This is a response that I wrote and didn't know if I was 100% in agreement with my own thoughts. So instead of sending it, I decided to post it here.
Good Morning,
I am with Rachel and Chris on this one. I do have a bit of a caveat.
With shorter attention spans, there is less time to communicate complicated concepts. Bullet pointed, sound bite news is a symptom (or perhaps a cause) of such a phenomenon. As Postman argues in 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' there is also a danger that television has turned all information into entertainment. I think that argument could be expanded to include the examples in Dr. Arola's initial email (chatting et al). If all information is thought of as entertainment, where does the urge to act come in? Perhaps this paradigm is what got leaders to buy the graphic artists rendition of railway car laboratories in Iraq? I think that the web also has this possibility, but that the relationship has a rather interesting twist. If information is characterized as entertainment then at some point there is an equality of value. Once that milestone has been reached the relationship can be inverted and entertainment can be utilized as a pedagogical tool. It is my opinion that we are there.
Jonathan R. White presents an idea that terrorists are created when a threshold is passed that he references as the "Doctrine of Necessity". The concept revolves around the idea that there is a point where it is morally apprehensible to remain inactive. About 8 years ago the Presidency of the United States of America was (arguably) given to a man whose brother was the Governor and who had not won the popular vote. The American public did not react beyond some outrage. Was it faith in the positivist system? Or was it simply that the story was dramatic enough to be entertaining...a Law & Order/Westwing episode.
While I am not about to play the role of a small fowl or forward the idea that we (as a class or citizenry) take up non-symmetrical warfare, rather that through the changing forms of media content has also been shaped. I would like to take the position that literacy in terms of Wysocki's & Johnson-Eilola's article is the best way I would say that the term could be defined. On page 367 they refer to literacy as 'often contradictory', 'clouds of positions' to paraphrase. From that position it is possible to recognize that there is some credence to the apprehension that people are not reading as much or as long, but it also recognizes that there are other ways in which that population is becoming articulate.
~S~
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Week 4 Day 1
Baron, Hesse, Wysocki & Johnson-Eilola:
Literacy and the definitions of literacy (in multiple forms) was the subject of this week's readings.
Baron uses the pencil to provide a point to compare and contrast the present perceptions of technology to those of Thoreau's era. From there the author goes into some historical analysis of how other forms of technology fit into the rhetoric used to describe computer technology today. The telegraph and the telephone are both used to demonstrate how their emergence (as forms of technology) were simultaneously derided by traditionalists and celebrated as social panacea by futurologists. In an examination of cuneiform, Baron interjects humor as a means of providing a parallel between then and now.
Hesse examines a specific definition of literacy in the form of the essay. He takes traditional examples of essays and places them in contrast to electronic forms of communication common to the net. In challenging the paradigm of the 'essay' and how that particular definition is constructed, Hesse recognizes the inherent power (and political nature) of language.
In the final piece the socially constructed nature of the definition of literacy is best identified. The definition provided recognizes that 'literacy is not monolithic' and that it is often 'contradictory'. Perhaps more important as well as pertinent, they see literacy not as a 'skill' but as a 'process of situating and resituating representations in social spaces'. As a capstone this article contributes to an understanding of literacy as positioned and privileged.
Question: How can the Blinded by the Letter article be used in classrooms as well as communicated to the larger academic establishment?
Literacy and the definitions of literacy (in multiple forms) was the subject of this week's readings.
Baron uses the pencil to provide a point to compare and contrast the present perceptions of technology to those of Thoreau's era. From there the author goes into some historical analysis of how other forms of technology fit into the rhetoric used to describe computer technology today. The telegraph and the telephone are both used to demonstrate how their emergence (as forms of technology) were simultaneously derided by traditionalists and celebrated as social panacea by futurologists. In an examination of cuneiform, Baron interjects humor as a means of providing a parallel between then and now.
Hesse examines a specific definition of literacy in the form of the essay. He takes traditional examples of essays and places them in contrast to electronic forms of communication common to the net. In challenging the paradigm of the 'essay' and how that particular definition is constructed, Hesse recognizes the inherent power (and political nature) of language.
