Socolovsky: Cyber Spaces of Grief

Summary:

Socolovsky attributes mainly the middle class sections of the populations’ rise in their use of the Internet and its capabilities to memorialize to much of her subsequent argument in the article.

Socolovsky argues that humans inability to cope with death and loss leads them to attempt to create another presence to fill the void left by the absence of their loved one. She writes, “The immediate desire to monumentalize suggests an anxiety about and inability to process grief… and a desire to translate one’s private personal voice into a collective voice” (468). The computer has led to a fundamental shift in how we structure memory, with humans becoming dependant on them as a tool, and the ability for constant manipulation they facilitate. Socolovsky claims that the dissociation that comes through experiencing a memorial through a medium is overcome, in turn creating a “archival place” as opposed to a virtual space. She alludes to the similarity of a gravesite and its ability to meet and communicate with lost loved ones.

The networking ability allowed online has led to online memorials becoming more than simply a site of memory. “but also sources of information for grief counseling, religious education and inspiration, community-building , and various clearly laid out political agendas and voices” (472). Sites such as virtualmemorials.com have created archival memory that relies on replacement and the ever present ability to simply click and be taken to another source to help you come to terms or commemorate your loved one. You have the ability to experience your memory in many forms, allowing for an ever-present sense of closeness with them even after death. Socolovsky also brings up the ability to interact with others in grief even when you didn’t actually know the deceased and the added support provided by this ability. She goes on to discuss the religious undertones carried in many of the memorials, citing specifically the memorials that came following the Columbine shootings. The example of Cassie Bernall who was allegedly killed after answering, “yes” when asked if she believed in God saw a huge amount of media attention; especially from the religious right. Socolovsky closes with more examples of religious and political undertones in the memorials of other victims and believes mourners use this to help fill the void between the, “bereaved and deceased” (485).

Inquiry:

I agree with the concept that humans have an instinctual desire to fill the void created when a loved one is lost. Computers have become such a huge part of human interaction in general in the modern world it seems obvious they would become a means to help deal with the grief. The ability to talk to others with similar experiences or simply have a means to publicly grieve is an understandable advantage to the traditional gravestone being erected since hyperlinks allow for quick and easy transfers to multiple resources dealing specifically with death and loss. In instances such as Columbine where the amount of media attention is sure to spark debate Socolovsky is right on in stating that religious and political undertones cannot help but come to the forefront of discussion and become a vital way to hold onto the memory of the deceased, as well as have your feelings made both public and permanent through their memorial.

Questions:

1. Are online memorials a good way to help commemorate and help deal with the grief after losing a loved one, or are they too susceptible to becoming a means for a religious or political statement? If so is this a bad thing?

2. Facebook groups have become a way to memorialize loved ones through the formation of a social group with a common, often strong, tie to the same person and commemorate them with the ability to share stories and comment on a wall and posted pictures. Do you see this as becoming the more prevalent style online memorial or will sites like virtualmemorials.com remain prevalent?

3. Can an online memorial that requires a medium in order to be viewed have the same sense of permanent remembrance that is often associated with tombstones and an individual’s final physical resting place?

Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a "Waste of Time"?

In this chapter of his book "What Video Games Have to Teach Us," Gee uses the argument of symbiotic domains to explain that there is opportunity for learning content in video games. Gee defines a symbiotic domain as "an area or set of activities where people think, act, and value in certain ways" (19). One of the major points of the argument is that there are several types of literacies and there are many ways in sing different types of literacy. They "are not just ways of decoding print, they are caught up with ways of doing things, thinking about things, valuing things, and interacting with other people" (18). Through learning in this content, video games can be used as a positive learning experience.

Gee explains that interacting and using your brain to think of a strategy is a great way to learn and apply it to other things in life. By using the content of the video game, social practices can be "generated, debated, and transformed via distinctive ways of thinking, talking, valuing, acting, and, often, writing and reading" (22). Although a child may not be doing anything productive while playing a video game, there are benefits regarding the content that can shape different ways a person can interact in certain situations. Video games can help a user learn different meanings to things through the way that they understand and integrate the symbiotic domains of the game they are playing.

