Reflective Post

I'm sorry this is so LATE but I completely forgot we had to do one of these!! I really liked the blog aspect of this unit, and found that it was really useful in distinguishing certain ideas and different opinions from everyone in the tute. It also gave me an opportunity to think about what to say and what the issue really meant to me...instead of just thinking of random stuff like in a regular tutorial!

I found this unit overall really interesting - especially with the evolution of technology and the virtual world. I'm pretty sure the line between human and machine will continue to become even more blurred as technology evolves...we'll probably look back on this day and wonder what all the fuss was about with virtualized worlds and cyborgs! I mean we depend so much on technology and machines nowadays its hard to think what life would be without them...therefore human/machine relations are probably somewhere in the future - its just a matter of when.

Reflective Post

For me the blog was very useful as it enabled me to participate more than I ever would in a physical tutorial. The fact that the blog is asynchronous gave me the time to think and construct a better argument, as opposed to simply trying to say anything in tutorials in order to fulfil the participation criteria for the unit. Also I agree with a previous comment that it ensured the readings were completed and fully engaged with as opposed to merely skim reading. Additionally I think it was beneficial having people present each week via the blog as this offers a different perspective each week and conjures up ideas that I may not have thought of. Overall I thought the blog was successful and an idea that could be useful in other units.

In terms of being a cyborg, in concurrence with others, I too am uneasy with the idea of us all being cyborgs. I understand that society and individuals are now closely linked to technology and it is intrinsic to our everyday lives but I’m not sure I’m convinced with the whole concept. I appreciate that with so many body-altering/enhancing products available in contemporary consumer society people are slowing veering away from being completely natural but still as I have said I’m still not completely comfortable with the idea.

Reflective Post

The weblog for me is a new learnig experience, and it is really useful because the particular timeslot for the tute would become more flexible. Also the weblog offers us a longer presentation and comments. We don't necessary attend the tute on the fixed time (because 5-6pm I must have dinner! lol), instead we can post on our comments whenever and wherever we have our thoughts. The course material and the readings are very relevant to the lecture. But I think the workshop can be replaced by the posts and comments in weblog because sometimes the material for these two are duplicated.

Actually,I still have the difficulties of understanding "to be a cyborg" as Donna Haraway suggested. Of course nowadays, our lives are surrounded by technologies. But is it necessarily to collapse those dichotomies: human/machines, natural/artificial, flesh/technologies? Why don't we just merge them when we need them, either separate or together?

It is same as my idea: why don't we have a large weblog without the separation of tute groups and bring with the ideas from other groups together?

One problem for the weblog is that when editing the post or posting the comment, the original post doesn't come up to the top. We cannot identify which one is the most popular post.

Reflective Post

I felt that the weblogs were useful for learning purposes. They were a good break from real tutorials because they were so much more flexible. Also I felt that I gave more attention to the readings because I had to write about them. Furthermore I felt that weblogs were a useful way of demonstrating some of the issues that were explored in the lectures. Weblogs take away the intimidation that can be felt in real tutorials and allowed for a more free exchange of ideas, especially for people much like myself who have trouble verbalisng their thoughts in public spaces. Overall the weblogs were one aspect of the course which I enjoyed.

I personally do not believe that I am a cyborg. Yes, I rely on technology, both for my physical well being as well as for my life in general however I still don’t think this alone makes me, or any of us, cyborgs. I still believe that the term cyborg has connotations with a being that is largely artificial and is more machine than human. I think the ability to feel, to have emotions, to be individuals is what keeps us from becomming cyborgs. Furthermore I wouldn’t ever want to see myself as a cyborg.

Reflective Post

I found the weblogs useful because it provided a more flexible arrangement to tutorials. However, I found it difficult to clarify concepts using the weblogs. Overall though the weblogs worked for me, it was a nice change of pace and useful to put theory into practise. It actually felt strange having face to face discussions in tutorials after webloging.

I still do not feel entirely comfortable identifying as, or being perceived as, a cyborg. The concept is great but I would prefer a different term. The term cyborg feels dated and stirs up images of cartoon aliens rather than offering future for feminism. The unit felt like a history of the internet and cyberspace and it was useful to have an understanding of the founding concepts. It was difficult at times to apply the theories in a contemporary context. That said, I enjoyed this unit and hope more units go online.

Week 12 Reflective Post

I think the weblogs were useful for learning purposes. I thought that you were forced to put more time and effort into thinking through the readings than you probably would in a tute. I also enjoyed the weblog's flexibility. Not having to go to a tutorial at a set time each week was great! It meant I could do my blog post's on the weekend, late at night... whenever I had a spare moment!

I am still not sold on the cyborg idea... I can understand Haraway's argument, but I believe to be a cyborg you need to be made-up of part of a machine, such as prosethic limbs etc, I do wear glasses occassionally, but I am not fully convinced that they would make me a cyborg...

The things I most liked about this unit was the way tutorials were broken up into halves- half being in-class tutes and half being posts on this blog. The usual routine of going to a tutorial at the same time and day every week does get monotonous, and it was good to be able to break up this routine a bit!

The think I most disliked about this unit was probably some of the workshops. While some week's topics were quite interesting, some other weeks were slightly less captulating.

All in all, though I quite enjoyed this unit :)

Do we....

I missed last weeks lecture, do we have an RL tute this week or is it online?

Week 11: Tutorial Presentation

Greetings! My tutorial presentation is on Henry Jenkins and Justine Cassell's article (2008) 'From Quake Grrls to Desperate Houswives: a decade of gender and computer games'.

Jenkins and Cassell’s short and informative article explores the relation between gender and gaming over the past decade. In particular the article explores the types of games being targeted towards the growing number of girl gamers.

Although progress has been made the gaming industry it is still catering for a stereotypical image of girl gamers. The stereotypical girl gamer, for instance, isn’t interested in the latest action release. It is a stereotype which suggests girls need to be taught how to cook, care for pets and play virtual dress ups. Girl gamers are being conditioned into games which perpetuate images of the perfect housewife and mother. It made me wonder how many racing car games had a majority of female characters to select from. So whilst this stereotype continues to be perpetuated by the gaming industry, games haven’t become a gender free zone.

The gaming industry is a growing field. A decade ago, Jenkins and Cassell point out, a feminist conference about gaming was controversial. A lot has changed over the past decade and the article reflects the authors continued interest in this field. Jenkins and Cassell were particularly interested in what games were being made and targeted towards girls. Despite the developments made in the past decade women are still the minority in the field of digital design technology and the implications of this cannot be ignored. If women are the minority working on developing games, men must make up the difference. How profitable are girl games? What kind of benefits do these companies receive for tailoring towards a gendered consumer?

Consider Desperate Housewives verus The Sims. I haven’t played either of these games but I suspect that The Sims is kind of never ending game. Desperate Housewives on the other hand places the gamer into the community. What happens once the gamer has solved the puzzles and fitted into the community? Restarting the game won’t be like creating another sim. The game, I imagine, would simply repeat the same formula over and over again. The end result: a new game must be brought to satisfy the gamers thirst for challenges and change. It suggests the constant need for girl gamers to purchase new games, thus becoming a target audience. Is it any wonder there aren’t many girly games available or variations of existing games for the millions of girl gamers? What kind of computer or video games do we engage in? Does gender affect your choices or attitude towards the idea of gaming itself?

