Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground

Adam Bank's book titled, Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground discusses the issues present within the Digital Divide and how this divide encompasses a conversation in rhetoric and composition. Bank's primary argument is that the Digital Divide is about access, which pertains to not only access to technologies, but also a lack of proficiency in educating people in how to use such technologies. Within chapter one titled, "Introduction" Banks introduces the term transformative access. We heard this term last week when we were discussing disability studies, and I find that a lot of what Banks is talking about coincides with issues of access in technology that people with disabilities face, as it pertains to race. Banks extends this notion further and argues that we need to consider African American rhetoric in our attempt to be inclusive to race and access to technologies. According to Banks, African American rhetoric is defined as "the set of traditions of discursive practices--verbal, visual, and electronic--used by individuals and groups of African Americans toward the ends of full participation in American society on their own terms" (2-3).

Most importantly, Banks calls our attention to embedding African American rhetoric into our technologies, and how such infusions can have a more inclusive function in digital spaces, arguing "I believe that African American rhetorical history shows powerful unities of identity and purpose across centuries, classes, genders, and ideologies, once we realize that unities are not absolute" (5).
Not only does Banks argue that the Digital Divide excludes African Americans in access and proficiencies with technology, but also that they are not present within the design of such technology, which brings in what Selfe and Selfe argue in their piece "Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones". Banks references Selfe and Selfe and how their article addresses that interface design is inherently racist. Such technologies that African Americans have access to are designed for a default user: white collar, white, and male. Within chapter four, Banks discusses such exclusions in design further, discussing how design jobs such as architecture and city planning have largely excluded African Americans, such the exception of urban planning. How are racial minorities supposed to be proficient in a technology that in the design phases rhetorically structured such technologies towards a specific audience?

Chapter two titled, "Oakland, The World, and The Divide: How We All Missed The Moment" discusses the implications such exclusions from technology have on education, and how the field of composition and rhetoric must rethink our notions of access and proficiencies in such technologies in order to better serve our students. Banks argues that the Digital Divide is a rhetorical problem, stating "because African American exclusions from the educational system that determine access to employment (and therefore the technologies that undergrid the American economy) are so rooted in the specter of the Ebonics speaker and writer, the rhetorical problems that dominate understandings of race in our discipline are technological problems" (12). From there, Banks discusses how the technology that is used in education is primarily for remediation for the African American population.

Thinking back to my childhood, I can remember such remedial activities on the computer, and how I wasn't being taught how to use the computer, but rather I was being taught how to play a game about math, or how to use the space bar to learn grammar. Because of this, Banks argues that it presents a problem "caught between the rock of political invective labeling them as failures and the hard place of magic pill solutions sold to them by technology companies, families and schools often make huge investments in technologies and still never escape the cycle" (18). These remedial games are consistently upgraded, and users must continue to purchase newer versions in order to be "up to date". To this, Bank offers that "technology issues must be as much the work of writing and communication teachers and scholars as writing and communication are, and we must find ways to build students' and teachers' digital literacies in the current environment of poorly funded schools and radicalized education politics" (19). In order to do this, Banks presents his second central argument to the text, stating "the most important change in perspective for writing teachers is that they must make sure clearly articulated pedagogical goals drive all technology decisions so that purchases, training, and planning related to technology implementation remains relevant to the learning, social, political, and economic needs of those we hope to serve" (19-20). With this, Banks makes the argument that "African American rhetoric has always been multimedia, has always been about body and voice and image, even when they only set the stage for language" (25).

The next chapter titled, "Martin, Malcolm, and a Black Digital Ethos" discusses how political figures such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X have used African American rhetoric to invoke change in America. Through the use of oral persuasion and the manipulation of multimedia, these rhetoricians have been wildly successful in their ability to persuade and reach a vast array of people. Part of African American tradition has been deeply rooted in the ability to use oral tradition and rhetoric to embody culture as well as politics. Rap culture, preachers, and other discursive mediums are all largely occupied by "black" orality. Bank's refers to this kind of orality as it applies to technology and a more inclusionary occupation as a 'black digital ethos'. According to Banks, a black digital ethos is "a set of attitudes, knowledges, expectations, and commitments that we need to develop and teach and bring to our engagement with things technological" (48).

Chapter four titled, "Taking Black Technology Use Seriously: African American Discursive Traditions in the Digital Underground" was my favorite chapter because it discusses Black Planet and other cyberspace mediums that aren't as exclusionary. To me Black Planet was interesting because it discusses how language is kept authentic. When I saw that language is kept authentic, I mean that it allocates for a space that doesn't conform to traditional grammatical expectations. Bank notes that "composition's stubborn, narrow focus on the grammatical features of language and insistence on waging a limiting debate on Ebonics do not work in theory or in writing practice. Banks really digs deep into this discussion by identifying two distinct modes of discourse: tonal semantics and sermonic tone. Banks argues that "the design of Black Planet is important because of what it implies about access" (77). Black Planet is a digital community space designed by African Americans, for African Americans. From IT help to romance, Black Planet is an all encompassing space that invites African Americans to embrace their culture on a digital platform. Banks also discusses the notion of how African Americans are largely left out of design. From architecture to planning, there is a lack of African American presence within these occupations. I found that to be interesting and also very true. Banks ties he notion of the lack of ethnic diversity in design to composition, arguing "Rhetoric and Composition can focus on creating similar spaces outside of the larger controls of the academy, the society, and the discursive practices that dominate the field." (84).

Chapter 5 titled, "Rewriting Racist Code: The Black Jeremiad as Counter-technology in Critical Race Theory" discusses interface and the limitations they provide to anyone that isn't the 'default user'. Banks argues that such interface designs that cater to the default user "fails to serve the needs of a huge portion of its population through assumptions about race and power relations that are hard-wired into it" (88). There is also a discussion about Critical Race Theory, where Banks states they "attempt to dismantle and rewrite those codes by explicitly attacking the conventions of legal discourse" (92).

Chapter 6 titled, "Through This Hell Into Freedom: Black Architects, Slave Quilters and an African American Rhetoric of Design" discusses how design is rhetorical, stating "the history of design has been so exclusive and has done so much to enforce the very exclusions encoded in the nation and its technologies" (105). In applying these notions to the classroom, Banks discusses how we must change how we design and sequence our courses in order to better serve the diversity that encompasses our classroom. For Banks, "those of us who care about ending critique alone will not interrupt these practices. Those of us who care about ending systematic oppressions must design new spaces, even as we point out problems in our current ones" (118).

Chapter 7 titled, " A Digital Jeremiad in Search of Higher Ground: Transforming Technologies, Transforming a Nation" discusses the conclusions and takeaways that Banks has to offer his readers. Banks returns to the notion of transformative access and argues the current design and utilization of technology in the composition classroom severely excludes Africa Americans. Banks stresses that we can learn a lot from African American rhetoric, and that the orality that largely encompasses African American culture as used by political figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X can have merit in the digital space, which Banks refers to as a "digital ethos".  Lastly Banks refers to the notion of the Digital Divide, and how it pertains directly to disciplines such as composition and rhetoric. At the end of the chapter he offers some pedagogical takeaways for teachers to consider when trying to be more inclusive to students with technology. I really liked the idea of exposing students to technologies that you're not necessarily comfortable with. I think learning with your students, or learning from your students can have a lot of value.

Multimodality in Motion: Diability & Kairotic Spaces

"Multimodality in Motion: Disability & Kairotic Spaces" is an interactive publication that discusses the considerations and implications computers and writing have in the conversations of disability studies.