The overall point that Gee makes in this chapter is that video games are not a "waste of time." In regards to the child playing Pikmen, "the boy is encouraged to see himself solving problems from the perspective of a particular fantasy creature...He is also encouraged to focus on the problem solving..." (36) which can be a learning experience he takes and uses in his everyday life. Gee concludes this chapter with the five principals that is relevant in learning in video games and in content in the classroom. These five principals include: Active Critical Learning; Design; Semiotic; Semiotic Domains; and Metalevel Thinking About Semiotic Domains.

Extra Summary about Gaming Experience
For the gaming experience required in this class, I chose to play William and Sly (http://www.kongregate.com/games/Kajenx/william-and-sly). In this game you play as a fox, Sly, and you help William complete different tasks, such as collecting fireflies. I do not usually play video games, so this was not an appealing experience for me. I can see how some people may become addicted to video games, and I think that would not be a positive thing to happen. So while video games are good for some people, it is definately not my thing.

Inquiry
I agree with Gee that there is some learning experience in playing video games, but I also think that it can be a waste of time. There are several cases where people play video games instead of doing something that is more important, such as homework. There are also many video games that do not contribute to a positive learning experience in a direct way. Shooting games such as Call of Duty do not give direct learning experience, although there may be some problem solving involved, there are definately better ways to get this content using another form of literacy than a video game. Video games are entertaining and there is no reason why they should not be played, as long as it does not become an addiction or stop you from completing more important tasks. Some questions brought up through Gee's chapter and my experience playing the online games are:
1. Are video games a good and realistic way to experience the real world? Why or why not?
2. When is playing video games too much?
3. Is video gaming a good way to interact with others, or does it create more of a negative aspect on a users social life?

Morningstar and Farms: Lucasflim's Habitat

Lucasfilm's Habitat was the first attempt at creating a largescale, commercial, many user, graphical virtual environment. Users can communicate with other users, play games, go on adventures, open businesses, etc. It includes a frontend, which is the user's home computer or interface, and a backend which maintains the world model, enforces rules, and keeps the frontend informed on changes, etc. Avatars represent players, and it consists of regions which the avatars can move to and from. There are also objects, which usually have some function or purpose. Habitat is implemented by an object-oriented model. Basically, a message travels from the users input into the frontend, an action is taken, and the state changes, the backend sends a response to the frontend alerting it of the results and notifies any other players in the same region of what happened.

From making Habitat, Morningstar and Farms learned a number of lessons:
Idea of many-user environment is central to cyberspace – automatons will never have the same level of completxity as humans
communications bandwidth is a scarce resource – available carrying capacity is limited.
An object-oriented data representation is essential – description should be in terms of what exists, not what it looks like. Superficial data can be generated at local basis.
Implementation platform is relatively unimportant – cyberspace is a communications medium, not simply a user interface model
Data communications standards are vital – communicating object definitions, adding new classes/objects without new software.

Also in the article, Morningstar and Farms cover the challenges of building and running a virtual world. Firstly, they have to create a working piece of technology, and then they have to create the Habitat world and manage it. In creating the technology, the quickly crossed the complexity threshold, where the designer loses control because of the complexity of what they are making. The virtual world has to be in scale with its population, but it was discovered that it is impossible to control everything. Given that people are ultimately unpredictable and uncontrollable, it was much more successful to let them have control. The game is open-ended, with no fixed set of objectives. However, the user should only have control over the experiential level, not the infrastructure level. Meaning they have control over how they play, but not the actual program. The same idea goes for the designers, who, if at all possible should make changes at the experiential level, aka operating within the system.

Inquiry

I agree with what the authors say about operating within the system. In a simulated world, where the user is meant to be totally immersed, it completely ruins the illusion if serious changes are made that are not within the game. Just like in reading a book, no one wants to be immersed in a character's life who tragically dies, and have the explanation be that the author was just tired of writing; they want it to have meaning within the book. Today, there are many examples that build on the technology of Habitat. As in my previous blog, these include World of Warcraft, Xbox live, second life, and many more. User interaction is everything today. The media present today, have the ability to create much more realistic worlds than those present in Habitat. While the authors don't believe that aesthetics are vitally important, today I believe they are more important than ever. The abilities of graphics today are essential to selling a video game. The article did spur a couple of questions:
In the “Great Debate” about whether or not killing should be allowed in a virtual world, the split was 50/50. Today, many games involve killing other participants, for example, Call of Duty. Are games based on killing morally acceptable? How far is too far?
Would a game where the user has little control still be popular today, or does today's user require complete control?
Is anarchy a good or a bad thing, and how should the societies in games be governed?