The article also highlighted a diverse range of opinions. The ideas presented stemmed from a feminist understanding of gaming as ‘site to right all kinds of wrongs’ (303). An idea which didn’t really seem compatible with the gaming industry catering towards established gender roles. The games for girls tended to have a softer selection of background colours (how many car rallies take place with a pale lilac track?) and interface designs which were more ‘friendly’ for the user. The smaller, newer companies on the market which could offer a potential alternative to stifling gendered games currently on the market are under strong pressure to acquiesce to the major companies. Sadly these larger companies aren’t pushing for feminist games.

I feel like the article didn’t really reach a conclusion. It felt like one long discussion. Although it did get me thinking, is it common to hear or see girls buying or playing videogames? Every time I’ve stepped into a computer store, women have been the minority. Scanning the latest games available, the gender gap seems enormous. My local target catalogue, for instance, devoted an entire page to ‘girly’ games and in a small box on the opposite page were the ‘serious’ games. All the games were from large electronics companies. The girly type games included Hannah Montana, pet animals and fashion advice. Although it appeared games geared towards a female market received more attention, the intention of the games certainly weren’t screaming pro-feminism. These are hardly the kind of games which transgress the gender divide.

The relationship between gender and technology needs to be explored further. Is the seemly large focus on girly type games in target catalogues a form of feminist backlash? The majority of games aimed at girls today seem to propagate the stereotypical image of the girl gamer. So, do you think we should be critical of the games available? Is the relationship between gender and technology something that needs more attention?

Week 10 Tutorial Presentation -The Virtual Community: Reading Digital Culture

Hey guys, three weeks to go! Yippee, here’s my tutorial presentation for The Virtual Community: Reading Digital Culture

Since the summer of 1985 Howard Rheingold has been a member of the virtual community WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link), progressively seeing it grow from consisting of a few hundred members to consisting of a few thousand members. Rheingold defines virtual communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace”. Becoming interested in the impact of virtual communities, Rheingold wishes to “inform the wider population about the online and offline importance of cyberspace to political liberties and the way virtual communities are likely to change our experience of the real world as individuals and communities”.

Kicking off this article, Rheingold explains his own involvement with WELL, colouring a picture of what it is like with his own personal experiences in the virtual community where his ‘online’ life with his ‘online’ communities and his ‘online’ friends transcend IRL (“in[to] real life” as Rheingold explains).

His own experiences illustrate the very expansive capabilities of online virtual communities where Rheingold highlights the number of intercontinental sub-communities he became a part of, and the different realms of information he was able to access because of the various branches of the network he belonged to. Furthermore, Rheingold points out that what happens in virtual communities is, in essence, exactly the same to real life interaction minus our bodies. Adding to this, Rheingold discusses people’s uses for virtual communities, where some use virtual communities as a form of psychotherapy and others to pretend to be someone else away from their real life.

Do you agree that what happens in virtual communities is in essence, the same as what happens in real life interaction, minus our physical presence?

Rheingold’s illustration of his time spent on WELL made me think about my own experiences online and in virtual communities and I found that his ideas rang very true with my own experiences. One of my experiences in particular seemed to have fit the cookie cutter shape of what virtual communities provide in terms of personal fulfilment and the effects on real life.

Are you a part of a virtual online community or have you ever been? (MySpace, Forums, Facebook, Bebo, Freindster, Hi-5) If so, what have been your experiences in terms of the transcendence from offline to online, your purpose in being part of that virtual community and how this use could have effectively changed your real life experiences?

Continuing Rheingold points out the new interconnectedness of technology and the ease at which we connect “two previously independent, mature, highly decentralizes technologies”. This is at most to allow us to gain perspective on the ways technology has changed and affected our real life experiences. Rheingold continues to argue that because of this change in people’s lives due to technology, social experiments arise at the prospect of new technologies because wherever CMC (computer mediated communication) becomes available people build virtual communities within it. Rheingold suggests that the reason for this comes from the break down of community in the real world, while our hunger for community grows.

Rheingold gives the example of APRANET, the first computer network created in the 1970s so that the Department of Defence sponsored researchers could exchange information from computer to computer from which followed the emergence of computer conferencing to build social relationships across space and time. From the emergence of APRANET came computer conferencing which saw the rise of Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs) where information could be sent over many alternate nodes over the Net and it’s loosely interconnected computer networks. Rheingold explains that such information and communication that was being passed around a distributed resource with no central control saw the birth of anarchic conversation that takes advantage of the Net’s grassroots system where information can pass any of its obstacles on an alternate route.

How do you think Bulletin Board Systems and computer conferencing has changed since the years of APRANET? What are this significant differences between an online community then and an online community now? Do you think the users have changed? In what way? The purpose of BBSs?

So anyone also doing the Communications unit this semester will understand that the Net’s grassroots system is the system where by everything becomes connected, and not from one central location. Like Rheingold explains, from one grass seed grows multiple grass roots, from those roots, grow more adjacent roots and so on and so forth, eventually building into an interconnected tree from which information can be passed around and received.

Rheingold’s purpose in demonstrating this grass root system on the Net and in BBSs is to draw comparisons with the grass root system that connect continents and people, making space and time almost fluid, illustrating the convergence of the Net and computer conferencing systems. Rheingold again draws upon his experience with the WELL where the WELL community went form a contained , small virtual community to one that opens up onto the Net’s worldwide network.

What are some grass-roots connections you can make?
(e.g., My MySpace (virtual community #1) links to Deviantart.com (virtual community #2) which links to a person’s artwork, that is ‘favourited’ by some other user who has artwork ‘favourited’ by other artists who link to their personal artwork sites that are accessed by their friends, family etc, which can all be led back to my MySpace page)

Rheingold concludes acknowledging that he, himself has been colonised because of his involvement with the virtual communities which saw change in his own life. Rheingold talks about his friends all over the world and the fact that his life has been changed by the transcendence of the online into the offline.

Sorry about this blog entry’s length. There were a few technical join-the-dots in this article!

Rheingold, Howard. "The Virtual Community." Reading Digital Culture. Ed. David Trend. Malden, Mass.; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, pp. 272-80

Week 10 Presentation: Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life

boyd, danah. (2007) “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning-Youth, Identity and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

danah boyd’s article investigates the function of social network sites in teenage social life. This article reflects arguments she has formed based on a two year study the way United States youth engage with the social network site, MySpace. <--- Click here if you aren't familiar with this site.

In the first part of this article she examines the demographics of MySpace users. She writes of a study conducted in late 2006 which found that “55% of online teens aged 12-17 have created profiles on social network sites, with 64% of teens 15-17” (p.3). She also speaks about the two types of non-participations: disenfranchised teens and conscientious objectors, with her analysis of this being very interesting.

For my first question, I wondered what the demographics were for this blog. How many of you have a profile on myspace and at what age did you join? For those who are “non-participants” on myspace, why is this? Can you place yourself within one of the two groups suggested by boyd- either disenfranchised teens or conscientious objectors?

boyd also comments on how insignificant the role that race and social class is, in terms of access to MySpace. Rather, “when it comes to social network sites, there appears to be a far greater participatory divide than an access divide” (p.3). In this demographics section, boyd also analyses how gender effects involvement on social network sites.