In the final piece the socially constructed nature of the definition of literacy is best identified. The definition provided recognizes that 'literacy is not monolithic' and that it is often 'contradictory'. Perhaps more important as well as pertinent, they see literacy not as a 'skill' but as a 'process of situating and resituating representations in social spaces'. As a capstone this article contributes to an understanding of literacy as positioned and privileged.
Question: How can the Blinded by the Letter article be used in classrooms as well as communicated to the larger academic establishment?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Week 3 Day 2
Questions of Identity
The New London Group, Faigley and Ohmann.
Reflecting on the previous week's readings as a catalyst for this week's analysis there are two things that stand out prevalently.
1-Education is inherently political
2-The current structure of education in the United States of America is recognized as generating and/or supporting inequality
When technology as an aid/form of pedagogy is then injected into the already contentious situation the disparities between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' is exacerbated.
When considering the 'digital divide' as a scenario that disadvantages people of color as well as the economically lacking, there is a question of rationalization of technology in the classroom.
While Ohmann's analysis was dated it was correct as often as it was off the mark. Literacy in employment is dependent upon the definition. One place where evidence of the monopoly capitalist system that Ohmann uses can be found in terms of computer literacy is in the qualifications for employment. In depth programming (code writing) is not necessary for most positions, but...the ubiquitous Windows familiarity is often cited as desired (to include the Office suite of word processing, spreadsheets, power point and Outlook). Here he is correct on two points, the first is that literacy is defined in a limited way and the second is that the purpose was to facilitate the concentration of wealth into the coffers of the elite/privilege.
Faigley was more optimistic than Ohmann and hence had a different response. The antecedent data was similar in the sense that both were examining an economically 'unjust' system that was built around values that could be considered polar opposites of egalitarianism. His call to teachers to situate their work economically and politically, segues well with the work of the next authors.
The New London Group identifies a number of harms in the status quo. Many of them were analogous with Faigley or Ohmann, though there was a greater focus on the differences in terms of demography. They concern themselves with the fragmentation of the civic public, and the repercussions of a greater stress on individual identity in terms of group membership. NLG offers a concept of 'multi-literacies' as a possible response from the education community. They also admit that there will be negotiations in terms of identity that could be difficult.
Connecting last week's readings in terms of the myths of literacy, was fairly clear from a personal perspective. Literacy is a loaded term that is fraught with intent and systemic value. In terms of race, literacy carries with it a history of conquest and concepts of noblisse oblige. Assimilation can be performed through eliminating the epistemology's of marginalized people, by privileging technologies exclusive to the dominant narrative.
In terms of my personal concepts of technology and literacy, I have a rather social constructionist take on it. They only exist within discourse. The definitions can be easily appropriated by the system (and have been) in order to prevent power from being distributed. There have been movements to expand literacy (and technological literacy) to disadvantaged populations, but I would characterize those phenomena as hegemonic aids. When taken together the semiotic problems are multiplied exponentially.
On the other hand through technological literacy, literacy and technology it is possible to generate a truly subaltern space.
The New London Group, Faigley and Ohmann.
Reflecting on the previous week's readings as a catalyst for this week's analysis there are two things that stand out prevalently.
1-Education is inherently political
2-The current structure of education in the United States of America is recognized as generating and/or supporting inequality
When technology as an aid/form of pedagogy is then injected into the already contentious situation the disparities between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' is exacerbated.
When considering the 'digital divide' as a scenario that disadvantages people of color as well as the economically lacking, there is a question of rationalization of technology in the classroom.
While Ohmann's analysis was dated it was correct as often as it was off the mark. Literacy in employment is dependent upon the definition. One place where evidence of the monopoly capitalist system that Ohmann uses can be found in terms of computer literacy is in the qualifications for employment. In depth programming (code writing) is not necessary for most positions, but...the ubiquitous Windows familiarity is often cited as desired (to include the Office suite of word processing, spreadsheets, power point and Outlook). Here he is correct on two points, the first is that literacy is defined in a limited way and the second is that the purpose was to facilitate the concentration of wealth into the coffers of the elite/privilege.
