates just a little bit." (18)
2. Allowing behemoth brands into schools could potentially lead to a time when "...our educational goals might be influenced or even set by private companies targeting our students with their narrow messages." (17)
3. Granting Coca-Cola almost 30 million dollars worth of access to a captive, historically receptive audience is a "breach of...trust." (18)
4. "It sends the message to our voters and legislators that we can let them off the hook - " (18). Essentially, it tears a rent in the civic relationship between taxpayers and school populations. It shifts the financial responsibility off of the community and onto the mercurial whims of an infinitely wealthy deus ex machina.
Just a little sly Tom Waits humor from 1976's Small Change.
Disney
What is your relationship to Disney and animated children's culture? What role did these texts play in your life as a child? In that of the children/parent you care for? How do your memories challenge or reflect Christensen's claims?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the period of time my older cousin Heidi worked at CVS in the 90s, I would intermittently receive VHS Disney movies on gift-giving occasions. This was a good arrangement; I liked Aladdin, The Lion King, Fantasia, and Lady and the Tramp as well as anybody. I was happy to be part of the city choir that sang the theme to Beauty and the Beast at the spring showcase and have fond memories of learning to enunciate the hard T in Beauty. My neighbor Normand was more familiar with what I now know are the older, non-animated films like Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks, but I thought they were supremely corny and so was he for electing to stay in and watch them instead of coming out with me to play paper airplanes outside. I can also remember being more than a little turned off by the idea of my classmates visiting the Disney theme park.
During my prime viewing years, I was a passive receiver. In fact, with the notable exception of the sad scene in the The Fox and the Hound, I have very little memory of Disney movie visuals. I think I watched for the songs. It was only after I had entered middle school and had pretty well stopped watching that I heard about any hidden messages in the movies. At that, it was mostly Easter eggs and, although it piqued my curiosity to see a phallus in The Little Mermaid, Heidi had skipped that one and I had soccer practice to get to. I did become aware of the Disney Princess ideal in school through listening to girls talk, and I thought it was an interesting thing to consider, but I certainly wasn't going back exegetically through the canon to confirm.
On the whole, my childhood media experience was colored much more heavily by world of Jim Henson than that of Walt Disney. And looking back, Zoot, the saxophone player in the inimitable "Sax and Violence" spot is characterized just as stereotypically as any of the Disney mainstays Christensen implicates. Because his zany, multicolored foam rubber cast never really bore much resemblance to humans, Mr. Henson took 99% of the opportunity to criticize away and probably escaped some of that which has dogged Disney for years. Reading Ms. Christensen's piece, it's tough to disagree with any of what she is forwarding. It causes me to wonder, though, how successful a person of her bent might be in conversing with a child about unjust representations of the female form or definitions of the good life. It is absurd to think that it can be done. But conversely, it is not absurd to think that the child absorbing the subtext at Disney's feet cannot also absorb a wholly different subtext from a different source, a less marketed one, perhaps.
By circumstance, children live in the state of "ignorant and happy" as Christensen's student Justine wishes to remain on page 198. She will never be there again, and it is both the curse and blessing of maturity. It is interesting to see how Christensen pushes her students (or, rather, their realization/frustration at the the damaging Disney subliminals push themselves) to create a product that will do the same for others. The PTA pamphlet, for example, might have taken an unsuspecting parent off-guard, but with its grading system and more positive suggestions, the product fulfills her mandate: "Don't just rant in general...Use evidence to support your thesis" (198).
This was also one of my animated touchstones. Hellllloo President Bush!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the period of time my older cousin Heidi worked at CVS in the 90s, I would intermittently receive VHS Disney movies on gift-giving occasions. This was a good arrangement; I liked Aladdin, The Lion King, Fantasia, and Lady and the Tramp as well as anybody. I was happy to be part of the city choir that sang the theme to Beauty and the Beast at the spring showcase and have fond memories of learning to enunciate the hard T in Beauty. My neighbor Normand was more familiar with what I now know are the older, non-animated films like Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks, but I thought they were supremely corny and so was he for electing to stay in and watch them instead of coming out with me to play paper airplanes outside. I can also remember being more than a little turned off by the idea of my classmates visiting the Disney theme park.
During my prime viewing years, I was a passive receiver. In fact, with the notable exception of the sad scene in the The Fox and the Hound, I have very little memory of Disney movie visuals. I think I watched for the songs. It was only after I had entered middle school and had pretty well stopped watching that I heard about any hidden messages in the movies. At that, it was mostly Easter eggs and, although it piqued my curiosity to see a phallus in The Little Mermaid, Heidi had skipped that one and I had soccer practice to get to. I did become aware of the Disney Princess ideal in school through listening to girls talk, and I thought it was an interesting thing to consider, but I certainly wasn't going back exegetically through the canon to confirm.
On the whole, my childhood media experience was colored much more heavily by world of Jim Henson than that of Walt Disney. And looking back, Zoot, the saxophone player in the inimitable "Sax and Violence" spot is characterized just as stereotypically as any of the Disney mainstays Christensen implicates. Because his zany, multicolored foam rubber cast never really bore much resemblance to humans, Mr. Henson took 99% of the opportunity to criticize away and probably escaped some of that which has dogged Disney for years. Reading Ms. Christensen's piece, it's tough to disagree with any of what she is forwarding. It causes me to wonder, though, how successful a person of her bent might be in conversing with a child about unjust representations of the female form or definitions of the good life. It is absurd to think that it can be done. But conversely, it is not absurd to think that the child absorbing the subtext at Disney's feet cannot also absorb a wholly different subtext from a different source, a less marketed one, perhaps.
By circumstance, children live in the state of "ignorant and happy" as Christensen's student Justine wishes to remain on page 198. She will never be there again, and it is both the curse and blessing of maturity. It is interesting to see how Christensen pushes her students (or, rather, their realization/frustration at the the damaging Disney subliminals push themselves) to create a product that will do the same for others. The PTA pamphlet, for example, might have taken an unsuspecting parent off-guard, but with its grading system and more positive suggestions, the product fulfills her mandate: "Don't just rant in general...Use evidence to support your thesis" (198).
This was also one of my animated touchstones. Hellllloo President Bush!
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)