Boyd then goes onto write about the formation of social network sites, such as when MySpace was first launched (in the autumn of 2003) as a social network site who welcomed bands to join and create profiles, attracting music-loving fans to also join and follow their favorite bands. By mid-2005, MySpace had become a popular place for all types of American high school students (not just those with a music interest).

Boyd then describes how MySpace profiles are created, how friends are added and organized, and how the purpose of comments has changed over time.
Boyd then discusses the topic of the public. She writes “Social network sites allow publics to gather. At the same time, by serving as a space where speech takes place, they are also publics themselves.” (p.8). This follows with boyd suggesting four properties that “separate unmediated publics from networked publics” (p.9). These are:

1. Persistence: Social network sites enable asynchronous communication and extend the life of any speech act.
2. Searchability: Finding someone’s “digital body online” is as easy as a few keystrokes.
3. Replicability: Things can be copied easily online, so it is hard to distinguish an “original” “networked public expression” from a “copy”.
4. Invisible Audiences: We cannot tell just how many people will witness our expressions on social network sites. Offline, it is normally quite clear who is able to listen to our speech.
-can find this list on page 9 of the article

Does this list of four points alarm you about social networking sites? Or as a social networking site user, is this what you enjoy about social networking sites that you can’t experience anywhere else?

boyd also writes, “in short, a mediated public (and especially a networked public) could consist of all people across all space and all time. (p.9)While this is probably not going to happen at this time, this is an interesting point to think about!

Boyd then touches on the subject of participation. She believes that “teens often turn to sites like MySpace for entertainment; social voyeurism passes time while providing insight into society at large (p.10).

Can you think of any other reasons why teens might join Myspace and other social networking sites? What parts of a teen’s character lend themselves to be major participants in this type of culture?

Boyd then investigates how MySpace profiles are created, and how this act, is seen as an initiation process after first joining the site.

The article then goes onto speak about how identities are created online. Boyd writes “because of this direct link between offline and online identities, teens are inclined to present the side of them that they believe will be well received by these peers” (p. 13)

Does this suggest that social networking sites aren’t really liberating, but that teens are forced to act the same way as they do in the playground, online? Is this one of the flaws of social networking sites? Should they instead be a place for personal expression, where teens shouldn’t have to worry about who is acting ‘cool’, or not?

Boyd then discusses issues of privacy in regards to social network sites. She talks about the ability to change your profile to a ‘private’ setting, and the two common solutions teens undertake to avoid the watchful, concerned eyes of their parents.

Boyd concludes the topic of the private and public, with the following thought provoking sentences. “While the jury is still out on whether or not the Internet is democratizing, online access provides a whole new social realm for youth. Earlier mediated communication devices- landline, pager, mobile- allowed friends to connect with friend even when located in adult-regulated physical spaces. What is unique about the Internet is that it allows teens to participate in unregulated publics while located in adult-regulated physical spaces such as homes and schools. Of course, this is what makes it controversial” (p. 21).

What are your thoughts on the public nature of social networking sites? Is it the perfect place for paedophiles and the like, and therefore dangerous, and unsuitable for young people? Or does it give teens some sort of freedom while still being within adult-regulated spaces?

Boyd finishes the article by seeing the infatuation with social network sites such as MySpace by America’s youth as being linked to the way America’s culture is largely focused on celebrity worship. Boyd sees reality TV and popular dramas as a “magnified (and idealized) version of the networked publics that teens are experiencing, complete with surveillance and misinterpretation.” (p.22)

Do you think this is a compelling explanation for why teens are drawn to social network sites? Do you think teens enjoy networked publics, surveillance and misinterpretation? Or rather, they enjoy the social factor and convenience of social networking sites and have just have to work around the more undesirable features?

Hope those questions inspire some discussion amongst you, that’s all from me :)

"A Rape in Cyberspace" by Julian Dibbell

LambdaMOO is a virtual reality game or a multi-user dimension, i.e. MUD. This means that the game is a database especially designed to give users the vivid impression of moving through a physical space that in reality exists only as a descriptive data filed away on a hard drive.

Q.1 Are you a member of a MUD community? If yes, do you find yourself reflecting the events in virtual reality with real life?

“A virtual "rape", also known as "MOOrape", is defined within LambdaMOO as a sexually related act of a violent, acutely debasing, or profoundly humiliating nature against a character who has not explicitly consented to the interaction. Any act which explicitly references the non-consensual, involuntary exposure, manipulation, or touching of sexual organs of or by a character is considered an act of this nature.” [1]

On a Monday night, tens of regular Lambda users gather in the Lambda chateau’s cosy living room to chat and meet friends just like almost every other night. However, that night something strange happens. A hideous clown starts abusing two of his fellow players by using a voodoo doll, which gives him the power to use his victims sexually. That night, ‘Mr. Bungle’ raped ‘Starsinger’ and ‘legba’. To someone, who has never stepped into the world of virtual, these events might sound rather absurd. How could have someone possibly be raped in virtual reality, when no bodies were touched and no one got hurt? Julian Dibbell, or ‘Dr. Bombay’ the author of this article, and a Lambda player himself, states that every set of facts in virtual reality is shadowed by a second, complicated set: the “real life” facts. By this, he tries to explain that especially in the ‘Bungle affair’ real life and the virtual reality seem to integrate, as the rape violates the victim’s personal space and affects them beyond the game environment.

Q.2 Do you think that the rape in cyberspace is a crime against the mind? What are the implications of this to the freedom of speech?

The event sparked an outrage among the Lambda users. In fact, it provoked strong, emotional feelings, which according to Dibbell suggests that “the MUD experiences are neither exactly real or exactly make-believe, but profoundly, compellingly and emotionally meaningful.” Soon, a fierce debate filled the Lambard *social, where tens of players shared their thoughts on the issues of law, civility, ethics and crime inside their community. Indeed, for the first time, the players inside the cyberspace acted as a community, defining themselves politically as they were demanding a punishment for Mr. Bungle. Dibbell found that during the debate groups were formed taking different standpoints on the matter. Issues such as could Mr Bungle’s virtual existence be deleted or could he possibly be punished in real life for committing a sexual offence were raised and discussed extensively. However, Dibbel notes that even if the community had unified under this matter, the conversation seemed to go nowhere, as the decisive authority and the ultimate power, in this case the wizard, was missing.

Q.3 Why was the community formed so effectively during the ‘Bungle-Affair? Why could it not govern itself?

It is very interesting how the real life and the virtual reality moralities and conventions were juxtaposed in the debate that evolved around the Affair. Dibbell suggests that “when it comes to sex, perhaps the body in question is not the physical one at all, but its physic double, the body-like self expression we carry around in our heads.” This idea could also be demonstrated clearly in the *social’s discussion board; “where does the body end and the mind begin?” ‘Quastro’ asked. ‘HerkieCosmo’ replied: “in MOO, body IS the mind.”