Faigley was more optimistic than Ohmann and hence had a different response. The antecedent data was similar in the sense that both were examining an economically 'unjust' system that was built around values that could be considered polar opposites of egalitarianism. His call to teachers to situate their work economically and politically, segues well with the work of the next authors.
The New London Group identifies a number of harms in the status quo. Many of them were analogous with Faigley or Ohmann, though there was a greater focus on the differences in terms of demography. They concern themselves with the fragmentation of the civic public, and the repercussions of a greater stress on individual identity in terms of group membership. NLG offers a concept of 'multi-literacies' as a possible response from the education community. They also admit that there will be negotiations in terms of identity that could be difficult.
Connecting last week's readings in terms of the myths of literacy, was fairly clear from a personal perspective. Literacy is a loaded term that is fraught with intent and systemic value. In terms of race, literacy carries with it a history of conquest and concepts of noblisse oblige. Assimilation can be performed through eliminating the epistemology's of marginalized people, by privileging technologies exclusive to the dominant narrative.
In terms of my personal concepts of technology and literacy, I have a rather social constructionist take on it. They only exist within discourse. The definitions can be easily appropriated by the system (and have been) in order to prevent power from being distributed. There have been movements to expand literacy (and technological literacy) to disadvantaged populations, but I would characterize those phenomena as hegemonic aids. When taken together the semiotic problems are multiplied exponentially.
On the other hand through technological literacy, literacy and technology it is possible to generate a truly subaltern space.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Week 3 Day 1
Faigley, Cooper, Hawisher and Selfe,
This series of articles forced a personal assessment of Videogames as a technology for pedagogy. The postmodern ideas that flow through that idea and the modernist institutional concepts that constrain those ideas. Moreover they advise a manner of reflection on the topic of technology in the classroom.
The utilization of videogames as mechanisms to circumvent institutional paradigms of education is of extreme importance. Reading through Cooper's gloss of Foucault (among others) and her application of postmodernism to computers in the classroom provided insight on the logic behind the conceptualizations of power that can be illustrated through virtual worlds. Instead of reifying power dynamics as inherent in policy, the possibility of stepping back and analyzing power as inhabiting relationships opens a door for research using MMORPGs. While the examination of power through the structure of on-line spaces is still quite valid, focusing on the manner in which players interact with one another could be all the more revealing.
The Faigley article also demonstrated a concern that is likely in the forefront of any possible collaborative-educator that sees technology as a means of enabling cooperation between the educator and the student. Control. Maintaining control in the classroom in order to channel the students toward the responses that are necessary in order for them to move into the next section of the program. I would respond with an analysis of the increase in self-realization through discovery.
Hawisher and Selfe warn instructors to be aware (or perhaps more honest) on the topic of technology as positive. The thesis seems to be that technology can just as easily remove agency from a classroom by programming students. Skill drills is one of their primary examples. In my estimation Selfe and Hawisher can be seen as forwarding a Foucaultian idea of power as cyclical. The subaltern becoming the dominant paradigm. What was once revolutionary (grunge) becomes the status quo (pre-torn flannel at the GAP).
The Question that I pulled out of these articles:
How does an educator attempt to teach through a post-modern philosophy within the moderist structures that exist in the University setting?
This series of articles forced a personal assessment of Videogames as a technology for pedagogy. The postmodern ideas that flow through that idea and the modernist institutional concepts that constrain those ideas. Moreover they advise a manner of reflection on the topic of technology in the classroom.
The utilization of videogames as mechanisms to circumvent institutional paradigms of education is of extreme importance. Reading through Cooper's gloss of Foucault (among others) and her application of postmodernism to computers in the classroom provided insight on the logic behind the conceptualizations of power that can be illustrated through virtual worlds. Instead of reifying power dynamics as inherent in policy, the possibility of stepping back and analyzing power as inhabiting relationships opens a door for research using MMORPGs. While the examination of power through the structure of on-line spaces is still quite valid, focusing on the manner in which players interact with one another could be all the more revealing.
