Mental wanderings about "The Remediated Self"

Bolter and Grusin's chapter on the remediated self carried me back a few weeks to our in-class discussion of Facebook and the possibility of a disembodied existence online. The authors liken the remediated self to William James’ empirical self, “the sum total of all that [a man] CAN call his” (qtd. 233). In this way, the disembodied self on a social networking site is not a disembodied self at all, nor is it its own entity. Rather, this projection belongs to a corpus of facets and objects that together comprise the self. The authors note that while James acknowledges the existences of a material self, a social self, and a spiritual self, none is more representative of the actual self than another. I am Jasmine, the clothes in my closet, the car I come to school in, the roof I sleep under, the knowledge I accumulate, the friends I have in “real life” and online, the body that carries me around and facilitates the vocalization of my thoughts, the computer I use and the IP address from which I post this blog. (Why do I keep coming back to this free-floating signifier thing?!) As we continue to mediate, we accumulate new aspects of ourselves. While it may seem that we have some control over the self that we choose to present or promote online, we do not; this image, this identity, simply tacks itself on to the people we already are (not in essentialist terms, but rather in the present, existentialist sense). My Facebook profile does not define me or redefine me or stake out a cyberspace claim for me to occupy; rather, it is now [part of] me, not a projection but a component, no more or less essential to my self than any other singular element of my existence, not representative but constitutive.

Video games: Advertisements for hegemony

Bolter and Grusin observe in their chapter on computer games that “ideologically, the player [of a video game] is asked to defend or reestablish the status quo, so that even though the violence of the games appears to be antisocial, the ultimate message is not.” In this way, “action games have played out the most aggressive form of televisual monitoring” (93). This idea intrigued me, particularly because of the greatly heated debates I’ve witnessed in my own lifetime about the danger of video games, both in public and personal spheres. While immediacy and transparency of the game play is made possible by the technology, the same opportunities are afforded to hegemonic ideals through the same mechanisms. That is, the plot and world of a game encompass a player who is marveled by the first person perspective and increasingly realistic graphics, and these game features simultaneously imbue in him/her a specific political/moral/cultural agenda. As we’ve noted before this quarter, new technologies are not wholly new. They share much with older technologies, and this notion of articulating and reselling dominant ideology through media is not new to video games. However, the interactivity of video games and the repetition of game play, I think, may make them more pervasive.

Remediating (our motivations in) the classroom

To think about remediation in the classroom, or rather, to think about remediating the classroom, requires an instructor to rediscover his or her fundamental motivations and pedagogical beliefs. In my ponderings, I noted that Bolter and Grusin’s theory of remediation maintains that media constantly changes, shifts, and blends. That writing, academic or otherwise, stays static makes little sense. Because we ought not to treat the classroom like a vacuum, we must be aware of the changing rhetorical situations in the world beyond the classroom door and incorporate the skills necessary to be successful in these rhetorical moments into our teachings. It would be a great disservice to our students to ignore the movements in the world “out there” and pretend that they (and we) belong to a stagnant world “in here.” When I mentioned this in class, someone posed this question: “Yes, we can say we want to bring technologies into our classrooms to empower students, but what’s in it for us?”

The question blindsided me. Of course, I take graduate courses because I enjoy them and because I love learning, but I plan to teach first and foremost because I love the possibility of empowering others. What is in it for me is what is good for my students. Granted, like all desires, my plan to teach also benefits me directly; it is not wholly selfless. I might get summers off to travel. Empowering others will, hopefully, contribute to positive, larger scale social change that will benefit everyone, including myself. Teaching will allow me to continue learning, will afford me the chance to meet many different people from whom I can acquire new skills and new knowledge, and will give me the opportunity to take part in engaging, critical discussions of theory, its manifestations, and its applications. To ignore technology, new media, and the changing nature of mediation (past, present and future), then, would be to deprive students of the opportunity to communicate more effectively with the people around them and would deprive all of us (students and teachers) the opportunity to gain new insight about today’s “what is,” and to think critically and rhetorically, as Selber might suggest, about why it is, how we fit into it all, and how we can shape it and ourselves when change becomes necessary.

To think about remediating the classroom, we must not just question our feelings towards technology; we must also question what motivates us to teach and what we consider our goal in the classroom.

A whole lot of -mediacies and -mediations!