The layout of the text interchanges the directives of "enter" and "access", challenging users to not make distinctions between the two, but rather to emphasize more inclusive objectives of understanding disability studies within composition and rhetoric. In thinking about our language, Yergeau et al. stress that forcing people to identify as disabled or using language in our pedagogical directions forcing one to identify as disabled invokes disclaimers that students are not ready to present (or may never want to). The main objective of the publication is to analyze the specific ways in which mulitmodal composing would benefit from a deep understanding and mindfulness in considering disability studies.

According to the "Over There" section in the introduction, Selfe and Howes offer that "those who experience barriers to access, and often unnoticed by those whose bodies, minds, and abilities, and resources allow them to occupy the role of default user". One of the main arguments of this work is that the consideration of disability studies should not come as an addition to our pedagogy or designing multimodal material, but rather should be present within the interface development. Within that argument, Selfe and Howes stress that "what's good for people with disabilities often ends up being good for everyone". As I considered this argument, I began to think about the various manipulations of multimodal content and that it offers users a sense of agency in their learning process.

By being mindful of disabilities and how they might play into a users experience of our compositions, such consideration and perhaps adaptations allows users to choose which format they learn through best. In fact, it appears that crafting multimodal projects in such a way that is considerate of others rather then the "default user" has serious benefits.

Selfe and Howes stress the moral obligations that we have as teachers of composition to be more inclusive and to consider ways in which we can foster such inclusivity, something that Margaret Price elaborates upon more fully in the section titled "Space". For Selfe and Howes however, they stress that "for educators, it is ethically questionable to practice pedagogies and construct spaces that categorically exclude entire classes of people. We need to pay more attention to the teaching of composition through a lens of disability studies to remind ourselves of just how much we have been content to ignore."

As I reflect upon my own teaching, I began to notice how much I gloss over the ADA statement in my syllabus, and how I often fail to consider barriers students may have and the constraints that my assignments may have for them. I've always been a huge advocate for multimodal composition, however, I wonder a lot about what Stephanie Kerschbaum in her section titled "Modality" argues where she states "multimodal texts can miss their rhetorical mark when they don't 'offer primary information through more than one mode' and when they are not 'flexible enough' for users as well as authors to modify and alter them". Later on in the text, Yergeau et al. argue "while many of us celebrate multimodal richness, when considered from a disability perspective, multimodality can be a problem rather than an asset. That is to say, multimodal texts and environments can frustrate participants ability to effectively engage within a variety of kairotic spaces. "As I was thinking about this, I thought about how the publication in and of itself was failing to do a lot of what they advocated. Sure, the publication was available digitally, however, wheres the incorporation of sound? Wheres the ability to manipulate the text in a way that better enhances the content for the reader? Where's the video (I only saw one in the entire work)? Why doesn't our EN101 book that we use for a LARGELY diverse audience of students offer these things?

Even in composing this post, I tried to break up a lot of the text, incorporating relevant images that I felt contributed visually to points in the text that I was making where the images were inserted. I began to think more about what I prefer, and how at times, multimodal texts can be very frustrating for me (even though I'm a huge proponent for their inclusion in the classroom..hmm). This text has encouraged me to be more mindful and hospitable to students, recognizing that more conversations need to be had about the different accommodations that can be made to better include all types of students. As the text notes, sometimes psychological disability is not part of the conversation and has a negative stigma associated with it. As a teacher, I have to admit that I often forget to have conversations with students about the free counseling services, or perhaps to be more inquisitive rather than dismissive if I notice a student is missing a lot of class and failing to turn in homework assignments. I'm really interested in looking at access, agency, and multimodal design as it pertains to disability studies, because I think it is an ethical and moral conversation that we are nearly scratching the surface of.

Queer Rhetoric and the Pleasures of the Archive vs. How We Became Posthuman

I found Jonathan Alexander and Jacqueline Rhode's piece titled, "Queer Rhetoric and the Pleasures of the Archive" to be a very interesting read. I love how the work juxtaposed theoretical framework with popular culture and how queer rhetoric is embedded within discourses that target a predominantly heterosexual audience.

To me, queer rhetoric is an example of what Hayles argues embodies the post human. Queer rhetoric transcend the boundaries of conventional discourse and challenges us to become "uncomfortable" and to accept that such as discourse exists. As Alexander and Rhodes argues, "queer rhetoric is a self-conscious and critical engagement with normative discourse of sexuality in the public sphere". By doing so, queer rhetoric is mirroring what Hayles attempts to portray in her book titled, How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Hayles makes the argument that "the body produces culture at the same time that the culture produces the body"(200). If we think about this notion and how it pertains to the content discussed by Alexander and Rhodes, I turn to the infusion of popular culture in the beginning of their work which references early army advertisements which give emphasis to the physical conditions men must embody in order to thrive in the army.
Alexander and Rhodes discuss how these advertisements are used as "visual pornography" in which the homosexual men "festishize the images". Although these advertisements are intended for a specific audience, Alexander and Rhodes discuss it's implications within queer rhetoric and how such diverse implications on this advertisement propels them to create a counter-discourse, pushing against the notions of intended audience and questioning the ethos, pathos, and logos presented within society and specifically, our popular culture. Discussing discourse and navigating queer rhetoric, Alexander and Rhodes state the following:
"discourse as densely persuasive--a set of textual tools (textual, visual, auditory) through which bodies and psyches are shaped and cast in particular identity formation and through which such bodies and psyches might potentially be recast and reformed."
 These examples of where queer rhetoric is explored and how it pertains to the body makes me think of the arrangement that Hayles uses within her text. In Hayles work we see a historical discussion on how the posthuman is deeply embedded within science, literature, and informatics. Alexander and Rhodes take a similar approach to explain queer rhetoric in their examples of Whitman and Wilde as the first writers to ever really explore queerness, eventually nodding towards more current popular culture examples and how they push against or contend with the ethos, pathos, and logos. Alexander and Rhodes define this resistance as disidentification, in which they define the term as "the ways in which one situates themselves both within and against the various discourse in which we are called to identify".

As Alexander and Rhodes note, "queer rhetorical practice focuses more on strategies to broaden even to the breaking point what counts as 'normal'". I think Hayles is challenging us to do the same thing, but rather to focus on the argument of information and the body, and how there has been an intention to separate the two, rather then discuss them as a collective entity. For Alexander and Rhodes, the body is the multimodal tool to which many of these queer rhetorical practices take place. In thinking about the Lavender Menace group, they used their bodies to display their t-shirts to show they were part of the queer rhetoric, and in turn their bodies provided a framework for disseminating information. As Jonathan and Rhodes note "information and data about queer rhetoric is readily accessible through archives, which is consistently challenged to make it meaningful." This is where I really see the discussion about informatics in what Hayles talks about mirrored in Alexander and Rhodes work. The space of the archives to help reference and understand queer rhetoric is a great tool.
However, as Hayles would argue, the body is removed from these archives, therefore it lacks what Alexander and Rhodes emphasizes groups can achieve. Alexander and Rhodes discuss this relevance of groups in the following statement, "groups are not minds articulating a sense of the queer but also with bodies performing queerness". In addition to this notion, Alexander and Rhodes cite Grindstaff and how he argues "ways in which lesbian and gays have had to position themselves rhetorically and materially" two must exist together in order to be effective in pushing against normal discourse. This was a concept in the Hayles text that was initially confusing to me before our in-class discussion last Wednesday. However, after now having class and talking through Hayles, I think she would agree to the notions Alexander and Rhodes are presenting in advocating for a infusion of body and information as a tool for discursive power, because really, thats what the posthuman attempts to convey. As Alexander and Rhodes note, "technology complicates and also makes access easier". When we think about the arguments conveyed within Hayes, and how the integration of technology is constantly grappling with the notion of what it means to be embodied with informatics, Johnathan and Alexander argue that technology serves as a great archival resource, but it is really though the body that queer rhetoric is empowered. Referring back to Hayles notion of culture and the body, the two are linked, this is what Alexander and Rhodes attempt to convey in their analysis of how queer rhetoric pushes against our contemporary understanding of rhetoric, and how disidentification and a resistance to normative sexuality and gender speak back to the discourses present within society today.