The Faigley article also demonstrated a concern that is likely in the forefront of any possible collaborative-educator that sees technology as a means of enabling cooperation between the educator and the student. Control. Maintaining control in the classroom in order to channel the students toward the responses that are necessary in order for them to move into the next section of the program. I would respond with an analysis of the increase in self-realization through discovery.
Hawisher and Selfe warn instructors to be aware (or perhaps more honest) on the topic of technology as positive. The thesis seems to be that technology can just as easily remove agency from a classroom by programming students. Skill drills is one of their primary examples. In my estimation Selfe and Hawisher can be seen as forwarding a Foucaultian idea of power as cyclical. The subaltern becoming the dominant paradigm. What was once revolutionary (grunge) becomes the status quo (pre-torn flannel at the GAP).
The Question that I pulled out of these articles:
How does an educator attempt to teach through a post-modern philosophy within the moderist structures that exist in the University setting?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Week 2 Day 2 Part II
Selfe and Grabill,
Grabill's article focuses on the actual situations that lie behind the rhetoric of technological literacy. He uses a case study on the topic of adult education to highlight the shortcomings of the current paradigm by demonstrating that what may appear as progressive due to the claims provided, may lack the requisite warrant to support the statement.
Selfe's article is an excellent dissection of technology in the classroom for technologies sake. The author directs the critiques toward an audience of peers, adjusting the points in order to pull out the manners in which current pedagogies make invisible the structures that underpin the present power dynamics. Literacy is largely the focus of the article as it occupies a similar space in terms of societal perspective.
The articles are highly complementary. Together they provide a broad image of why technology can be dangerous if there is not a critical questioning of who is using it and why. When considering the multi-dimensional framework of race/class/gender they have provided the outline of need in the dominant American culture to examine definitions that obfuscate the systemic inequalities.
In terms of power, technological literacy is considered panacea. But perhaps more insidious is manner in which the design of technology inherently benefits some while disadvantaging others. While not necessarily Panoptic in terms of surveillance, there is a sense of discipline (in Foucaultian terms) when considering that those who have not/do not conform to the dominant culture are not granted agency (using the previous definition provided in the last post). Rather technological literacy is a form of discipline that creates a means of enforcing long lasting, uninterrupted, cost effective (arguably in the long run), and production increasing systems. Selfe argues that technological literacy creates a cycle of consumption as increased capability demands increased capacity (107).
In comparison to the other two articles assigned for Thursday the 17th, there is a significant amount of synergy. Utilizing Selfe and Grabill as a broad lens that can be narrowed using Bank's and Walton. Through a selected aggregate reading an image can be assembled that revolves primarily around race and the manner in which technology as a pedagogical tool can be used to undermine the Foucaultian discipline if utilized in a manner that may appear unscholarly, but in fact has the possibility of support unrepresented facets of marginalized cultures.
~S~
Grabill's article focuses on the actual situations that lie behind the rhetoric of technological literacy. He uses a case study on the topic of adult education to highlight the shortcomings of the current paradigm by demonstrating that what may appear as progressive due to the claims provided, may lack the requisite warrant to support the statement.
Selfe's article is an excellent dissection of technology in the classroom for technologies sake. The author directs the critiques toward an audience of peers, adjusting the points in order to pull out the manners in which current pedagogies make invisible the structures that underpin the present power dynamics. Literacy is largely the focus of the article as it occupies a similar space in terms of societal perspective.
The articles are highly complementary. Together they provide a broad image of why technology can be dangerous if there is not a critical questioning of who is using it and why. When considering the multi-dimensional framework of race/class/gender they have provided the outline of need in the dominant American culture to examine definitions that obfuscate the systemic inequalities.