Turkle: Video Games and Computer Holding Power

">

Summary

In this article, Turkle basically covers how video games represent computer technology as a whole and human relationships with them.

Video games are often not looked upon kindly, especially by adults. Really, what people fear is computer technology as a whole. Turkle says we are on an “eve of a new era...and we don't know where we are.” For people for whom technology is something new, it is also something scary. It is rapidly changing, which can be disquieting, but for children, it is not something new, it is something that is part of their world, and it is not abnormal to be proficient at operating. Video games are an easy target for people to pick on because they have more control over what video games their children play, and where, than they do over the other forms of new media they are forced to use everyday.

The relationship between children and video games is one that resembles addiction, in that it often seems they are not played because they are “fun” but more because of a desire for domination, ranking, testing or proving oneself. Video games provide a level of control, when “real” life is out of control. Because of their nature, one also has to be constantly attentive, the game will not wait for them, thus providing a sort of meditation, or relief for the player. It is impossible to think about other stressors in daily life while paying constant attention to a video game.

Video games also provide a more complete immersion experience than television. In video games, the player actually “is” the one doing the actions. They identify with the characters on a different level. This is dangerous, however, because it can lead to infatuation with simulated worlds, causing the player to prefer them to reality. The player's relationship with a simulated world influences the players relationship with reality.

Some quick facts that Turkle provides about video games are here:

• Unlike the pinball machine (which she compares to video games quite often), video games are not subject to physical laws, and mechanical limitations. They are logic technology, programs made up of tens of thousands of computer instructions. Things are not made, but written.

• Computers are considered “metaphysical machines” and have emotional power. Games provide the promise of infinity (the game can/will never end) and the promise of perfection (it will provide you with perfection, as long as you play it perfectly.

• Like Dungeons and Dragons, games are rule-based. Once rules have been defined, they must be adhered to.

• Video games are not mindless, but require interaction, learning how to learn what it can do, assimilating large amounts of information about structure and strategy, and muscle memory.

Inquiry

I am particularly interested in what Turkle says about infatuation with video games. One of my best friends fits exactly into what she is saying, and I believe he almost views video games as not only preferable to reality, but frighteningly similar. Among other games, he plays World of Warcraft, which has an entire culture embedded into it. He actually has made friends that he talks to frequently in the “real world.” Xbox live, and interactive games provide a new dimension to video games and with it a whole new level of infatuation. My questions are:

• Does the danger of infatuation the same as the danger of transparency?

• Given that games rely upon perfection, and striving to be better, can they be the new form of meditation like the article says, or just a different form of stress?

• Turkle also questions whether or not the players will continue to be users, or if they will become programmers. With the abilities to customize so many things in video games already (looks, powers, weapons, names, etc.), do you think we're already on our way to wanting more control over our games, becoming closer to programmers and farther from users?

Barton & Barton- "Ideology and the Map"

Summary

Ben and Marthalee Barton attempt to illustrate the need for a “neutral” view of reality via maps and other visual representations. Within the excerpt, they not only outline the disparities within the conventions of maps; they highlight the possible cultural and social criticism that, “the map is seen as complicit with social-control mechanisms inextricably linked to power and authority” (53). This statement frequently refers to the denaturalization of Kuwait as an example. In some maps Kuwait may be listed as the 19^th province of Iraq, which denies its national autonomy. In this sense, maps created by the people in positions of power are biased. As consumers of maps, the public is inadvertently acceding to the terms of the producer.

Barton and Barton explain this to the layman as rules of inclusion and exclusion. In addition, they reason that the bias in map distortions could be due to the ‘omphalos syndrome’, which describes how people believe themselves to be divinely appointed to the center of the universe (55). This is evident in the Mercator map, as Russia’s size appears nearly 3 times that of Africa, when Africa’s actual area is greater. Barton and Barton suggest that this is due to the sectional interests of the white colonialist powers (55). The frequent use of rhetorical questions, literary references, and use of 1^st person point of view draws the common audience into the subject matter. The persuasive writing is in the form of a proposal, urging for a more inclusionary visual design practice.