How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics by N. Katherine Hayles

In short, How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics by N. Katherine Hayles was intense. I tried to take my time reading this book but even in doing so, I'm not sure I still fully understand it. Nevertheless, I'll try to articulate my summarization in a way that hopefully doesn't fail the book miserably..

Hayles starts out with a very helpful discussion of material and the body. In this discussion Hayles discusses the crucial shifts and evolutions we have made towards the posthuman., suggesting now that we have in fact already "become" posthuman. In her discussion of this evolution to the posthuman, Hayles summarizes the stages in the following passage, "The first centers on how information lost its body, that is, how it came to be conceptual as an entity separate from the material forms in which it is thought to be embedded. The second story concerns how the cyborg was created as a technological artifact and cultural icon in the years following World War II. The third, deeply implicated with the first two, is the unfolding story of how a historically specific construction called the human is giving way to a different construction called the posthuman" (2). In thinking about the book as a whole, Hayles takes us through these stories and applies them culturally, through conversations that are projected within many platforms, whether that be conversationally and then in research in academic spaces such as the Macy Conference or the interview with Catherine Bates where there is a critical lens on gender as it pertains to the posthuman, or through media and literature as discussed in Limbo and other representations. The main argument Hayles wants her readers to consider is that "the posthuman view privileges informational pattern over material instantiation, so that embodiment in a biological substrate is seen as an accident of history rather than an inevitability of life" (2). I struggle with this concept because I think that information and material are interconnected and cannot be separate. Within chapter 8, Hayles quotes Dreyfus, stating "embodiment means that humans have available to them a mode of learning, and hence of intellection, different from that deriving from cognition alone" (201). Wouldn't this constitute that biological substrate is indeed not an accident? Hayles argues that "the body produces culture at the same time culture produces the body" (200). It seems to me that there is a disconnect between some of the foundational arguments and the discussions that make up the bulk of the book. 

 One contradiction I found within the text is Hayles argument in the beginning of her book and the one she makes at the end. In chapter one, Hayles discusses the posthuman stating, "This paradox is resolved in the posthuman by doing away with the 'natural' self. The posthuman subject is an amalgam, a collection of heterogeneous components, a material-informational  entity whose boundaries undergo continuous construction and reconstruction" (3). At the end of the book, Hayles discusses that the posthuman is not an apocalyptic end of human salvation, but rather the AI and AL presence within society is meant to serve as an integration, living side by side of humans, not replacing them. Jumping back to the beginning of the text, we grapple with this debate about information and the body, where Hayles argues "when information loses its body, equating humans and computers is especially easy, for the materiality in which the thinking mind is instantiated appears incidental to its essential nature" (2). Do we want to equate them? Understanding our infusion of how cyborg and dependent we are on machines is important, however, this doesn't resonate with the ending of the book, where Hayles attempts to make important distinctions between the human and machine. 

Once we move post establishing the central arguments and and historical connotations of human and machine, Hayles begins to take us through the cultural conversations that have been (and are still currently happening)  that were crucial to developing perspectives and depictions of the relationships humans have with technology. We're introduced to scientists such as Wierner, McCulloch, and Maturana which discuss the scientific evolution of our dependency and relationship with machine. Chapters 3,4, and 5 were especially difficult for me to unpack due to the scientific theory and biological connotations that Hayles introduces as an attempt to provide a plethora of perspective and theory as it pertains to the posthuman. I did however find the conversations at the Macy Conference fascinating as they began to talk about the transcriptionist and how her position served as a metaphor for the machine and the observer. This conversation takes place near the end of chapter three, Where Janet Freed is noticed in a photo of the Macy Conference, with her back to the camera. In her ability to articulate her needs from those present at the Macy Conference, in that they need to provide some type of document detailing their contributions to the conference, Hayles gets into a discussion of Freed as the observer stating "Rarely do we see her directly; we glimpse her largely through her reflections in the speech of others. More than anyone else, she qualifies as the outside observer who watches a system that she constructs through the marks she makes on paper, although the system that she constructs itself has a great deal of trouble including her within the name of those people who are authorized to speak and make meaning" (82). Thus begins the slight nod to gender as it relates to these conversations of the posthuman, which I feel is a sort of second main point within the book that Hayles could have addressed further. I'm hanging on to this passage to put in conversation for next week as we explore gender and its implications on technology and the posthuman. We are also given an in-depth discussion of gender as it pertains to amputees in Limbo. To be honest, as I was reading this synopsis, I was really pissed. Although in some ways I felt as though Hayles was dancing around the notion that in this sexual relationship, females are given some type of power in their ability to dictate how the movement of the sex is conducted, there is still a strong rape connotation, indicating that females are somehow 'deserving' or 'wanting' this barbaric rape in which their the ones with the power to facilitate. I began to think of cultural examples of amputees that are somehow infused with machine and how they have a power struggle that is both sexual and violent and I immediately thought of the character Merle in AMC's The Walking Dead. 

Another important topic that Hayles discusses are the AI and the AL machines and he differences between them. Everything that Hayles discusses in the book centers around this discussion of narrative and how through stories, conversations, and cultural examples, we're able to understand what it really means to be posthuman. There is an important distinction between the AL and the AI lifeforms, as Hayles quotes Ray in which he states, "The object of an AL instantiation is to introduce the natural form and process of life into an artificial medium" (224). For Ray as Hayles notes, "creatures become natural forms of life; only the medium is artificial (224). To me this really emphasizes the relevance of embodiment, and that there is an important distinction between AL and human. In contrast, Hayles discusses the notion of AI and how the initial goals were to "build, inside a machine, an intelligence comparable to that of a human. The human was the measure; the machine was the attempt at instantiation in a different medium" (238). However, if we refer to Rays argument, this is not something that accessible for the machine. The AL paradigm is much more attainable within our society because as Hayles notes, "Whereas the AI dreamed of creating consciousness inside a machine, AL sees human consciousness, understood as an epiphenomenon, perching on top of the machinelike functions that distributed systems carry out. In the AL paradigm, the machine becomes the model for understanding the human. Thus the human is transfigured into the posthuman" (239). 