Remediation is the appropriation of one medium, or of content or characteristics of one medium, by another medium. Remediation echoes the myth of the inherent link between technology and progress, and furthers this notion by suggesting a connotation of healing or curing. Bolter and Grusin trace the word “remediation” back to its Latin root, remederi in order to solidify this link (59). We live in a forever imperfect world, according to our consumerist behaviors, but these consumer imperfections are different than those that we might point to consciously. Through our purchasing patterns, we insist that the technologies we currently use do not have the capabilities we need or want, do not best reflect ourselves, or do not allow us to create/work/organize/etc. to our fullest capabilities. As Bolter and Grusin suggest, however, we don’t “realize that the older medium [has] failed in its promise until the new one appears” (60).

As I understand it, hypermediation refers to the bombardment of media that makes media seem more real, which is the goal of all media according to the authors. This pursuit of realistic representation, of real technological experience and of experiencing reality through technological means, translates into, when done successfully, transparency of the employed medium. Transparent immediacy likewise strives for realism, working to pin down a mediated experience as the experience or a mediated object as the object, to define it, its existence, through a singular, transparent technological gaze. Hypermediacy, on the other hand, represents the technological glance, or multiple gazes from various points of view. Hypermediacy provides are more multifaceted interpretation of an experience or an object than does immediacy, and in that way is more real and at the same time, more obviously mediated.

School district lends laptops, violates rights.

Not nervous enough about technology? Read this.

Functional literacy.

Thomas can work his Blackberry. I can take sneaky pictures. Bwahaha!

Really, world?

http://www.cbs2.com/video/?id=127675@kcbs.dayport.com

My visual essay: "Multiliterate Me!"

Someone give me a paper bag. I'm hypermediating.

I am sitting at my dining room table, my hands in position over my laptop’s keyboard. It is 5:00pm on Friday afternoon, and the following things surround me: make up; a mirror; some trail mix; keys; my checkbook; a calculator; my cell phone; pens; Remediation; my planner; my coffee; and a lighter. These things comprise my immediate environment, but, interestingly, none of them holds my attention. Instead, my eyes are fixed on my computer screen, now staring at these words as I type them, but shifting back and forth to the flashing boxes on the taskbar letting me know that I’ve received a new Google Talk or Skype message. The Google Talk messages appear as blurbs above my taskbar clock, saving me the effort of clicking over to that window to read them until I need to respond. I’ve got another window open, minimized comfortably for now in my taskbar: Mozilla Firefox, my Russian Doll window. Thanks to tab browsing capabilities, I’m currently monitoring Gmail, Facebook, and Blogspot via Firefox. When these bore me, I’ll CTRL + T and open up Twitter, “window” shop at my favorite online retailers, check my bank statement, read the news, find recipes.

Bolter and Grusin, the authors of Remediation, insist that “hypermediation makes us aware of the medium or the media and (in sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious ways) reminds us of our desire for immediacy” (34). While I am very aware of the digital-ness of my online and computer activity, the “real-life” overlap in theme and content (and often, company) makes the transition between real life and digital life nearly seamless. I answer my cell phone, sip my coffee, eat my trail mix, type responses to friends, read about what’s going on in the world, check the weather before deciding what to wear to the movie I’m headed to (the time of which I can easily find out online), copy quotes from print text to Word document, and buy new clothes via the web, which will be shipped to me and which you will likely see me wear at some point in class this quarter. In the age of hypermedia, anything and everything is immediate, available at command. Hypermediacy, I think, sounds like a medical affliction for a reason; it’s only a matter of time before I explode from all this input.

We are, we are VR.

While reading the beginning of Remediation, I started thinking about the concept of virtual reality (VR), trying to trace down why it resonated with me so much. I remember very clearly hearing my dad talk about VR and its possible applications for emergency response training simulations in the future; this was in the early to mid-nineties, and I'm not sure what progress has been made (if any) in this industry. I also remember a very cheesy show that came on after Power Rangers on Fox Kids, right about the time that the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers were getting uncool/going to space/losing main actors due to contract disagreements. Just in case any of you missed it (or in case you have, like me, chosen to forget about it until now...), here's the opening:

Selber: Three Pictures

For your enjoyment, friends: my super-simple, three-picture visual essay about Selber.

It's late, which might explain the paranoia...

While I truly believe that I know and understand that technology is a non-neutral, like Selber emphasizes in Chapters 3 and 5 of Multiliteracies for a Digital Age, my initial reaction to the technologies I use in my daily life does not respond appropriately to these “biases.” What intrigues me the most about the idea of non-neutral technology is not what Selfe focuses on in her book, the “hidden” socio-economic and political impetuses that brought technology to us and that continue to reinforce social inequalities, but rather the miniature, silent, personal manipulations our technologies condition us with, without our knowing. We've talked in class a few times about how software and interfaces have agendas (Blackboard, PowerPoint). Selber mentions grammar checkers, and how they make us doubt ourselves in Chapter 2.