Q.4 Do you think the fact that Dibbell was himself part of this community affects his writing and point of view? What does he mean by saying ‘…something truer and more elegant that could be found on LambdaMOO…’ ?
(This is what he says in the last paragraph. I thought it was mystic.)




cheers, Maija

[1] http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue1/lambda.html

Response to Harold

I think that the tactics used by Adbusters are effective in that they are spreading the message that ad campaigns are shallow and pointless, with their only agenda being to promote consumption of products. I agree that with increased popularity and sales, Adbusters has sold out to the corporate agenda and the processes of greed that plague humanity. Although they have 'sold out', it depends on what they do with the profits made by selling the shoes and stock. If Adbusters uses the increase in resources to continue their grassroots campaign, then they are being effective in spreading the message of anti- ad campaigning and could use the resources to further their message of anti-corporate greed. (Sorry for using a binary here) On the other hand, if Adbusters uses their increased revenue to further bad social realities such as the beauty industrial complex, they could be defined as part of the problem that advertising creates.

Presentation: "Pranking Rhetoric" by Christine Harold

I thought this article was really interesting – it made me snigger aloud in the library, which is never really the done thing, is it? If any of you didn't get round to reading it at all/properly, I urge that you go back and work your way through - it's worth it. Christine Harold provides us with a fairly comprehensive introduction to the ideas behind culture jamming and, more precisely, ‘pranking’. She details some of the major figureheads within this scene over the years, such as ®™ark, BBB and the INFKT Truth campaign, listing the notable achievements they have to their name. She also looks to the past for an overview of the movement, its origins and roots of influence that have led to its current inception. I thought this was a valuable inclusion on her part: it is important to acknowledge the influence of groups such as the Situationist International in the modern day work of these activists.

I felt this article could have focused a little more on the politics behind the action - she touches on why they are carrying out these campaigns, but I thought more time could be spent on what the greater issues are. It was interesting to understand why they adopted the various techniques they did, as well as the methods they employ to manipulate te media and therfore retain a sense of power withint he situation. Whilst the media represents a lot of the issues they have a problem with, they recognise the need to work with them in order to spread the message. Perhaps this can be considered a clever reclaiming of an insitution they so vocally disagree with.

I had some thoughts that cropped up as I read the piece, but was concerned about floating off-topic on one of my infamous tangents (I figure you can get away with that a whole lot more in a verbal discussion). I’ll try to stick to the main crux of the issues, but if anyone has ideas that I haven’t mentioned, please throw them in because I thought this article had things to say on a lot of levels.

a) How did you feel about the INFKT campaign? Do you think it’s unusual for a youth antismoking campaign to succeed (I do) and if it did to a certain degree, as Harold suggests, what factors do you think contributed to this?

b) This is possibly where I digress, but it didn’t sit very well with me that they were consciously pushing a product and the correlative reduction in anti-advertising rhetoric on their website. Don’t get me wrong: I actually really liked the shoes and wanted a pair – I get how they do fit with Adbuster’s work, but similarly, their adverts worked and that didn’t quite sit well with me. Have they become their own enemy here? Talk of relocating the site of manufacture (heavens forbid I use the term ‘factory’) to China. They are selling significant levels of stock: is there a degree of compromise and ‘selling out’ from your radical, grassroots ethics that becomes associated with success?

c) Pranking is portrayed as a more ‘playful’ form of subversive action - how do you think it measures up against the traditional culture jamming? More/less effective?

On a final note, here’s a link you all might enjoy, based on the tute's responses when asked what your favourite website was.

Presentation: Poster, M. (2004) ‘Consumption and Digital Commodities in the Everyday’.

Poster, M. (2004) ‘Consumption and Digital Commodities in the Everyday’. Cultural Studies 18, 2/3, 409-423.

Hello bloggers! Below is my presentation for this week, any problems/misunderstandings just let me know? If not, happy blogging and I look forward to reading your comments xx

Poster begins by detailing the inescapability from perpetual advertising and the pressures to consume, within contemporary society. He is evidently not in favour of the omnipotent presence of consumption. According to Poster advertising (as the vehicle of consumption) infiltrates into our homes, our work environment, in fact every aspect of our lives. It can be identified that consumption blurs the boundaries between public and private spheres which is an indication of its strength and importance within present society.

Continuing with the theme of binaries, Poster discusses how there has been a division between the consumption/production binary which highlights a ‘unique type of human action’ created by consumption. Different people consume in varying ways and all consumption patterns are subject to change over time thus Poster argues that if one was to identify common features within consumption then it would be possible to label such a practice as a cultural construct with set patterns. This would then possibly refute the notion of individualism which is closely linked in with consumption.

There is discussion upon postmodern consumption patterns and according to Poster the onus is on ‘multiplicity’. Modern consumption was laden with fixed ideas whereas postmodern consumption allows for diversity and change. Poster argues that consumer culture no longer trickles down from the upper echelons of society but in fact climbs up from the lower classes. However a contradiction to this argument is the notion of celebrities setting trends and encouraging consumption. Wealthy celebrities continue to influence the lower classes in society who in turn often strive to imitate them; thus I am not entirely convinced that there is now a climbing up as opposed to a trickling down within consumer culture. An additional disparity between modern and postmodern consumption is that within the former products represented status whereas in the latter period products express one’s identity. Consumption is thus part of self-construction. For more details upon consumerism within postmodernity and liquidity in terms of identity see Zygmunt Bauman.

The final subheading within the article is titled ‘Digital Media and Consumption’. According to Poster digital media transforms both the cultural object and the subject position of the consumer i.e. the cultural object is open for recreation and in turn makes the consumer the creator (e.g. several different audio sources can be merged and altered by the consumer to create a new audio). However Poster also details how there are numerous elements in place to restrict such creation of the consumer and there is a desire to create a ‘pay per use’ digital culture.

Poster concludes the article with suggesting how consumers are expressing resistance to consumer capitalism. With the cultural object as digitised it is possible for the consumer to ignore it via different means. E.g. adverts on TV can be avoided by changing channels or muting the sound. Additionally the development of digital TV recorders enables the user to select automatic elimination of commercials. Thus there are options available in contemporary society to avoid the bombardment of the consumer culture. However Poster suggests that capitalism always has alternative techniques to ‘sustain the market culture’. What do you think....?

Discussion points:

*In contemporary society, can an individual be economically/politically/socially successful without being an active consumer?

*Are consumers merely passive dupes or active agents?

*Consumption is closely linked to femininity as females are placed on the passive side of the passive/active binary. What are your views upon such a connection?

*Do you agree that the consumer becomes creator in the digitized world or are there too many prevention mechanisms in place?

*Is it possible to ever be completely free from the pressures of consumer society or is society too heavily laden with images/texts of consumption?

Tutorial Presentation - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by Mark Poster

Internet ethics is obviously a very debatable and controversial topic - and is something which is explored in Mark Poster's essay on 'the good, the bad and the ugly' of the virtual space. Our everyday life is constructed in accordance to rules and boundaries, set out to protect and control what people in society can and cannot do. It is important to note, these laws are set out by the government and mostly enforced through the local police.

However, when we move to the virtual space, boundaries and control is all but set free - enabling the entire world's population to interact and communicate with each other. While this "freedom" is often seen as empowering and Utopian like, it also raises some questions of what is 'ethical' and 'morally right' when taking part in the virtual world. There are no police (the governments can control some webspace (ie. China) but for now the internet is at large unregulated), there are no physical boundaries, and people now have an anonymous identity where everyone can talk as equals disregarding age, gender, race and class. These critical aspects of cyberspace is what makes it so unique - it is basically a world entirely separate from reality.