The last multimedia cultural reference I'd like to include is an article that Kevin brought to my attention. The main attraction towards this article (aside from the creepy pictures) is this nod that the language makes towards our dependency for technology, and how the body can biologically serve as a fuel to keep this dependency going. I think such a invention would have merit at the Macy Conference and would be especially interesting to Wierner. 

http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/10/16/this-student-designs-jewelry-that-turns-your-veins-into-a-power-source/

Seminar Paper Ideas: Technology and the Classroom

Wow! What a great class session on Wednesday! We took the full three hours in discussing our topics, ideas, and articulating our concerns pertaining to our potential topics for our papers. I went first in our discussion of topics, so I didn't really get as much feedback, but I'm totally ok with that because I feel like I had a lot to learn and think about based on what other people were proposing for their papers.
For my paper, I want to write about the role of technology in the classroom. Specifically, I'm interested in T.V. Reed's discussion of "integrating" vs. "using" and what that looks like for both the student and the teacher as it applies to multimodal composing in the composition classroom.
On the teacher end, I want to talk about how technology is essential in its ability to "bridge the gap" between platforms of composing that students are already using outside of the classroom into composing within. As teachers, I believe that incorporating a multimodal pedagogy which "uses" multimedia and multimodal teaching strategies shows students ways that you are composing as a teacher as well as a means to incorporate diverse learning styles. On the student end, being able to see teachers "integrate" technology and multimodal projects into a sequence of assignments can help students understand technologies relevance, and how literacies and composing doesn't necessarily mean just words.
During our round table discussion, Lauren mentioned that I should consider the ideas stressed in your "Slow Composition" colloquium presentation a few weeks ago. I think this was a valuable suggestion as it is important to stress that composing multimodal projects takes time in order to do them well. I think I can incorporate this into the discussion of how "using" and "integrating" are very different in that integrating is much more mindful then simply using technology.
Other sources I'd like to consult are Diana George, Kathleen Blake Yancey, Pam Takayoshi, Gail Hawisher, Cynthia Selfe, and the book by Adam Banks that Pierre and I will be presenting on in our class during week 12.
I really believe that technology belongs in the composition classroom. More specifically, I argue for the inclusion of multimodal pedagogy and composing as a means for "bridging the gap" and helping students to compose in ways that will help prepare them for life outside of the classroom. I believe that the traditionally written composition is still important, and I don't mean to suggest that we need to move away from that entirely. Rather, I want to discuss how using multimodal pedagogy and projects can help us become more metacognitive in our writing process, and how these projects and exercises rooted in technology can challenge us to compose and think critically in ways that we may be doing already, however, within the discursive space of the classroom, we're showing students that such platforms are not so separate from other facets of their lives.

-------------

Sorry if that's not well articulated at this point. Do you think I'm biting off more then I can chew? During class a few students suggested that I might want to focus on technology and the student or technology and the teacher. I think it's important to show how it can impact both, and how through such pedagogy, one can influence the other. However, if you think it's too much for a seminar paper, I'm down with it. I don't want this to be too much of a continuation or redundancy of my thesis, but I'm hoping to incorporate this paper into my dissertation in some shape or form, so any feedback or suggestions are very helpful!

Article Conversation: Manuel Castells vs. Rainer Rubira and Gisela Gil- Egui

Manuel Castell's Networks of Outrage and Hope and Rainer Rubira article with Gisela Gil-Egui titled "Political communication in the Cuban blogsphere: A case study of Generation Y" have many parallels as well as divisions in discussing the implications of the Internet on political movements, agendas, and public spheres for representing these affiliations.
To begin, a major difference I noticed between the two works was within the agendas of the digital platforms. While Castells discusses several examples of political movements that utilized the Internet to further propel their political agendas by raising awareness of the issues and in turn gaining followers, Sanchez initial intent used her blog as to depict life within Cuba "from the everyday perspective of a woman" (154).
It was through the commentary of viewers that political agendas and opinions were expressed, debated, and spread, although it can be argues that Sanchez does have a political agenda within her blog as well. Dahlgreen coins this concept 'civil cultures' which means that "in this process, individuals are redefining the terms of cilivl participation in ways that privilege expression over debate, cultural affiliations over geopolitical ones, and localized agency over broader sovereignty" (158).
Through individuals ability to construct user profiles and avatars, those who comment can provide hyperlinks to their own websites, political agendas, or other avenues of research. This notion of sharing mirrors Castells discussion of using platforms to gain awareness or attract users to political agendas. Sanchez extended her online presence through the use of twitter, noting the increased networking of being followed/following that has accumulated over the years. The blog itself has also become a platform for SNS which has evolved to allowing people to share via Facebook and Twitter while also utilizing the opportunity to email and other notifications on each post.
I thought it was interesting how Sanchez organizes her blog in a way that keeps those who follow the blog consistently active. While disabling comments on previous postings, in order to participate users have to stay current. This is a tactic that is two fold, and encourages users to stay active, while also furthering current discussion of newer topics.
Another major difference between Castells and Rubira and Gil-Egui was their focus. While this may seem overly obvious, it is important to note that Castells speaks on broader terms for the implications of the Internet on political movements. Rubira and Gil-Egui's article zooms in on just one digital platform, and discusses the different implications or avenues or political agenda users can take. However, in the beginning of the article. I noted that the key issues within Sanchez's article were all key issues within Castells book. These issues include the following: civil and political rights inside the island (thought of Spanish and Egyptian revolutions here), the existence of a significant crisis of values (Tunisia and the Arab Spring), and national economic disintegration (Iceland and Occupy Wall Street) (154). Additionally, Sanchez identifies herself as politically neutral, staying away from any overt opposition group. This notion highly contrasts the examples provided by Castells, where users are identifying with particular movements with a specific political agenda.
Rubira and Gil-Egui discuss the work of Castells within their article, bringing attention to Castells notion of the public sphere and its attribution to the following:

        Geographical dispersion, transnational reach, diverse membership, horizontal organizing, plural identities, fragmented agendas, transient commitments, quick mobilization, and the frequently mob-like collective actions that characterize many contemporary forms of civic engagement. (155)

Globalization issues is a theme that is shared between Castells book and Rubira and Gil-Egui's article. Castells discusses globalization as a means to fuel movements, such as the Egyptian Revolution when the government shut the internet off. Sanchez is also allocated certain internet platforms and connections through other countries, such as a the U.S. because of the tight control and limited access of the Internet by the government in Cuba. However, this assistance from other countries raises questions, in which Lamrani questions "Sanchez ability to maintain Generation Y without strong financial and technical support from foreign agencies" (157). In this way, globalization not only refers to access sharing, but also as a way to spread awareness or gain followers on a national level as well as a certain level of dependency on such global collaboration. Sanchez stresses that her followers are primarily located outside of Cuba, and as a result create discussion all around the world. 

I would have liked to see more information on the demographic of people that comment and follow Sanchez's blog. I appreciated Castells discussion of the demographics of people participating in each movement, noting their age, gender, and level of education. I found that Rubira and Gil-Egui did a great job of discussing the visual representation and identities of users who follow Sanchez regarding their avatars and profiles, but no research was conducted regarding their lives outside of the digital realm. 

Another aspect of the Rubira and Gil-Egui article that I found pushed against Castells falls among the topic of agenda within the Internet. While the examples provided by Castells had a specific agenda within their utilization of the Internet, Sanchez's users "saw the Internet as a discursive medium, rather than as a way of becoming involved in 'real' collective action or shaping policymaking" (159). I think this is a central difference between the two pieces, and is important to consider when reflecting on the implications of the Internet and the globalization of such digital platforms. Not all users who access such spaces have the same agenda, and not everyone participating in discussion wants to carry out specific action in real-life but merely see such spaces as a safe platform for political expression and debate. 

Although Sanchez's blog hosts many different types of postings, I thought it was interesting when referring to Figure 1 that the postings which received the most attention were all still inherently political (civil rights coercion, economy, politics, and society). As indicated by Rubira and Gil-Egui, "this fact offers a less than subtle hint of the implicit editorial line of the blog" (170). 