Inquiry

Barton and Barton’s views on maps and the rules of exclusion and inclusion were thought-provoking when they did not sound like conspiracy theories. I agree with their sentiments in saying that maps as visual representations are subject to being a method of control by those in power. Barton and Barton claim that, “feature maps…do not show us what is undesirable. We never see slums, buildings in poor condition, suggestions of danger. The feature map is an optimistic world view, an image which focuses on only the positive aspects of life…”(56). Although I agree with the statement, I don’t believe it is applicable to our lives in the United States. I will use China’s censorship practices as an example.

In certain circumstances, China has exercised government power in attempts to neutralize public opinion through banning instant messaging services, re-editing film, and overall limiting speech and expression. (Here is a graphic that illustrates censorship: http://infobeautiful.s3.amazonaws.com/what-does-china-censor-online.gif) In a way, their intention is to block any ‘undesirable’ facets of the government. This is a regression from Barton and Barton’s proposal of including more people in the visual design practice. An authority is responsible for the severe censorship and manipulation of new media. This distortion translates to what some people may believe as true. By limiting the participation of individuals, the scope of the world is obstructed.

1. The literature described how Australian children view maps with the Northern Hemisphere as ‘upside-down’ as an example of a rule of inclusion, specifically privileging. What is another example of a rule of inclusion?
2. How is New Media a social-control mechanism?
3. How could New Media, specifically forms of visual representation in 2010, fortify Barton and Barton’s arguments?

Foucalt-"Panopticism"

Summary

Michael Foucalt’s Panopticism analyzes and purports the effectiveness of the structure proposed by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, known as the panopticon. Foucalt opens with a description of the antithesis of Bentham’s theory of panopticism: a tightly run, highly-discipline oriented society in which the people are kept in line by strict rules, and even stricter punishments for violating those rules. This society arises out of the crisis of a medieval outbreak of the plague, and extreme measures are taken to limit the spread of the disease as much as possible. Every aspect of this type of society is minutely controlled-there is a procedure for everything, as well as a clear chain of command. “The plague is met by order…It lays down for each individual his place, his body, his disease and his death…”(3)

At the opposite side of the spectrum, Foucalt delves deeply into the benefits of panopticism-a system in which every person under surveillance is separated from one another, and within easy view of a central watching position, which masks the watcher from the subjects’ eyes: “[The subject] is seen, but does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication.”(6) Panopticism is, in almost every way, completely different than the rigid society: instead of power being concentrated in only a few individuals who are beyond scrutiny, the position of the watcher is a loosely defined one, which is open to all individuals of the public, and the watcher themselves can be observed from time to time. In addition, because of the isolation and constant, vague threat of close watch, security does not have to be nearly as extensive: “there were no more bars, no more chains, no more heavy locks…he who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power…”(9)

Foucalt’s intended audience appears to be students/teachers of these theories and relevant others-indeed, this excerpt comes from a textbook entitled Rethinking Architecture: A reader in cultural theory. His background would seem to corroborate this assertion-he was a professor/educator in several institutes of higher learning, and thus would gear his writings toward an academic audience, learners and instructors alike. As with Boudrillard, Foucalt is disseminating his academic, informed opinion through his writings, staking his professional credibility on this argument, using it as leverage.

Inquiry

Foucalt’s examination of the benefits of panopticism, especially when compared so effectively to the nightmare totalitarian society, makes good logical sense, and appeals to the reader’s want of an effective, loosely run institution. However, we ought not to forget that the whole system depends on the principle of obedience through fear, just as the totalitarian system is. Tempting though cynicism might be, it is within the capabilities of human nature to desire to behave in a positive, constructive way without being watched every minute of the day(or living under the threat of such observation). We are more than able to look inside ourselves and find the goodness and conscience that keeps us in line without doing so merely because it violates the letter of the law. However, if the system is all stick and no carrot, resentment will inevitably build, even more so if the subject is made to feel that there has been no trust whatsoever placed in them. Students are similar in this aspect to other subjects in an institution. Enforcement of anti-plagiarism rules, for example, can incorporate a wide spectrum of trust. If every single paper in every single class were run through such a scan such as that provided by turnitin.com, students would feel invalidated, as though they were never worth any amount of trust. Honor codes, while sticky and often naïve systems, must be present on some level to prevent outright resentment and total lack of motivation to abide by the rules.