In terms of power, technological literacy is considered panacea. But perhaps more insidious is manner in which the design of technology inherently benefits some while disadvantaging others. While not necessarily Panoptic in terms of surveillance, there is a sense of discipline (in Foucaultian terms) when considering that those who have not/do not conform to the dominant culture are not granted agency (using the previous definition provided in the last post). Rather technological literacy is a form of discipline that creates a means of enforcing long lasting, uninterrupted, cost effective (arguably in the long run), and production increasing systems. Selfe argues that technological literacy creates a cycle of consumption as increased capability demands increased capacity (107).
In comparison to the other two articles assigned for Thursday the 17th, there is a significant amount of synergy. Utilizing Selfe and Grabill as a broad lens that can be narrowed using Bank's and Walton. Through a selected aggregate reading an image can be assembled that revolves primarily around race and the manner in which technology as a pedagogical tool can be used to undermine the Foucaultian discipline if utilized in a manner that may appear unscholarly, but in fact has the possibility of support unrepresented facets of marginalized cultures.
~S~
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Week 2 Day 2 Part I
I wanted to break this post into two pieces, in order to analyze the two concepts in a manner commensurate with their complexity.
Banks and Walton
Both Banks and Walton approach technology from an African American space. In order to attempt to recognize the complexity of their analysis on the manner in which technology has impacted, is impacting and will impact the larger African American narrative it is important to recognize the multidimensional nature of the issues at hand. Both authors present not only race but class issues in a historicized manner.
Bank's piece is primarily an argument that propones the recognition of African American written language as a valid form of expression, the case is being made (presumably) to academia. Examples that he provides describe the manners in which interacting with technology and the utilization of written Black vernacular are not mutually exclusive. In attempting to dispel the near exclusive focus on African American oral culture it is possible to begin investigating the presence of African American rhetoric beyond the artificial limitations placed by the dominant culture. His method for observing how the spoken traditions can be captured is through a website called Black Planet.
Walton's article is an examination of the role that technology has played in the historical atrocities visited upon African Americans. The thesis of this piece is a call to African Americans (and their allies) to act on gaining more technological agency. Agency in this case being defined in terms of the Giddean sense of power, the ability to overcome barriers through will acting in coordination with a community will.
Perhaps it is far too easy to pick the low hanging fruit, but on page 83-84 of Bank's article he identifies three areas where technology and rhetoric can be joined to benefit students. The manner in which he constructs the second point is indicative of Foucaultian concepts that he identifies in the educational institution. In essence he is identifying the Panoptic structure of the educational space, and is imploring the reader to recognize that there is the possibility of education that can be gained through play.
Issues that I had with the pieces:
Bank's identification of the racialization of cyberspace is accurate to a point. The well documented "cross-dressing" that takes place on the net could conceivably be replicated in racial terms rather than in gender terms. BlackPlanet could be populated with non-African Americans who are familiar with the rhetorical devices of African American Vernacular English. While in and of itself it is noteworthy in terms of the construction of race, it acts as a counterpoint to the idea that there are spaces that can be inhabited by a group on the web.
Walton's pursuit of technology as a means of benefiting the African American community in an economic sense at the cost of a portion of African American identity is dangerously close to utopian. In a manner of speaking Walton is acting as counter-point to Banks. Where Banks is encouraging the utilization of African-American forms of communication, Walton is forwarding the pursuit of technology in terms of the dominant culture. Walton goes so far as to request Marshall Plan like aid. Historicizing that policy would illuminate the goals of those financial packages as purchasing a populace in order to sway them to a particular capitalist ideology. In Panoptic terms Walton is adopting a structure that is provided by the dominant culture in order to benefit in a Giddean sense rather than seeking a more multi-faceted approach.
~S~
Banks and Walton
Both Banks and Walton approach technology from an African American space. In order to attempt to recognize the complexity of their analysis on the manner in which technology has impacted, is impacting and will impact the larger African American narrative it is important to recognize the multidimensional nature of the issues at hand. Both authors present not only race but class issues in a historicized manner.