To conclude, perhaps the main difference between Castells Networks of Outrage and Hope and Rubira and Gil-Egui's "Political Communication in the Cuban blogsphere: A case study of Generation Y" can be found on within the conclusion of the Rubira and Gil-Egui article, which states "Generation Y possesses like many other online forums, the characteristics of an expressive public sphere, rather than of a deliberative one" (173). I believe the examples presented within Castell's book shows us examples of deliberative public sphere's and the case study of Sanchez's blog displays an openly expressive public sphere that is fueled by the participation of its users. 

Networks of Outrage and Hope: Manuel Castells

Networks of Outrage and Hope by Manuel Castells discusses the implications of networking on political movements. Rather than speaking to the connection between the two collectively, Castells devotes chapters to specific political movements, discussing not only a narrative account for how the movement came to be, but also the utilization of technology and networking as a means for promoting, advocating, and educating a global audience.
"Prelude to the Revolution: Where it all started" discusses the movements in both Tunisia and Iceland. While both movements focused on the politics within their countries, each had its own agenda. For the people of Iceland, their main objective was to restore the economy, and expose the politically corrupt banksters and corporate hustlers. In Tunisia, the protests were a response to what Castells describes as, "institutionally-backed humiliation and the search for dignity" (25). What's important to note however, is that although both movements utilized the digital network as a way to spread awareness and gain followers, these networking tactics were also conducted within urban spaces. Whether it's sitting in front of Parliament in Iceland, or Mohamed Bouazizi, who lit himself on fire as a response to attempted coercion. The beginning of these movements resided in physical spaces.
"The Egyptian Revolution" focuses on (you guessed it) the Egyptian revolution. It is with this revolution that were really grasp the implications of technology and its ability to fuel a movements cause. With the recording of police brutality, proponents of the movement were able to gain followers by relying on the emotional impacts of such attacks by law enforcement. They even began their protests on national police day (January 25th) as a refutation to the way their law enforcement was operating.
(Side Note: A lot of these issues that Castells discusses have me recognizing current parallels going on in our society today. Upon reading the chapter on the Egyptian Revolution (as well as the Occupy Wall Street movements throughout the country), I found myself thinking about the issues of police brutality in Ferguson. I'm sure Lacy and Alex will touch on this with their attention to the recent use of social network used by ISIS)
Another important issue facet of the Egyptian Revolution was its attention to the treatment of women during political movements. Again, through the use of SNS to shed light on the violence towards women, more followers and awareness was spread and in turn, more women began to advocate for equality and a no tolerance to police brutality. As Castells notes, "It was this multimodality of autonomous communication that broke the barriers of isolation and made it possible to overcome fear by the act of joining and sharing" (59).
Another important part of the Egyptian revolution was the impact of the government's decision to shut off the Internet. I was amazed and proud to read that this did not shut down the movement, but rather extended relations with other countries, as they reached out to Egyptians and gave access to their networks and resources in order to better fuel the movement. This large effort on a global scale essentially forced the Egyptian government to restore power (that and the loss of revenue). As Castells notes, "In short, the Internet is the lifeline of  the interconnected global economy" (59). It stands to say that in these instances "if there is a will there is a way", proving that despite the numerous setbacks or attempted disarming of political movements, those who "fight the good fight" will always strive for justice.
"Dignity, Violence, Geopolitics: The Arab Uprisings" briefly discusses the rise of Arab Nations to challenge and infiltrate their countries politics. Castells summarizes this collective upheaval, stating "calls on the Internet, networking in cyberspace and calls to occupy urban space to put pressure on the government to resign and open a process of democratization...the interaction between the protests and the regimes depended on internal and geopolitical conditions" (94-95).
"A Rhizomatic Revolution: Indignadas' in Spain" focused on the "possibility of successfully confronting the collusion between bankers and politicians through grassroots mobilization" (111). According to Castells, advocates of the movement in Spain noted "Just saying loudly and collectively what everybody had been keeping inside for years was a liberating gesture that made the government more expressive than instrumental in the short term" (134). This emphasis on a shared collective experience brings me to the first main point I believe Castells conveys in his book, were he states, "Since we know that emotions are the drivers of collective action, this could in fact be the key for future social change" (134). Although there are several examples presented in the text of the ways in which networking and the Internet provided a fuel to political movements, I believe it is a the close analysis of how the Internet is used to evoke emotion and connection to these issues that really makes them successful. Whether it bet videos of police brutality, self mutilation through setting yourself on fire, or perhaps participating in a march or forum that advocates for the treatment of women, all of these movements are fueled by the emotions of its participants. People are not propelled to join a movement unless they feel something towards it. Castells touches on the specific types of emotions that are experienced a little later....but I think this is a huge point in his work.
"Occupy Wall Street: Harvesting the Salt of the Earth" was a doozy of a chapter, with a lot of narrative storytelling of how the movement came to be, as well as a detailed account of how and why it spread across the country. There is a lot of important information in this section to consider. First, the notion that "The Occupy Wall Street was born digital"  (171). Unlike the other movements, which originated in some type of urban space, the Occupy Wall Street movement originated in blogs, tweets, and Facebook posts. For me, what was especially important in this chapter was not only the acknowledgement of the digital influence the Internet played on the movement, but the actual functions and utilization's of the movement to produce specific jobs, functions, and outcomes...which I believe is the second main point of the book. Within this chapter Castells discusses the different SNS and Internet resources, outlining their specific purpose as it pertained to the movement. For example, Castells discusses some implications stating, "SNS was important, particularly for coordinating actions and staying in touch, as were email list-servs to diffuse information. Conference calls, using Mumble and other VOIP technologies, allowed deliberation between distant sites (176-177).
Another facet of the occupy movement that intrigued me was the attention to politics within the movement itself. the intricate system of the GA that was established in order to address issues or proposals within the movement was pretty astonishing (the flow chart Castells provided was helpful). Additionally, I enjoyed the discussion of how the media exposure to the Occupy Wall Street movement was more authentic when portrayed from an actual participant, as Castells mentions "the mainstream media only reported what their editors wanted, but the movement self-reported everything, posting on the Internet all the actions that took place in every confrontation" (191).
"Changing the World in the Network Society" is more of a summative look at the implications the Internet has on political movements. This is the chapter where Castells look more on a psychological level at the emotions that are present within movements: "fear, disgust, surprise, sadness, happiness, and anger" (219). The rest of the chapter mainly goes through these implications, which is rather redundant because I feel like he does this at the end of every chapter anyway. However, Castells notes that "Networking technologies are meaningful because they provide the platform for this continuing, expansive networking practice that evolves with the changing shape of the movement" (221), which I think is really important to remember when reflecting on the implications of technology on social and political movements.

Cybertypes vs. It's My Revolution: Learning to See the Mixedblood

I see many parallels between Dr. Arola's article titled, "It's My Revolution: Learning to See the Mixedblood" and Lisa Nakamura's book Cybertypes. One prominent discussion I see going on in each piece is the notion of racial identity in online spaces. While Nakamura focuses on the assumptions and identity tourism, that is the "raced" identity of someone online who does not hold that identity in real life. However, Arola takes that idea and portrays in a way that makes it more "authentic". Rather than discussing how people take on other identities or races online that do not hold true to their real ethnicity, Arola explored spaces where people self-identified (or did not identify) as a particular ethnicity that in fact mirrored their offline identity. So in a way, these two works are pushing against one another, offering the reader a more broad view of racial representations in online spaces in ways that are authentic vs. stereotyped.