Discussion Questions

1. In what situations, if any, would a totalitarian system be most effective at keeping order and discipline?

2. On what level does panopticism work? What aspects of it are most effective, and which are unnecessary?

3. To what extent should rigid regulations and subtle observation and enforcement be combined?

Baudrillard-"Procession of Simulacra"

Summary

In Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation, he argues that our society has progressed to a point where simulations have become indiscernible from what they are simulating, because they have ceased to actually be tied to anything real. That is, we have transitioned from living in a reality interspersed with approximate simulations to the “hyperreal”, “without origin or reality”(1). Nothing is connected to reality any longer; everything exists in a “hyperspace without atmosphere”(2). Baudrillard references a fable by Borges, in which an empire ambitiously creates such an accurate and thorough map of its territory that it becomes as large as the territory itself. Thus, the simulation has become almost as encompassing as what it is representing. The author states, however, that this fable represents a point in society that has already passed-simulations are no longer anchored in reality; they are the reality.

Jean Baudrillard was a “sociologist, philosopher, cultural theorist…”(Wikipedia) As such, he is providing in this text his scholarly opinion on a cultural phenomenon, with his academic reputation at stake. Baudrillard’s intended audience for this text is obviously scholars of a high level, students and teachers alike. This is evidenced by his complex, advanced vocabulary and dense writing style. In addition to his general level of writing, Baudrillard makes references to concepts and intellectuals which would only be familiar to a learned reader-the works of Borges are not nearly as prevalent in the minds of the average person as those of say, popular fiction writers.

Inquiry

The perspective that Baudrillard provides on the way new media is changing the way we perceive reality is certainly novel and thought-provoking. Indeed, the Internet has revolutionized the way humans interact, and in many aspects it is the sort of simulation that he refers to. However, as is obvious, many activities that have become digitalized/have moved to the realm of the Internet are still grounded in reality. Though the physical and “real” manifestations of these activities have drastically been reduced, such as combing garage sales for antiques and collectibles (all but replaced by sites such as eBay and craigslist), the distinction between these methods is still quite clear. Online shoppers are quite aware of the electronic and artificial nature of their perusing, and are not simple-minded enough to consider online sites as part of their “reality”. It should be clear that there is a fine balance between living in a cabin in a secluded forest, free of all technology and living in a totally organic environment, and living singularly off of a created Internet identity, surrounded by screens every waking hour of the day.

Discussion Questions:

1. What portions of our society, direct social interactions or otherwise, have been eliminated from “reality” by New Media?

2. Is there truly a danger of the image/symbol/simulation taking over and becoming something of substance in its own right?

3. What technological events that are just on the horizon, if any, would seem to drive society towards Baudrillard’s “hyperreal”?

Baudrillard-Simulacra and Simulation

Summary

In Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation, he argues that our society has progressed to a point where simulations have become indiscernible from what they are simulating, because they have ceased to actually be tied to anything real. That is, we have transitioned from living in a reality interspersed with approximate simulations to the “hyperreal”, “without origin or reality”.

Baudrillard and Foucault -Tory Witt

Sorry guys, I typed up the blog in Word and it just would not let me paste it in here. So here's a link to it on my Windows blog. Both of them are on here, sorry for the trouble!

http://cid-b19d86721348ff5b.spaces.live.com/default.aspx

Mythinformation: Are We in the Midst of a Revolution? by Brittney Beck

Summary

In the article, Mythinformation, Langdon Winner claims that the recent explosion in "the use of computers and advanced communications is producing a sweeping set of transformations in every corner of social life ( Langdon 589)." He argues that it is in fact a "revolution," but not in the usual way the term is used. He also argues that the benefits of this revolution are being over exaggerated and the potential problems and challenges are being glossed over.