Bank's piece is primarily an argument that propones the recognition of African American written language as a valid form of expression, the case is being made (presumably) to academia. Examples that he provides describe the manners in which interacting with technology and the utilization of written Black vernacular are not mutually exclusive. In attempting to dispel the near exclusive focus on African American oral culture it is possible to begin investigating the presence of African American rhetoric beyond the artificial limitations placed by the dominant culture. His method for observing how the spoken traditions can be captured is through a website called Black Planet.
Walton's article is an examination of the role that technology has played in the historical atrocities visited upon African Americans. The thesis of this piece is a call to African Americans (and their allies) to act on gaining more technological agency. Agency in this case being defined in terms of the Giddean sense of power, the ability to overcome barriers through will acting in coordination with a community will.
Perhaps it is far too easy to pick the low hanging fruit, but on page 83-84 of Bank's article he identifies three areas where technology and rhetoric can be joined to benefit students. The manner in which he constructs the second point is indicative of Foucaultian concepts that he identifies in the educational institution. In essence he is identifying the Panoptic structure of the educational space, and is imploring the reader to recognize that there is the possibility of education that can be gained through play.
Issues that I had with the pieces:
Bank's identification of the racialization of cyberspace is accurate to a point. The well documented "cross-dressing" that takes place on the net could conceivably be replicated in racial terms rather than in gender terms. BlackPlanet could be populated with non-African Americans who are familiar with the rhetorical devices of African American Vernacular English. While in and of itself it is noteworthy in terms of the construction of race, it acts as a counterpoint to the idea that there are spaces that can be inhabited by a group on the web.
Walton's pursuit of technology as a means of benefiting the African American community in an economic sense at the cost of a portion of African American identity is dangerously close to utopian. In a manner of speaking Walton is acting as counter-point to Banks. Where Banks is encouraging the utilization of African-American forms of communication, Walton is forwarding the pursuit of technology in terms of the dominant culture. Walton goes so far as to request Marshall Plan like aid. Historicizing that policy would illuminate the goals of those financial packages as purchasing a populace in order to sway them to a particular capitalist ideology. In Panoptic terms Walton is adopting a structure that is provided by the dominant culture in order to benefit in a Giddean sense rather than seeking a more multi-faceted approach.
~S~
Monday, January 14, 2008
Week 2, Day 1
Foucault and Giddens,
Power:
I thought that this was the most interesting of the shared areas of the pieces assigned.
The way that the texts speak to one another began resonating (for me personally) when on page 69 of the Giddens piece he refers to a "Duality of Structure" in terms of power. Giddens contends that most theorists divide power into either a form of imposition of will or a community well where common interests or ideologies flow. He would connect the two in a means of recognizing that power is inherently connected to choice, or in his terms "human agency" (92).
What struck me was the way that Foucault took power beyond dialectics or semiotics. On page 114 of truth and power Foucault relates that history can not be contained by dialectic analysis as it is more complex than what he refers to as the "Hegelian Skeleton", or by the form of language which has a calming effect. Rather war is the metaphor that Foucault sees as the best means of communicating the concept of history. This discussion is born from another discussion on the dichotomy of event and structure. Where structure is conceived as the "thinkable", the event has difficult to capture (113-114).
More important, to my way of thinking, is that dichotomy's and dialectics are binary systems. Foucault rejects the binary to claim the complexity of war. Giddens, on the other hand, embraces the binary system to provide the "Duality of Structure". By utilizing binary systems Giddens is chained to two-way streets, instead of exploring broader boulevards, cross-roads or interchanges. On page 93 Giddens states that "Power relations...are always two-way..." which vacates the multi-dimensionality of human existence in my opinion.
As an example, identity is a complex multi-dimensional situation where power plays out in many forms. As an American Indian my race can both limit and empower me. The ways that my race operates as a hub for information transmitted cannot be captured by a two-way metaphor, rather it emanates information that is accepted and retransmitted while (as an individual) I mirror other signals from my Tribe, ATNI, NCAI and other organizations. Each of those facets of my American Indian identity then performs transmissions of their own. As these signals bounce around NDN Country they are altered slightly by the lenses of those receiving them. Each of these signals is multiplied as each facet of my identity is transmitted.