Jamie's profile refutes Nakamura's notion that everything is a copy online and as Arola argues "Jamie has more 'authentic' markers of what some of us might recognize as being Indian, and in this way we might even see Jamie as Indian, and perhaps not necessarily as mixedblood" (Arola 222). Does this notion of 'authentic' pose some dilemma for who Jamie really is? This makes me think of The Matrix and Nakamura's discussion of the native in online spaces, and how her argument that authenticity is lost pushes against the type of online presence that Jamie's Myspace profile hopes to convey.

Another topic that I saw throughout each piece was the limitations online spaces provide in identifying ethnicity. Arola and Nakamura both discuss the limitations "checking a box" provides us with, and how there are not enough options available to accurately portray everyones racial identity. As Arola notes, "mixedbloods don't fall into a neatly decided category" (Arola 215). I thought it was interesting that out of the Myspace profiles observed, two out of the three users couldn't remember if they had chosen a race identification, which to me seems to indicate that "identifying" didn't matter as much as the other information they chose to share on their profile page in terms of how the users wanted to be portrayed. Is this because there was no way to identify as more then one race? If there was the option to do so, would more have identified? These are important questions to consider.

This gets me thinking about Nakamura and identity tourism, and her argument that in online spaces "everything is a copy...nothing has an aura" (Nakamura 6). I wonder, if presented with this notion, Arola's examples would have felt offended or inadequate. Additionally, I was interested in Arola's discussion of biological signifiers of identifying as Indian, noting "distinctive physical appearance that many accompany those connections--imply a stronger claim on identity than do more distant ones" (Arola 215). Thinking about this in online spaces, I gravitate towards Adam's Myspace profile. Adam chose not to identify as mixedblood in his online profile. However, if we consider Arola's idea of biological identifiers, wouldn't that be difficult to conceal in your Myspace profile picture? Perhaps it's just the poor image quality, but to me, viewing Figure 1 and Adam's profile picture looks to have some type of mask or bandana covering part of his face. I wonder if this is intentional, as to cover the biological connection to his mixedblood identity. This depiction in the online world mirrors his identity portrayal in real life, as Arola indicates that Adam "rarely identifies as native or mixed in his daily life except in academic circles where he engages directly with native philosophy" (Arola 220). This reserve echoes Nakamura's discussion between "Western user and the discourse of race and racism in cyberspace" (Nakamura 7). As Arola mentions, part of Adams decision to leave out the mixedblood on Myspace stems in his inability to articulate what it means to him, however, could it also be a fear that he is afraid of being 'raced' in a negative way online? As Nakamura notes, "symptoms of modernity create a sense of unease that is remedied by comforting and familiar images of 'history' and a 'native' that seems frozen in 'a different time and a different place' (Nakamura 7). This seems to me to accurately convey Adams hesitation to portray his mixedblood identity online, and also confirms why he feels safer discussing that mixed blood in different social circles such as academic communities. The 'different time, different place' notion speaks to almost a compartmentalizing of identity, and that you can highlight certain aspects of your identity in different communities.

In short, as Nakamura argues, "race must be understood as a function of consciousness rather than something that is visible and written on the body" (67). However, how we choose to display "the body" or our identities in online spaces primarily indicates how we'd like to be seen both offline and online, and for Arola, it gets messy when considering the mixedblood. Do we choose to embrace the biological implications of race? Do we hide them? What about the mixedblood who doesn't necessarily hold those biological signifiers? What about the mixedblood that does and prefers to identify otherwise? Comedian Trevor Noah explores these issues in his standup act titled, "African American". I've pointed Mark and Jennie towards this episode in the hopes that they'll incorporate it in today's class. I think a lot of the issues of the mixedblood identity are presented in a way thats helpful in understanding Nakamura's ideas about identity tourism, Arola's investigation of mixedblood identity in social media, and other readings we've looked at for this week. I've included a segment from Noah's standup below that discusses the mixedblood:

Cybertypes: Race Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet by Lisa Nakamura

I am going to try my best at scaling down the length of my response for this book :) 

Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet by Lisa Nakamura offers what I believe to be an introduction into the problematic representation of race issues within online (and offline) communities.