It is frequently advertised that the new advancements in technology that, "Gradually, existing differences between rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged, will begin to evaporate (Langdon 590)." In additions there are claims that it will increase democracy. Langdon describes this as "mythinformation: the almost religious conviction that a widespread adoption of computers and communications systems along with easy access to electronic information will automatically produce a better world for human living (592)." This is a common belief in the public, however, it is an over exaggeration. The society will not necessarily become more egalitarian and the revolution will be more conservative than advertised. Finally, people may actually become more passive as when news is shared electronically. The current information revolution will subtly change the social structure of society, but not quite as drastically as it is often assumed to do.

In Mythinformation, Langdon is writing to society to give them a more realistic view of the current information revolution. This becomes apparent when he discusses the issue using plural first person pronouns such as we. For example, in the following sentence he describes what we, as a society should do to analyze this revolution: "We would want to begin by studying the fundamental goals of the revolution (Langdon 589)." Such a sentence also demonstrates that Langdon is the type of person who believes in thoroughly analyzing issues from every angle and believes in making informed decisions on where one stands on an item of significant debate. If Langover's argument is not taken into consideration people may not fully prepare themselves for the possible consequences linked to the information revolution such as decreasing privacy.

Inquiry

Personally I agree with Langdon's argument. The potential impacts of the new media are vastly over exaggerated and beautified. This new revolution is advertised as being the solution to a vast number of problems and creating an almost Utopian society which is not realistic. Such revolutions need to be critically analyzed from all angles to see the pros and cons.

1) What characteristics qualify the current advancement in communications technology as a revolution?
2) What are the potential dangers and challenges in rapid advancement in communications technology?
3) Would you actually label this current period of advancement a revolution? Why or why not?

The End of Books by Robert Coover: Are They Really Becoming Obsolete? By Brittney Beck

Summary

Coover’s article The End of Books discusses books as potentially becoming an obsolete technology and hypertext becomes a more accepted medium of fictional works. He defines today’s “real world” as “the world of video transmissions, cellular phones, fax machines,[and] computer networks (Coover 706).” According to him, in such a world the classic “line” of a novel will be too restricting. Hypertext offers far more opportunities to explore topic and concepts in works of fiction. However, there are still many challenges in the field of hypertext as it is still being developed and explored. There are the questions of how much linked information is too much and distracts from the purpose of the piece of writing as Coover put very well when he said “how do you move around in infinity without getting lost? (Coover 708)”; additional questions include: how does on criticize or analyze that is never read the same way twice, and how will the reader stay focused on the central idea of the piece of writing without getting lost.
Coover’s intended audience is producers and consumers of literature. In his article he confesses that he is not an expert on hyperspace, but as believes print is becoming obsolete it is important to become more aware of the possibilities of hypertext. He also chose to teach a class on it at Brown University in order to expand his understanding of it and share that understanding with writing students. As Coover began a class on Hypertext Fiction, the relevance of his class is at stake if hypertext does not become a prevalent form of writing and publishing works of fiction.

Inquiry

I only partially agree with Coover. I agree that books will eventually become obsolete, however, not in the near future and I do not believe novels will become obsolete. I also do not believe that hypertext will become the new medium of choice for pieces of fiction. In fact, in a more recent article Coover states that the age of hypertext has come to an end and “this heavily textual era of innovation in the form has given way to the world of the Web (Introduction 705).” I foresee that paper books will eventually become outdated as electronic books such as the Kindle become more prevalent and available to the public. I personally have one, and one similarity there is in the electronic book to hypertext is that words are linked to a dictionary and can be looked up on demand to further the reader’s understanding of the content. Electronic books will be more efficient than paper books because they can store numerous books in one small light weight device saving space and one’s back. It makes books less expensive as there is no paper and ink to pay for, and makes new books conveniently available from the comfort of one’s home. Works of fiction will always provide a form of entertainment however the form they come in will change as technology changes.

1) Do you believe books will eventually become obsolete and if so what will replace them?
2) What are some pros and cons of hypertext that Coover does not mention?
3) On page 706 Coover claims that “lines” are restricting and tyrannical. Are “lines” really restricting or are they freeing in that they are transparent and provide a window to a different story?