~S~
Power:
I thought that this was the most interesting of the shared areas of the pieces assigned.
The way that the texts speak to one another began resonating (for me personally) when on page 69 of the Giddens piece he refers to a "Duality of Structure" in terms of power. Giddens contends that most theorists divide power into either a form of imposition of will or a community well where common interests or ideologies flow. He would connect the two in a means of recognizing that power is inherently connected to choice, or in his terms "human agency" (92).
What struck me was the way that Foucault took power beyond dialectics or semiotics. On page 114 of truth and power Foucault relates that history can not be contained by dialectic analysis as it is more complex than what he refers to as the "Hegelian Skeleton", or by the form of language which has a calming effect. Rather war is the metaphor that Foucault sees as the best means of communicating the concept of history. This discussion is born from another discussion on the dichotomy of event and structure. Where structure is conceived as the "thinkable", the event has difficult to capture (113-114).
More important, to my way of thinking, is that dichotomy's and dialectics are binary systems. Foucault rejects the binary to claim the complexity of war. Giddens, on the other hand, embraces the binary system to provide the "Duality of Structure". By utilizing binary systems Giddens is chained to two-way streets, instead of exploring broader boulevards, cross-roads or interchanges. On page 93 Giddens states that "Power relations...are always two-way..." which vacates the multi-dimensionality of human existence in my opinion.
As an example, identity is a complex multi-dimensional situation where power plays out in many forms. As an American Indian my race can both limit and empower me. The ways that my race operates as a hub for information transmitted cannot be captured by a two-way metaphor, rather it emanates information that is accepted and retransmitted while (as an individual) I mirror other signals from my Tribe, ATNI, NCAI and other organizations. Each of those facets of my American Indian identity then performs transmissions of their own. As these signals bounce around NDN Country they are altered slightly by the lenses of those receiving them. Each of these signals is multiplied as each facet of my identity is transmitted.
~S~
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Foucault week 1 day 2
After reading Panopticism and Eye of Power by Michel Foucault I reflected on the prompt provided by Dr. Arola: Why were these readings assigned as a theoretical foundation for ENG 597 and how do Foucault's ideas on "the Gaze" impact teaching with technology? There are two responses that I would forward: surveillance and discipline.
Foucault's ideas on surveillance in terms of the Panopticon have the ability to inform the remainder of the semester. On page 217 of Panopticism, in the first full paragraph, there is a passage that informs the hedonistic voyeurism of Western culture.
Foucault returns to this concept when he is referencing Bentham's Panopticon as the antithesis of a dungeon on page 153-154 of Eye of Power. He is speaking of the Revolution's (the French Revolution) need to bring light to the dark places. Or more specifically as pointed out by Foucault, the Revolutionaries were attracted to Bentham's "formula of 'power through transparency', subjection by 'illumination'". By reifying socially constructed concepts, power structures held by the dominant society are made transparent.
Discipline is the primary focus of Panopticism. Foucault breaks down power into a tripartite criteria of tactica on page 218 subpoint 1: low cost (in capital), maximum intensity and longevity operating uninterrupted, increase the usefulness and ease of use. Foucault intends these criteria to be related to power. By approaching discipline from this perspective rather than from the perspective of morality, punishment or reform Foucault unmasks a power structure that is intended to operate behind the symbols of the masses. The military, the judiciary, the Nation-State, the Social Contract, investigation...Foucault argues that all work together to fulfill the aforementioned criteria.
In The Eye of Power Foucault brings discipline and surveillance together in this statement on page 155: "An inspecting gaze, a gaze which each individual under its weight will end by interiorising to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual thus exercising this surveillance over, and against, himself." The point of exercising this surveillance would be to cheaply, over a long period of time with high intensity, increase the usefulness and decrease rebelliousness of individuals within society. As mentioned by both Bentham (through Foucault) and Foucault, the Panopticon may have been an architectural mechanism but it is a highly effective model for social control.