To begin, chapter one titled, "Cybertyping and The Work of Race in The Age of Digital Reproduction" discusses the role of race in the digital workforce. This notion doesn't necessarily represent the online workforce but rather a population employed to enhance and maintain technology and digital spaces (engineers, computer scientist, laborers, etc.). As a precursor to chapter two, which deals with the different "head hunting" approaches to recruit a specific racially stereotyped Asian worker, chapter one aims to first explain and understand race in the online world. Lisa Nakamura has coined the term "cybertypes" as "the process by which computer/human interfaces, the dynamics and economics of access, and the means by which users are able to express themselves online interacts with the 'cultural layer' or ideologies regarding race that they bring with them into cyberspace" (3). This notion can be seen in the digital identity tourism that Nakamura discusses in chapter one. The notion of "going native" or viewing the native as a means through "identity tourism" presents several problems of racial representation online. According to Nakamura, "When natives stop acting like natives---that is to say, when they deviate from the stereotypes that have been set up to signify their identities--their 'aura' is lost: they are no longer 'authentic" (6). In turn, Nakamura goes on to argue that in the Internet, nothing is authentic because it is a copy of the offline world. However, in the online world race is something that can be concealed, or an identity that can be created or utilized which deviates from "real life" representation. The notion of access is a concept we were introduced to first by T.V. Reed and I was happy to see Nakamura touch on it as well in chapter one. With this notion of access, the idea of representation from racial minorities is (to be expected) much less then an Anglo European of white user. Nakamura also notes that studies are now indicating the number of racial minorities online has gone up, however she notes that when the number was so low to begin with, any increase at all would signify an overall increase. The notion of identity tourism is a huge issue throughout the book and I feel is one that is of crucial significance in today's society. As Nakamura notes, under this concept of identity tourism, individuals "rather than "honoring diversity, their performances online used race and gender as amusing prothesis to be donned and shed without 'real life' consequences" (13-14). Essentially, what happens is a more intensified "othering" of racial minorities and stereotypes, often depicting their online identities to fit into these stereotypes rather then transcend them (I noticed in the book Nakamura focused heavily on Asian avatars and stereotypes and was curious as to whether or not had she been perhaps African American or Hispanic if this emphasis would have shifted towards another minority). The rest of the chapter focuses on a Westernized "American" globalization to an online participation, where Nakamura notes that "rather than destroying authenticity, cybertyping wants to preserve it" (20).
Chapter two titled, "Head Hunting on The Internet: Identity Tourism, Avatars, and Racial Passing in Textual and Graphic Chat Spaces" discusses identity on the Internet and how the identities constructed actually play into racial stereotypes rather than aim to defeat them. According to Nakamura, avatars are the "embodiment in text and/or graphic images, of a user's online presence in social spaces" (31). These avatars also enable users to virtually be anyone they'd like in a digital chat room or video game. However, what's interesting to note is that aside from choosing to be white, Nakamura cites that the second highest identity is Asian, and specifically a female. This identity construct goes beyond the notion of merely choosing a sex and race, and begins to construct such an identity based on the racial out-dated stereotypes commonly associated with that group. Avatars presented as geisha's in kimonos and males with samurai swords speak to a population that has long been outdated, especially considering its place in the online community. Who are affiliating with these avatars? Nakamura notes that the majority of people operating under the female Asian identity are middle aged white men! (43). The psychoanalytical reasons for such choices could be their own book, however, the main focus is that Nakamura argues that this is part of the problem rather than the solution, and that constructing an identity based on their racial stereotypes sets up a preconceived notion of what Asian presence "should be" in an online space. As Nakamura notes, "Analyzing the ways that icons and avatars are raced in cyberspace allows us to lay bare the principles of ethnic image-building on the Net" (51). Looking at the ways in which racial identities are stereotyped online can teach us a lot about the beliefs and perceptions people hold about race offline.
Chapter three titled, "Race in the Construct and the Construction of Race: The 'Consensual Hallucination' of Multiculturalism in the Fictions of Cyberspace"discusses the genres of cyberpunk and the representations of race in the media. Most notably, Nakamura goes into an extensive discussion of the movie The Matrix and discusses the role of race and gender and how they relate to a power hierarchy within society. I thought the movie paired nicely with this whole notion of racial identity online specifically in the antagonistic view of the machines being the villain and race being the "resistance" to conforming to a monolithic society. What I found particularly interesting was how the main character and "the one" was in fact a Asian American. This notion that as Nakamura puts it supports that "race must continue to exist, especially in the terrain of cyberspace, where so many foundational notions of identity as anchored in a body have become contingent, problematic, and difficult" (67). Though this idea to me is a two-edged sword because Neo is in fact still partially white and as a result, is seen as the superior character over his female accomplice, Trinity, and his African American teacher, Morpheus. Both Morpheus and Trinity are consistently viewed in advertising promotional posters and trailers standing behind Neo, as to suggest that they cannot exist or have purpose without him. Nakamura's discussion of The Matrix and how it can serve to better help our understanding of society and the implications it has on race speaks to how we can view multimedia and cultural representations of this power struggle between technology and minorities is the second main point that stuck with me in the text. The best explanation I found that was represented by Nakamura states the following:
                      The Matrix constructs a new discourse of race in the Digital Age, one that plugs us in                           to our own dreamworlds about cyberutopians and cyberfutures. And like any dream,                             it is conflicted; it opens a window into our cultural anxieties, fears, fantasies, and                                   desires about the Internet and the roles of blacks, whites, machines, and all                                           combinations thereof. Like the Internet, the matrix looks the way we want it to look                             or have made it look: it is symptomatic of our vision of utopia. (79)
Visions of a digitized "utopia" is a good way to segue into Chapter four titled, "Where Do You Want To Go Today?: Cybernetic Tourism, The Internet, and Transnationality" talks about the idea of bridging gaps between cultures through the use of technology. Compaq specifically designed a series of posters and advertisements aimed at globalizing the use of technology as a means for people to "tour" other countries, cultures, and practices. I found this advertisement campaign to be a little disturbing, and felt as though the campaign was essentially arguing that through technology, one could gain complete insight into other cultures. As Nakamura argues, "If technology will indeed make everyone, everything, and every place the same, as "Anthem" claims in its ambivalent way, then where is there left to go? What is there left to see?" (93). So whats the agenda behind these advertisements? And what are they trying to achieve in these campaigns to promote exotic and native culture? As the text asserts, "these ads claim a world without boundaries, for us, the consumers and target audience, and by so doing they show us exactly where and what these boundaries are, and that is ethnic and racial. Rather than being effaced, these dividing lines are evoked repeatedly" (94). This whole concept of race and lines that are drawn is a continually explored throughout the text. It is an important question to consider. How are we globalizing our digital spaces? How are we "othering" those who don't fall into the white upper class? How do our representation of other minorities speak to the digital divide and the dividing line?
Chapter five titled, "Menu Driven Identities: Making Race Happen Online" discusses racial representations online, and specifically self-chosen representation. The notion of "checking the race box" is discussed at length, noting that at times, options available will force people to identify with just one race, rather than multiple. For example, There is no "Asian American" selection for some individuals and therefore they have to make a choice as to how they'd like to be represented. Portals are also another Web-based screening which directs you towards specific keywords or searches based on your initial prompt. Nakamura notes that "the structure of this menu works to close off the possibility of alternate or hybrid definitions of racial identity" (104). The notion of racial masquerading online is reintroduced and emphasizes how this notion future stereotypes the stigmas or perceptions commonly associated with a specific type of minority (does anyone else feel Nakamura has a tendency to be overly redundant?). About 2/3 of the way through the chapter, Nakamura introduces the "101 Ways to Tell if You're Japanese American". This is an incorporation that I could identify with, as we see many examples of such "lists" available through social media and email chains today. However, what I thought was important to note was the fact that many of the recipients of this email were not Japanese Americans but rather a person who knew someone and could relate, therefore establishing a sense of community (in sort of a racist backwards way). As Nakamura notes, "When they receive this list they are being interpolated into a racial identity search engine of sorts that accommodates--indeed, welcomes--their hybridity" (131). Lastly, Nakamura ends the chapter by stating, what I feel is representative towards an overall way to view race online, in that "race is under construction in cyberspace" (134).
The conclusion titled, "Keeping It (Virtually) Real: The Discourse Of Cyberspace As An Object Of Knowledge" discusses the role of race in academia. The Internets role in academia opens up many new arenas of study. However, as Nakamura notes, "What is missing, however, in the scholarship is attention to race as an important component of online identity and community" (138). Learning that many "new" professors are faced only with the possibility of teaching within their racial identity is troubling to me. To end, as Nakamura states " cyberspace is a place where racial identities are created, maintained, received, and performed, a user's position as raced offline counts for something" (143).

Part 2: Digitized Lives: Culture, Power, and Social Change in the Internet Era

Part 2 of Digitized Lives: Culture, Power, and Social Change in the Internet Era starts off with chapter six titled, "Does the Internet Have a Political Bias? E-Democracy, Networked Authoritarianism and Online Activism" which discusses the role technology plays in providing a sense of "community" for political activism, as well as the cyber realms of terrorism, and government censorship. In the beginning of the chapter, Reed discusses the advantages and disadvantages to online voting. While online voting makes the voting process more accessible to some such as the disabled, those who did not grow up in a "digitized" society often are at a disadvantage in their mere inexperience and lack of understanding. As Reed puts it "the potential is great, but at present the drawbacks largely outweigh advantages" (122). One of the biggest problems technology faces is the issue of security. Although Reed notes that "voter fraud" is particularly low in countries such as the US and the UK, it still poses some risk (122). Digital political presence can also have advantages during campaigns as well as within the voting process. Some believe that the Obama campaign won largely due to the online presence of the Obama campaign organization. However, Reed notes that "Obama had a built in advantage with younger voters who are both more likely to vote liberal and more likely to be deeply connected to digital cultures" (123). Whatever the case may be, it is undeniable that political presence online creates awareness and is a tool for political advertising, though Cass Sunstein notes that "most people using the Web to follow politics do not seek out a variety of perspectives, but instead seek out informational and opinion sources that match their existing ideological biases" (123). I agree and disagree with this statement and believe it is an important facet of the text to discuss. Through the use of social media, I've come to find lots of articles and research on positions and political ideologies that I wouldn't have necessarily "sought out" based on my own personal political beliefs. A statement that really resonated with me in this chapter was that "likes become locks; zeroing in only on what a user already believes" (123). This profiling that is done through social media makes me skeptical to "like" anything. I don't necessarily like leaving a "social" footprint in public places, and especially not a political one. Chapter six also discusses the notion of political activism, and how using digital spaces for political reform can have great impacts on society. Reed notes in reference to globalization, activism has been a crucial role in maintaining freedom in digital spaces. The biggest protest to date which protested the U.S. war with Iraq was largely organized and communicated via online, which refutes the argument that online activism discredits actual face-to-face activism. This goes along with another issue raised in the chapter about e-petitions. As Reed puts it, critics argue "that the very ease of digitally signing an email or online petition has cheapened the experience, rendered it less impactful then personal letters snail mail the old-fashioned way (129-130). I would argue quiet the opposite, as later on Reed describes a group that simulates Harry Potter to fight for social justice and raise awareness about issues present in the face-to-face community. Different online petitions raise awareness and though it may be from a distance, it is still a tool for networking and exposing people to real issues offline. Other groups utilize what Reed refers to as "maptivism" to help raise awareness and gain a global target for things like domestic abuse and assault such as the organization "Hollaback". Another issue targeted in chapter six are the issues of hacking, cyberterrorism, and wiki-leaking. The chapter discusses how terrorists can utilize the internet to network with others in their group around the world as well as obtain confidential information from other governments to purposefully cause death and destruction in the online and offline world. Lastly, the notion of protests and digital murals are discussed, offering that digital murals are a way for a variety of people to view political art as they are able to be re-sized and reproduced.