Poster's first discussion underlines the difference between cyberspace and reality, and the two different boundaries and norms. He asks: "...if new ethical rules are required for mediated culture, perhaps the earlier system of ethics was itself flawed..." I think this is a very interesting question, as it attempts to explore just how much of cyberspace can be compared to reality - and if the laws we have today are suitable and adequate enough. Poster also references Nietzsche's approach, in which Nietzsche defines ethics as a historical construction. He also points out the "standpoint of the group is crucial to the type of morality it will create." The 'group' refers to 'the noble' or people in power -in our case, we have governments which create the laws for society to abide by. This leads to my first question: Do you agree with Nietzche's approach, and why?

Poster next describes the pitfalls of the openness of the internet with things such as spamming and flaming. Censorship is also an important issue - including things such as religion and pornography(discussed in the other articles for this week). Censorship is continually pushed in cyberspace - for example one surgeon in the article decided to broadcast on the internet a live surgery of a sex change operation. There has also been other cases which have raised questions over the morals of broadcasting questionable content online. This is slightly on a tangent but I recently saw the movie 'Untraceable' which also has a strong theme of internet morality in it - in fact the whole plot is based on the immense power of the internet and the ability of the public to control what happens on it. People are naturally curious, and because of the openness of the internet(and the almighty Google), people can look up and research anything they want. Protection of young children and teenagers may also come into context here - Poster raises the question of the ethics of child pornography and the downloading of pornography online. This leads to my next question...

Has the public/private changed alongside the growing rise of new media? In fact, is anything private anymore?? Just thinking of sites like Facebook...once information is stored on a database its hard to get rid of. Furthermore there is the issue of the distribution of personal photos and such...

Anonymity is also a very interesting concept in relation to cyberspace. We talked about the case of ICERED a few weeks ago, and that touched on internet ethics and the abundance of extreme views and opinions online. I posted in the comments for one of the other presentations a while ago, but I think the most widely known anonymous forum today is 4chan.org - mainly because it is the source of a lot of controversy and internet fads (most arising from the /b/ board). They are often associated with hackers, and they call themselves 'Anonymous'. Most recently, there was the case of Sarah Palin's yahoo account being hacked by a forumer from that site. Not only did this question the right of privacy, the anonymity of the forum meant all the users could post whatever they wanted without being prosecuted. It also resulted in masses of users attempting to log in to the account, and screenshots being broadcasted of the inbox etc. Read more about it here (the comments section has an interesting discussion about internet ethics and anonymity too!!).

So from this example, anonymity online clearly changes the way people interact with each other, as well as the actions people take. I still remember a few months ago, there was the Youtube scandal of those 6 girls who beat up this other girl at a house in order to gain 'Youtube fame'. Arising from this, some people were posting phone numbers and myspace pages of the accused alongside Youtube videos - resulting in death threats and mass calls from all over the world. Some say the internet "promotes irresponsibility", while others think freedom of speech - no matter what the opinion - is a human right. Of course some of society's culture can transfer on into cyberspace - "netiquette" is a term used to describe how one should behave when online. Anonymity is clearly an important factor when looking at morals online though - the freedoms the internet gives everyone allows people to express their true feelings and thoughts without much consequence. There are pitfalls from this utopian ideal of free speech though - of course not everyone will agree with everything that is suggested online. So from this, I ask:

Has the anonymity on the internet altered your identity online at all (eg. on forums, in online games, commenting on a blog etc.)? Have you taken advantage of anonymity online, and have you been able to express yourself more through the medium?

Identity is further discussed in Poster's essay, with our real life identity compared to the online one. In conclusion, Poster urges us to think about Nietzsche's approach of the good and the bad of the virtual world. With cultural transformation, ethics may also evolve to suit cyberspace - especially through the aspiration for an enhancement of life. Politics are now very much involved with the ethics online - especially since the internet has cut all bounfaries between people of different cultures and countries. It seems politics will continue to be strongly linked to the ethics of cyberspace - linking not just individuals, but communities together in terms of power. This leads to my final question:

Do you think the internet should be regulated, and why?

Week 8 Tutorial Presentation

The article “Diary of a Webdiarist: Ethics goes online”, written by Margo Kingston, explores the issue concerning the ethics of online journalism. This is discussed in terms of how online ethics are applied, who is responsible for maintaining these ethics and some of the problems that can arise in the area of online journalism and how these problems are overcome from the experience of the journalist Margo Kingston. The article is divided into four main parts each examining a different area of online ethics. These four parts include a general overview of online ethics followed by three sections entitled Nom De Plumes, Offensive Material, Conflicts of Interest and Plagiarism and Corrections.

The article begins with a discussion of the interaction that the internet makes possible between journalists and readers. In the case of Kingston she’s sees this interaction as “a big plus for readers” (p. 160). Kingston acknowledges that with this interaction that she is able to enjoy with her readers via email came a set of new responsibilities when she decided to publish these emails. Kingston had total control over what appeared on her Webdiary and with that she realised she was the one who would be held accountable for any problems that may have been encountered. Thus Kingston encountered the concept of online ethics when she was forced to transform her “ethical considerations” (p. 160) in accordance with online journalism. I found in this article that online ethics are a largely ambiguous concept in that they appear to be wholly at the discretion of the author.

This brought up the relationship between ethics, power and trust. Kingston desired to create a space in which there would be mutual trust between herself and her readers. Moreso she did not want a space in which her readers found themselves to be powerless. The issue of power seems to be one of the key problem areas in the journalist reader relationship. To this end Kingston published those emails that were critical of herself, her style and her substance. As these responses as well as complaints were published it meant that Kingston’s online ethics were able to evolve “in consultation with readers” (p. 164). It was through Kingston’s interaction with readers that forced her to both clarify and justify her ethical stance when it came to journalism, especially when it was conducted online.

Writing under nom de plumes is the next issue Kingston considers. Unlike newspapers Kingston is willing to publish comments that are made anonymously, written under nom de plumes, as long as they do not consist of personal slurs or serious allegations. She does however ask that those publishing comments under a nom de plume give reasons as to why they are doing so. This stance by Kingston, in terms of people justifying writing under a nom de plume, came about due to criticism of her publishing anonymous comments.

The next two sections covered are offensive material and conflicts of interest respectively. Kingston takes a relaxed stance when it comes to offensive material stating that “it is a deliberate choice to log on” (p. 167). The article highlights that everyone will have different opinions on what constitutes an offensive comment and it is largely impossible to please everyone with what you write. Some will find fault in what you say and others will find reasons for praise. Racism is the key offensive issue with which Kingston tackles. Her position is that issues surrounding race are a means of people with opposing views to come together.

The matter of conflicts of interest is dealt with briefly by Kingston in an extract from her Webdiary. This issue links back with the matter of trust that was pointed out earlier in the article. This topic involves a trust that people who comment on Webdiary disclose information that could have led to them holding their particular opinion, for example any bias or prejudice that the reader may have held.

The last issue discussed is plagiarism and corrections. The issue of plagiarism is one to which the internet is particularly prone. This is both with people publishing false information and people making false allegations from what they read online. Kingston emphasises the fact that she and she alone has the responsibility for making sure that her work is accurate. Overall this accountability on the part of Kingston has led to a positive response on the part of the public.