Our faith in technology troubles me, especially in light of this whole non-neutrality thing. Selber has led me to believe that technology (and “the man” behind technology) manipulates my entire life, my sense of self, and my means of thought. Technology functions for many of us as more than a tool; we’d hardly expect a hammer to know what to do with itself, and yet, we rarely question computers. I had a high school science teacher who would remind us whenever something went awry with a computer that we should first “check the carbon-based thing in front of the screen.” For Christmas a few years back, I got a book called How to Survive a Robot Uprising, a Zombie Survival Guide spin-off that offers tips and tricks about what to do when our technology malfunctions and tries to take over and kill us. I think I need to write a letter to the author of that book and give him the heads up: It’s not the malfunctioning we should fear; the danger of technology lies in its flawless, everyday operation.

Ideas for my essay writing workshop

First of all, thanks for reading and thanks in advance for your help!

Now, I am torn about how to go about this workshop for a number of reasons, but tentatively, this is what I have in mind. The workshop is open to all students in the program I work for, a retention and support program for low-income, disabled, or first generation students. The workshop will accommodate up to 35 students (I expect maybe 10, ha.) and will run an hour and forty-five minutes.

I thought about starting with a paragraph-level discussion, emphasizing the power of topic sentences to keep a paragraph (and an essay!) structured and focused. I want to touch on detail sentences, and how to use the last sentence in your paragraph to conclude or transition. Then I thought I'd take up characteristics of a good thesis statement (an assertion; specific; supportable; etc.) and how an intro paragraph is similar to an expanded topic sentence with regards to its overall function in a paper. I thought then I'd look at how a "traditional, academic, 5-paragraph essay" is structured, and explain that this is a framework, a convention, but a starting point for students at a complete loss with essay writing. I also want to tie in how seeing the structure/organization of the essay in this light might help you get started with organizing your next essay because being aware of how an argument might play out and progress in a paper may offer you a starting point.

So, like I said earlier, I'm not convinced of this plan for a few reasons. One: this is a whole lot of material and I would rather do one, focused thing that keeps students interested and will be able to sink in than throw a bunch of stuff at them in tidal-wave form. However, all students have different needs and I think offering a whole slew of tips might be useful because a student can then choose to remember what made most sense or seemed most helpful to him/herself. Also, if I choose just one topic, which would be most beneficial and most universal? Two: I know the five-paragraph essay has a bad, bad rap in the comp circle, and while I understand that it might be limiting and reductive and the facilitator of bad writing and lazy thinking, I know that a lot of the students I work with are so terrified of writing that they have no idea where to start. If I can demystify bits and pieces of academic writing conventions, they may feel more agent-y in their essays.
I know a lot of my students also struggle with grammar, but I am incredibly hesitant to do an hour and forty-five minute grammar workshop. While I think knowing how to use commas and correct fragments and run-ons and be aware of tense shifts would benefit many of these students, I don't think these are the "higher order concerns" I'd like to try to touch on in the workshop space.

That is all. Help! :o)

(You guys are the best!)

test hyperlink

http://lmgtfy.com/

Brain Feast!

“So how do teachers deal more productively with technological literacy? Where do they begin to address the issues identified in the preceding chapters?” Cynthia Selfe asks on page 146 of her 161 page book, Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The importance of paying attention. Good question, I respond mentally, and I prepare myself to receive her smart, critically constructed answer… And it never really comes.

While reading this book, I waited, excitedly, for the solution, and waded, less excitedly, through nearly 150 pages of history. While Selfe rambled on and on about the Technology Literacy Challenge and the Clinton Administration, and repeated various statistics that prove that technology has not been the solve-all that it was sold to the American public as, I held on, knowing that at the end of this very dry, very long tunnel, a gloriously descriptive, practical prescription detailing the perfect balance of technology and traditional pedagogies in the classroom (and how to achieve it) awaited me. But alas, it never came. In class, we debated a lot about why Selfe organized this book the way she did and to what result, and many students complained about the history-heavy “preceding chapters”. At about this time, the contrarian inside me awoke and brought with her great clarity. Despite the fact that I shared the painful experience of trudging through the murkiness of Selfe’s first eight chapters with my classmates, I realized almost instantly how much I actually appreciated those chapters and how useful they really were to me. I realized simultaneously that Selfe’s “solution” may have even been too long. After all, it doesn’t take many pages to issue the most profound, effective call of action of all: think.