Socialization under the pretense of education is a means for instilling forms of discipline in a populace. Technology and the current speed of technology allow for a multiplying of the utility of discipline. Email, streaming audio/video, mp3, video games, blogs, forums, IM, Bluetooth etcetera...are all means of multiplying discipline at low cost. This is one of the potential impacts that teaching with technology will have.
The questions that I have concerning the discussion of Foucault:
Can the subaltern be as amplified as discipline through technology in teaching?
What is the danger of falling into pedagogical experiments as listed by Foucault in Panopticism (page 204) by bringing in technology for the sake of having technology in the classroom?
Foucault's ideas on surveillance in terms of the Panopticon have the ability to inform the remainder of the semester. On page 217 of Panopticism, in the first full paragraph, there is a passage that informs the hedonistic voyeurism of Western culture.
Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth; behind the great abstraction of exchange, there continues the meticulous, concrete training of useful forces; the circuits of communication are the supports of an accumulation and a centralization of knowledge; the play of signs defines the anchorages of power, it is not that the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed, altered by our social order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it, according to a whole technique of forces and bodies.Consider for a moment reality television:Big Brother, the Real World, Road Rules, The Biggest Loser, Joe Bachelor, etc. et al. Television would serve as the circuits of communication in this case, with commercials acting as the abstraction of exchange and the consumer being trained. The casting of the participants in this form of entertainment represent signs, due to the constructed nature of race, gender and sexuality, which act as reified concepts in order to anchor power. These reified concepts obfuscate the power dynamics that occur in construction.
Foucault returns to this concept when he is referencing Bentham's Panopticon as the antithesis of a dungeon on page 153-154 of Eye of Power. He is speaking of the Revolution's (the French Revolution) need to bring light to the dark places. Or more specifically as pointed out by Foucault, the Revolutionaries were attracted to Bentham's "formula of 'power through transparency', subjection by 'illumination'". By reifying socially constructed concepts, power structures held by the dominant society are made transparent.
Discipline is the primary focus of Panopticism. Foucault breaks down power into a tripartite criteria of tactica on page 218 subpoint 1: low cost (in capital), maximum intensity and longevity operating uninterrupted, increase the usefulness and ease of use. Foucault intends these criteria to be related to power. By approaching discipline from this perspective rather than from the perspective of morality, punishment or reform Foucault unmasks a power structure that is intended to operate behind the symbols of the masses. The military, the judiciary, the Nation-State, the Social Contract, investigation...Foucault argues that all work together to fulfill the aforementioned criteria.
In The Eye of Power Foucault brings discipline and surveillance together in this statement on page 155: "An inspecting gaze, a gaze which each individual under its weight will end by interiorising to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual thus exercising this surveillance over, and against, himself." The point of exercising this surveillance would be to cheaply, over a long period of time with high intensity, increase the usefulness and decrease rebelliousness of individuals within society. As mentioned by both Bentham (through Foucault) and Foucault, the Panopticon may have been an architectural mechanism but it is a highly effective model for social control.
Socialization under the pretense of education is a means for instilling forms of discipline in a populace. Technology and the current speed of technology allow for a multiplying of the utility of discipline. Email, streaming audio/video, mp3, video games, blogs, forums, IM, Bluetooth etcetera...are all means of multiplying discipline at low cost. This is one of the potential impacts that teaching with technology will have.
The questions that I have concerning the discussion of Foucault:
Can the subaltern be as amplified as discipline through technology in teaching?
What is the danger of falling into pedagogical experiments as listed by Foucault in Panopticism (page 204) by bringing in technology for the sake of having technology in the classroom?
Links
I promised that I would provide some links to the American Studies Department's bibliography. And I do my best to fulfill my promises. As for the glossary, I spoke with Dr. Reed yesterday and he informed me that it is still a work in progress.
More on Michel upcoming...
More on Michel upcoming...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)