Questions to think over:

Do you agree that ethics and trust amount to the same thing?

What are your opinions of comments posted anonymously online? Does a name attached make a comment more or less credible?

What are your feelings on online journalism?

week 8 presentation

Week 8 - The Ethics of Porn of the Net

This is an interesting article that questions pornography on the internet. Kath Albury undertook research in the field of, “representations of heterosexuality in media and popular culture”. She raises several questions regarding moral and ethically standards in the pornographic world of the internet.

The article begins with Albury asking the underlying question of the article, ‘What is wrong with pornography?’ In answering this question, Albury makes it clear that one must look to the question of morality between the different sectors of society. Firstly she makes reference to Judeo-Christian’s who share a rather conservative view regarding pornography. They strongly believe that sex is something private between married couples, and should be kept in the bedroom. They believe that pornography encourages immoral sex and is therefore immoral. She then presents the Marxist view, which is somewhat similar to a radical feminist view. Essentially the Marxist view is one which believes that ‘porn performers’ are alienated from experiencing their own sexuality since their job is the performance of sex therefore making it labour rather than something which should be for recreation or procreation. Albury then goes on to discuss the feminist approach to pornography making it clear that the vast majority of feminists (largely radical) believe that pornography promotes the exploitation of women. She goes on to say that pornography encourages a sexualised view of women by men (the prime group who access porn) and makes women appear as more of a commodity therefore allowing them to be objectified.

Albury then goes on to discuss that while porn on the internet may be considered immoral and perhaps even unethical, it does allow for certain sub-sections of society to express themselves. In terms of mainstream pornography it is clear that they favour a rather unrealistic beauty, i.e. women with ‘silicone implants, taut aerobicised loins, fake tan, false nails, big hair and Brazilian waxes’, when the reality is that this ideal is far from the natural attributes of everyday women. Through pornography, largely via the influx of amateur pornography producers, women and men are able to move away from perceived norms and express themselves for their own unique sexual beauty. Albury makes reference to several websites that encourage a different view of the sexualised woman and man, for example the ‘hair to stay’ website, which encourages women to embrace their natural beauty including their bodily hair.

She concludes the article by questioning whether pornography on the internet is unethical. Essentially it is up to the individual person based on their own beliefs and opinions to decide whether porn on the internet is unethical. This is an interesting article that calls into question a rather controversial issue. Personally I am unsure where I stand regarding this topic. I do agree with the feminist approach presented in terms of the sexualisation of women and how mainstream pornography largely promotes a rather unrealistic woman, therefore often sending out the wrong message. However I am a supporter of freedom of expression, so provided the pornography does not overstep the law it is up the individual to do as they please.

This is an interesting topic and I am excited to hear your opinions. Some questions to consider would be firstly what is your opinion of pornography on the internet? Do you believe it to be immoral or rather as an opportunity for people to express themselves via another form on the internet? Also perhaps it would be interesting to look at your personal beliefs regarding the moral and ethical arguments that surround the issue.

I look forward to hearing your responses.

Response to Menu Driven Identities Workshop

This is a little bit late but heres my thoughts anyway!
I agree that it is interesting to note that the lavalife home page immediately assumes the perhaps stereotypical options for first time users - female seeking male (or vice versa) aged beteen 25 - 34 for "casual dating." When browsing through the profiles I paid particular attention to the categories of indentification filled out by the lavalife users. I find it interesting that under the 'ethnic background' category, the majority of people have selected 'white' I didn't create an account myself but would be curious to know if anyone else was brave enough to do so - what were the other options? black? brown? and would those of asian background also select white? As this is the colour of their skin? This catergorisation seems problematic as it is far too restrictive - lavalife could substitute 'ethnic background' for skin colour and they would get the same answers. The term 'white' is hardly indicative of your cultural background. I did find a few people who had answered 'mixed.' Also very reductive and could mean anything really.

The body type option was also one that generated the same answers over and over - most users defining themselves as 'fit' or 'average.' Perhaps reluctant to disclose that they are 'skinny' or 'overweight.'

response to Jerry Kang article

Sorry guys I don't know how to add a hyperlink in a comment so am adding it in a post on the main page instead. Susie Scott's article titled 'Researching shyness: a contradiction in terms?' (2004) can be found here (apologies it's only the abstract) xx Also sorry to anyone who reads this and hasn't read my comments on the Kang article before hand, it will make no sense! Happy blogging xx

Workshop Response to Menu-Driven Identities

Well, my internet connection is having a bit of a moment so I was only able to access the Lavalifeinternet as the medium to seek out potential partners. I searched for a while under these default settings and noticed that all the men were a variation on the same theme - trying to be friendly, fun, light-hearted, non-threatening. As the men got older in my searches, I found they were less likely to try and appear 'wacky'. What interested me most is how large a proportion of the applicants were white - with some listing their ethnicity as 'other'. Other than white? I did try to get onto the page where you establish a profile for yourself but it wanted me to enter lots of details before that stage so I chickened out. Also interesting to note, every single male I looked at either didn't smoke or was 'trying to quit' and only drank 'socially' - are people afraid to reveal their vices at this early stage? Probability tells us that some of these applicants must love their cigarettes, or sometimes drink a little more than is 'socially acceptable.' I would have thought that the drop-down menu answers available to applicants are possibly a little limiting, and people would be able to convey far more of their personalities if given the chance to reply for themselves. Sure, they'd probably get less interest, but at least they could stand out from the competition!
site. The default search engine settings on the homepage where not surprising to me: aimed at women in the demographic most likely to be active on the dating scene and technologically proficient enough to employ the

Workshop 4 – Menu Driven Identities

Focusing on the Lavalife dating site:

Interestingly the homepage shows “female seeking male/ age 25-34 /for casual dating”.

Arguably this reinforces the traditional heterosexual relationship, as the site does not immediately advertise homosexual relationships, thus immediately projevting a normalised image of heterosexual relationships. Additionally the option of “For:” is listed as “casual dating” thus is this website encouraging non-committed encounters between individuals. There is not an option of marriage; would such an option be considered too serious? Is there a need to be casual and relaxed, just looking for fun in order to be successful on such websites? There exists a stereotype that men seek non-committed causal fun whereas women are in favour of committed serious relationships thus are such sites geared towards the need s of men? In terms of the age bracket shown on the homepage (25-34) it could be argued that the site is implying that by this age one should be seeking a partner, again possibly reaffirming the norms of a man and woman creating a stable family unit once into the age of maturity (i.e. 30ish).

I typed in female searching for male 18-24 years and then continued to search each 3 categories of “casual dating, a relationship and an intimate encounter”. The same page of results emerged for each category. This raised many questions for me. Is the site using the information of members wrongly and entering their details into each category or are those members simply seeking any type of relationship? Alternatively when one signs up is the “looking for” option still available or is one immediately available in all categories?