Personally, I appreciate knowing what I now know about the short history of technology in the United States, and as an academic and future teacher, I recognize that this knowledge is vital. Selfe cannot give the answers; realistically, these answers don't exist. Progress with technology and critical pedagogies requires smart, thoughtful students, and thus, smart, thoughtful educators to guide them. Selfe’s subtitle speaks volumes: progress begins when we start paying attention, when we starting thinking. Selfe’s brain food feast brought us all together, and once the food coma wears off, we have no excuse but to use our knowledge to become more proactive and effective.

Small Typo, Big Payload!

I remembered just a few minutes ago that I have yet to embed a video or picture in one of my blog posts. So, I navigated on over to ol' faithful, YouTube, and typed into the search box with my "nimble fingers" (@658Thomas) the following word: teachnology. I'd like to think that my clever subconscious was doing some thinking for me and blended the words "teach" and "technology" together intentionally and intelligently, but, unfortunately, I think my fingers went momentarily crazy and this hybrid just happened. The results surprised me, though. Below, you'll find a semi-long (sorry!) but amusing and intellectually stimulating contribution to the discussion about technology and composition brought to us by a fellow grad student at Washington State University, mediated through World of Warcraft.



Enjoy!

Technology: Offering convenience (and a convenient excuse)

Selfe's book talks a lot about the technology myth constructed in our culture. Technology spells progress, and progress includes equality. It cannot be denied that computers are fashionable. They are new and fresh and promising. Technology is convenient and potentially revolutionary, but ultimately, it’s a tool, and like all tools, what gets done with it in our hands will define it. Only once we understand the positive and negative consequences of this new technology are we in a position to ascribe a value to it. Leaving our worries and sense of accountability behind us in the computer age is more than silly and irresponsible; it is altogether too easy. We must remember that while technology and intelligence get inextricably linked in our cultural myths, computers do not have a mind. Rather, people program them to regurgitate information and respond to commands. Computers are thus unlikely sources of change. Only the human element can introduce abnormal discourse to the conversation about technology, and only from that abnormal discourse can be hope for change from technology.

iPhone? More like, iSurvive!

So, the credibility of this article has been challenged, and though I do not have an iPhone (am not a fangirl!) and do not believe everything I hear, my gut tells me there is some truth in this story. Anyhow, here's the link for, at the very least, your amusement. And the tourniquet was for his leg; he bandaged his head.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/haiti-survivor-iphone/

Here's another, semi-related story about technology as a survival-in-the-wild tool:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33470581/

And here's a link to another proposed use for cell phones related to survival:

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/148887

Enjoy, and I hope all of you got home without too much inconvenience after today's class. Be safe out there!

y r u talking like dat?

Digital technologies, specifically the internet as a forum for communication, have begun to change the English language in very specific and very unique ways. During our in-class computer activity, Diane noted that these technologies seem to signify the downfall of standard English and the rise of some other, trendier version of it. Another commenter argued that the use of non-standard English on the internet likely resulted through contributions to the conversation by participants who had little or no access to the type of upbringing that would have provided them fluency in Standard English to begin with. While I do think that Standard English gets pushed aside in popular forums of digital communication (texting, Facebook commenting, commenting on YouTube videos, etc.), I don’t think this phenomenon means more than the favoring of non-standard English dialects on the black top at recess or in malls and teen hangouts on weekends. What does seem different, though, is seeing this type of non-standard dialect in print.

I like to think of the digital age as offering to us a type of pidgin language that unites participants from a variety of walks of life. We ought to look at these collisions as positive, potential opportunities for the generation of new ideas and new conversations. I don’t think, however, that Standard English is doomed (or any more doomed than it would be without the internet). A time and place for the use of Standard English still exists, and spell check and access to online dictionaries and thesauri seem to underscore its importance.

Lesson 1: Sometimes things don't work.

I woke up this morning feeling a bit under the weather but nonetheless inspired to get some homework done and start this day/quarter off right. Unfortunately, Blackboard chose to malfunction (yes, chose... it's an autonomous creature), thus thwarting my plan. Foiled again! Technology: 1, Jasmine: Goose egg :o(

Blog, Take 36.

Blogs and I have never had a particularly positive experience together. Perhaps this time will be different, by virtue of requirement. I will, as mandated by Prof. Rhodes, give it more attention, and perhaps it will do nice things for me in return, like make my coffee in the morning.