The initial information box shows “age, location, status and interested in” (in terms of sexual preferences). Thus are such details the most important to the general public? All details seem optional as some refuse to detail religion and other information which highlights how one is permitted to be whoever they choose. There is no compulsion to detail every aspect of one’s life. I found it interesting that one of the first pieces of information is sexual preferences titled “interested in”. Thus is one of the most important things when looking for a new partner their sexual preferences? If one does not list much in terms of preferred activities, is this viewed negatively? If one lists a lot (i.e. “threesomes, fetishes, swinging/swapping”) will they receive more attention as they are appear more experimental? Is there a need to exaggerate one’s choices and appear open-minded in terms of sexual preferences in order to attract a wide selection of people? As with most types of menu identities one can opt to be whoever they choose, detailing and omitting whatever interests they like.

Workshop Response to Menu-Driven Identities

All the sites I visited really didn't surprise me at all when I looked at the various different sign up pages. The Hotmail and Yahoo signup pages were pretty similar and basic, and were also comparable to the Second Life questions (I found the avatars more interesting in displaying certain stereotypes of gendered identities..)

Clearly from these sign up pages, age and gender is extremely important in determining your personality and identity - even though cyberspace is virtually anonymous! Lavalife also proved to be similar, where searches are based on gender and age alone.

However, the searches on Lavalife proved to be quite interesting...although you start off with a basic search and the information given about each individual seems to be quite in depth(when you click on a profile), the thing that struck me most was the 'ethnicity' in regards to identity. "White" seems to be an all encompassing construct in which 90% of the individuals on the site seem to be...so in this sense ethnicity also seems very vague and generic when looking at how people judge others online. The information on individuals on Lavalife also reminded me of the info found on Myspace pages - questions such as smoke?,drink?,education?,children?,Body type etc. This reinforces our construction of identites through these various different categories people are placed in - signifying what is held as important when building an identity.

Workshop response to Menu Driven Identities

Lavalife's website contains many diverse identities constructed by users who want to put themselves (or another version of themselves) on the internet to be reviewed by other lavalife users who are seeking to meet, chat with, or flirt with online. The profiles you choose to look at are focused down according to what you are looking for ie. gender, sexual preference, and what type of relationship you would like with these users. Initially, the site asks you to describe yourself according to gender, age and occupation. It is obvious that the makers of the site believe that people observing the profiles are nieve, that is to believe that this identity is a pure one and the person who created it is genuinely interested in whoever is observing it. This preying on people's lonliness is a horrible way to go about making money. Problems with the identities on the site include, but aren't limited to: non 3 dimensional images for the observer to witness, not enough profile information, or webcam chat capabilities. This would further enrich the expirience of using this site by making it more "real". this would be achieved because if the people could chat via webcam perhaps it would make the expirience more "human".

sorry

Just the full reference for the Nakamura's article seeing as I used quotes from it!
Nakamura, Lisa. "Menu Driven Identities: Making Race Happen Online." Cybertypes: Race , Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. London and New York: Routledge, 2002, 102 - 135

Tutorial Presentation - "Menu - Driven Identities: Making Race Happen Online." written by Lisa Nakamura - presentation by Katherine Joensson

Lisa Nakamura's article Menu - Driven Identities: Making Race Happen Online opens with the question "what happens to race on the World Wide Web?" Like gender, age and other markers of identity, is race and racism experienced by users of the internet or is the internet, like we have discussed in this course, a medium for people to be free form what can be viewed as the constraints of their everyday lives? Nakamura is critical of those who suggest that "user's identities can be freed from race when on the web." She argues that unlike popular belief, the web is a structured medium where by users experience some degree of prompting and direction which ultimatley pigeon-holes the user to fit into what she describes as a "clickable box." The article discusses and problematises the need for internet users to have to choose from predetermined options when it comes to their ethnicity.

Nakamura's article contains various examples of just how race is infact experienced online. The first is the use of portals and their ability to "impose order upon the web's enormous collection of data by presenting the user with a series of choices." Often these choices relate to identity and include questions in relation to age, sex, marital status and racial identity. Nakamara states that she was directed to a series of choices when searching the term race. These were:
1. African diaspora
2. Asian-American
3. Gay and Lesbian
4. Community Services
5. Latino Culture
6. Men's Issues
7. Nativ American Culture
8. Religion
9. Virtual Worlds
10. Women's Issues
Keeping in mind these categories are specific to America, they are still incredibly restricting and for an environment that many claim to be free from everyday experiences of identity, these groups do not offer the space for hybrid or alternative choices. I found myself thinking as a half German - half Australian woman, where would I fit into these categories? Nakamura is very critical of forced categorisation that menu's like this encourage and the inability to choose more than one option. She also points out the invisibility of 'whiteness' in such menus. That choosing 'white' is not an option and therefore all alternatives are considered 'other,' and that when other ethnicities are mentioned, they are based on traditional stereotypes. Nakamura attributes a lot of this categorisation to money making opportunities, "these sites want to know what you are so they can best figure out what they can sell you."

The article goes on to discuss how the inernet and access to it is implicitly determined by race. She describes the internet as being a "domain of the white upper middle class user." She includes in her argument that white Americans are more likely than black Americans to have access to the internet at home. So race is experienced by its users both online and by their ability to access an online environment.

Nakamura closes her article by including an example of her own experience as a Japanese - American woman and er exposure to a circulating email entitled "101 ways to tell you're a Japanese American." This list inlcudes various stereotypical examples of behaviours of half Japanese - half American people. Interestingly, this shows that not only is race categorised by websites and web portals but unconciously perhaps by its users.

Some questions to think about?

1. What have been your own experiences of race online? Where would you fit into such a restricting category list? Or is your internet use infact influenced by your race - think about the websites you visit etc.

2. Do you think sigifiers of identity are lost online? Think about race, gender, sexuality, age etc.

3. Is race something that is commodified online? Does our ethnicity make us more of a target for particular sites?

Webliography
The issues concerning bioethical standards and the use of technology to enhance human bodies has been discussed for many years. From Frankenstein to The Visible Human Project and beyond, people have been arguing over the ethical issues around the use of technology to enhance human bodies. I will analyze 5 scholarly works that I have found on the internet. These articles explore many facets that have led to the complex bioethical debates we are now confronted with. Politics and religion are closely interwoven aspects of our cultural fiber. Bioethical debate has become one of the battlegrounds of our human political experience and no matter if one doesn’t hold an opinion, these issues will affect them in some fashion. The question of what it is to be human and to what extent technology should play in aiding our human experience will be explored and pondered for years to come.
The technological extensions that have aided humanity from the first stone tools to nanotechnologies have assisted us in our endeavors to survive. Whether it is to acquire food, stay warm or know how to make fire. These early technological advancements have been beneficial to us. In Technology as Extension of Human Functional Architecture, Alexander Chislenko argues that human production of technology is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has been going on since the dawn of humanity. His argument is based on an evolutional theory that supports the ideals of technological means for adaptation. Chislenko states, “I would define technology as anything intentionally designed, even if no external physical objects have been used. As for the human identity, we can draw borders in different physical and functional places. I personally identify more with my writings than with bacteria in my stomach. The extensions can also be inside and outside the body or programmed within natural bodily functions such as language or other artificial skills” (Chislenko p.3). The problem with Chislenko’s argument is that he defines technology as something natural, when so many have defined it as artificial. His thesis is bold by arguing that all technological advancements throughout history can be attributed to the ‘natural’ evolution of the human species.
Many debates concerning the novel Frankenstein have been swirling since the novel was written. People could hardly fathom that victor Frankenstein could create an entity derived of mechanical and human parts. The use of technology to create Frankenstein was challenged by the people in the village who were threatened by the unnaturalness of his being. Furthermore, the monster doesn’t realize he is unnatural after an incident that exposes his unnaturalness. Robert Anderson argues in Body Parts that Matter: Frankenstein or the Modern Cyborg? “The creature Frankenstein was born in a laboratory, not a garden, and while it may be considered to be innocent by the reader, it is never considered to be so by Victor—its existence itself is monstrous, not innocent. The creature also shows moments where it takes irony for granted, but only after it comes to a certain self awareness of its own monstrosity—after the incident with William and the family in the hut” (Anderson p.3)”. Anderson’s arguments are solid in this article, but it lacks original thought and direction. That is, he compares quotes others so much that it is hard to decipher his thesis.
The Visible Human Project has given many web users the opportunity for anatomical exploration in a virtual world. This privilege has come under some scrutiny regarding the ethical boundaries that have been crossed when this project was undertaken. In Lacerations: The Visible Human Project, Impossible Anatomies, and the Loss of Corporeal Comprehension, Eugene Thacker argues that there can be consequences for using the software in a medical context. His two pronged attack against the use of the Visible Human Project in medicine criticizes the authenticity of the virtual world as a medium for anatomical research. Thacker argues, “This is not discovery science, where anatomists will claim to have uncovered new structures in the human body; rather, this is an analytical science, in which first the cadaver and then the data-body are urged to become the most technically- sophisticated bodies possible…The Visible Human Project, in taking its impossible anatomies as new models for the body-in itself, is producing a set of norms that is in excess” (Thacker p.6). Thacker’s analysis and criticisms of the use of this software questions whether or not it is safe to use when examining real patients. By using computer simulation to work on an actual cadaver, something is lost in the translation between the virtual and real world. This could have serious consequences and raises more questions concerning bioethical standards.
Bioethical standards have been largely ignored when it comes to making money, succeeding at sport or creating healthier, happier children. These alterations of humanity could result in serious consequences. In The enhancement of human capacities by medical and biological technologies Dr. Ruud Ter Muelen argues that these consequences would be the result of gene manipulation and the bi products of human greed. Ruud Ter Muelen claims, “An important issue might be that of social coercion and control. The risk that technologies for example like behavioral genetics may be used to eliminate behavior that is considered less desirable or acceptable on a large scale is not a totally realistic scenario. As a result, the behavior of individuals may become conformist or shallow, with a homogenization of society as a possible consequence” (Ter Muelen p.4). This consequence could tighten government control over our bodies and minds. Our personal spheres could be further penetrated by government regulations.
Political debate regarding bioethics in the US is backed by special interest groups who harbour bipartisan beliefs. Transhumanist supporters align themselves with ideas of technological advancements to aid in our human experience, whilst, bioconservatives push for more government regulation in issues such as cloning and nanotechnology. In Human Enhancement on the Agenda Dr. John Hughes argues that this bipartisanship has shifted to the right due to increased spending by conservative Christian groups opposed to technological body modification. Hughes states, “ Stacked with conservative intellectuals, and even replacing two of the few liberals with conservatives in 2003, the PBC recommended a moratorium on embryonic cell research and a permanent ban on human reproductive cloning” (Hughes, p. 1). If we are to regain control over our bodies and promote research on life saving stem cell research, it is imperative that political control is regained.
Bioethics is at the forefront of debate in many countries and what it means to be human is constantly being argued. These five articles offer insight to this debate and critically analyze both sides of the argument.








Work cited
1. Anderson, Robert. ‘Body Parts That Matter: Frankenstein, or The Modern Cyborg?’
Original Articles (1999) http://www.womenswriters.net/editorials/anderson1.htm
[accessed 25 August 2008].
2. Chilenko, Alexander. ‘Technology as Extension of Human Functional Architecture’
Extropy Online (1997) http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/technology_as_extension.html [accessed 25 August2008].
3. Hughes, James. ‘Human Enhancement on the Agenda’ Institute for Ethics and
Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET [accessed 25 August 2008].
4. Muelen, Ruud. ‘The Enhancement of Human Capacities by medical and biological
Technologies’ Centre for Ethics in Medicine University of Bristol
http://www.bris.ac.uk/ethicsinmedicine/currentevents/inaugural.html [accessed
26 August 2008].
5. Thacker, Eugene. ‘Lacerations: The Visible Human Project, Impossible Anatomies,
and the Loss of Corporeal Comprehension’ Culture Machine, Vol.3 (2001)
http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/viewArticle/293/278
[accessed 26 August 2008].

Jessica's Tutorial Discussion - Week 7

Ruminations on Cyber-Race by Jerry Kang

Jerry Kang a Korean-American law professor enquires into the functionings of the virtual world and how 'race' works in online communities. Ruminations on Cyber-Race asks if cyberspace has the potential to change racial mechanics and consequently alter the ground rules of social interaction.

Describing cyberspace as operating similarily to a sidewalk cafe, the article proposes that the Web helps people to form and maintain social relationships, the main difference being that in the virtual world most interaction occurs through text,lacking the face-to-face communication that occurs in the real world thus allowing for a sense of anonymity, (there are of course exceptions including the likes of Webcams-whereby no one is any more racially anonymous than they would be in any face-to-face encounter).Kang points out that just because race is to an elaborated sense 'anonymous' in cyberspace, this does not mean it ceases to matter. He goes on to retell a situation he personally experienced when participating in a graphical world as a "young, muscular, bald black man". This graphic representation of self caused conflict with another character appearing as a "white female" who sprayed Kang with racist bile because he was African-American. This episode influenced Kang's thoughts on how communicating at a distance through blogs, email ,instant messaging and so on could possibly rearrange race relations. He considers how cyberspace offers a way to increase interracial social interaction without the conflicts inherent in the real world and the example above. Kang expands on this idea by proposing the abolition of race in cyberspace (being race blind), intergration of race (promoting social interactivity) and transmutation online (broadcasting a different racial identity). Kang notes that although there are many inplications with these approaches (cyberspace cannot and SHOULD NOT be colourblind etc),cyberspace is a powerful social force, and if we look at cyberspace as an opportunity to explore social issues perhaps we will be able to positively progress in regards to race in the real world.

In my opinion I think race will continue to influence the content of a person's cyber interactions even if the audience is not aware of the colour of the participant's skin. Race has alot to do which cultural and social upbringing and thus implictly a person may give away clues about their racial identity,for instance poor English. Hopefully we can embrace race online and not see it as a barrier to entering and participating in virtual space.If built right cyberspace could provide the conditions to fight prejudice. Realistically,this may prove more difficult.The text is short and brief and therefore I will keep my blog entry the same.Nonetheless the artcile presents rather interesting notions and is a good starting point for considering the following:

Think about how much our lives have changed since the invention of the Web eg.paying bills online,purchasing plane tickets,booking accomodation,finding lost relations,learning new languages etc.Do you think that cyberspace has
the potential to change race relations in real life?

Is race less fixed in cyberspace? Is it voluntary or experimental?(as demonstrated by transmutation)

Kang states that virtual communities are centred around common interests and experiences and that race does not influence these commonalities,and so virtual communities are not exclusive or race-specific.
Do you agree with his perspective?