Chapter seven titled, "Are Digital Games Making Us Violent and Sex Crazed, or Will They Save the World? Virtual Play Real Impact" discusses video gaming culture the the assumptions and truths that surround them. The main question that I believe Reed asks in this chapter is what do we take away from video games? Reed argues that video games are educational, and that much of what we do while were gaming helps us understand and process the real world. Reed argues that through theories of gaming such as "narratology, which focuses on storyline in games or ludology, concentrating more on interactions and rules shaping game play" (142) we can apply and utilize much of what we see in the gaming world and transcend it into our understanding of real life. Another theory that surrounds the gaming culture is called assemblage theory and has to do with the understanding that our avatars and digital roles we play in games do not define our identities outside of these roles online. Throughout the chapter, Reed addresses the notion of whether or not video games make us violent. His view on this matter is that they don't, citing evidence that I'll discuss later that serves as more of a correlation then a causation. In reference to education and video games, Reed states that "digital games teach you how to learn" (144). This is something that I wholeheartedly believe to be true. Through much of the stereotyping in video games, gaming can teach us about the outside world around us and the injustices we face. I thought Reed did an excellent job of highlighted the sexism and gender stereotyping present in games. The gender roles that are present in games somewhat reflect the oppressions that are present within current society. Whether it be depicting women as non-relevant roles in Grand Theft Auto, or increasing the boob size of Lara Croft, there are apparent gender stereotypes present within gaming culture, and gaining insight and awareness about these issues can teach us a lot about the offline world. Reed devotes a whole section in this chapter to the question of whether or not video games make us violent. To this notion, Reed states that "millions and millions of young men all over the world play violent video games, and do not commit acts of murder" (145). Sure, there are always correlations when looking at populations of people, however, the correlations are multiple, and honing in on one small, but present correlation skews the understanding of the issue at large. As Reed notes, "people don't watch pornography and then run out to commit rape" (146). In turn, Reed discusses how this argument for video gaming contributing to violence as it pertains to the military and the utilization of gaming by the military for personnel training. However, as the chapter notes, some military personnel worry that the depictions made by these shooter games do not actually depict warfare stating "concerns have been raised historically that pilots flying bombers that never see their bombs land on human targets may be shielded from the realities of warfare, and that they may suffer retroactively when that reality hits them" (149). This separation from reality and the gaming depiction of warfare can be dangerous, as can issues of race and gender in the gaming world. Reed offers that two things that can move us away from issues of race and gender are agency and complexity. Agency refers to "the ability to impact the world" (152). Depicting females in strong protagonist roles such as Lara Croft can help to achieve a sense of equality among gender in the gaming community. Complexity refers added dimension in a character and depicting them as strong and intelligent. Lastly, Reed addresses the question of whether or not video games can save the world. In this passage he quotes Jane McGonigal nicely, and I think it summarizes a general positive attitude towards approaching video games as a medium for growth and social change, stating that some people view "the real world as 'broken' in that most people experience the sense of excitement, accomplishment, or involvement in their everyday lives that they experience in games...in order to unbreak the world, to make it a better place, we need to learn from digital games how to transfer the elements of excitement, accomplishment and involvement found in games to solving real-world problems" (161). So well put!

Chapter eight titled, "Are Kids Getting Dumber as Their Phones Get Smarter? E-Learning, 'Edutainment' and the Future of Knowledge Sharing" discusses the educational impact of technology in the classroom. This chapter was of particular interest to me as this is a segment of composition that I am genuinely invested in. Reed supports the claim that children as learning digitally and I believe it is our role as educators to utilize that technology to help bridge the gap between what students already know to what they are learning in our classrooms. Although, Reed notes that as a younger generation, our youth are "increasingly resenting social media as a burden; many are fed up with the inanity and lack of privacy...though paradoxically they are sharing more personal information" (164-165). This awareness of digital presence and the notion that what you put out on the internet leaves a trail is a concept I'm glad to see younger generations recognizing. As Reed argues, "computers are neither the problem nor the solution to issues in education and the twenty-first century" (166). To me, it is how we utilize technology to promote engagement and understanding in the classroom is where the real difference is made. Reed consistently refers to computers as tools, nothing that "good teachers recognize that digital technologies create opportunities, but opportunities that only careful, thoughtful pedagogy can take advantage of" (166). One way to accomplish this is by focusing on the different learning modalities (visual, aural, kinesthetic, etc.), to which Reed argues "the great virtue in education is their capacity to individualize the learning process" (166). Much of what my research in my thesis focused on was the different ways in which we learn. By using technology to effectively illustrate these different learning styles, Reed argues we can enhance our knowledge and understanding of the world around us and the problems we face outside of the digital realm. To fuel this argument, Reed illustrates evidence that students learn more when they don't feel bored. By integrating technology into the classroom, students are utilizing mediums that they're already exposed to outside of the classroom, therefore as the text notes students and teachers can use/assign technology to depict their understanding of course content through what Reed calls "skillful use of multimedia digital pedagogy" (168). Perhaps what I feel the most relevant argument and issue Reed presents in this segment of reading is the notion that technology "personalizes situations where one-size-fits all education is foisted upon a classroom of 20 or 30 or 40 students, each of whom has a different learning style, pace and set of needs" (168). In my thesis, this was the entire basis for my argument of incorporating multimodal pedagogy into the composition classroom to teach literature. Many instructors teach within a liberal arts curricula where they see students with a diverse range of majors. By utilizing technology in order to effectively "reach" them and allocate for an understanding of course content, students are better able to make meaning and arrive at an understanding of the text. This is largely where multimodal projects come into play in the classroom, as students are able to illustrate their understanding of course content through their projects. Reed notes there is a difference between using technology and integrating technology in the classroom and that most teachers "use" technology but few are integrating it in a way that makes sense pedagogically and allocates for some relevance within the learning process. With this integration of technology, Reed argues that parents need to focus more on not what technology is present in the classroom, but rather how it is being utilize to foster and encourage learning in the classroom. To accompany this, the notion of online learning communities is discussed. Having taught a course entirely online, I will argue that there are some benefits as well as setbacks teaching an entirely digitized composition course. I agree with Reed that "the transition to online teaching has brought many college professors to think more carefully about pedagogy" (172). I have certainly had to think about the lessons I taught in a face-to-face classroom, and how they could needed to be adapted in order to be successful in the online classroom. Sometimes, after carefully analyzing the pedagogy behind my teaching I found that the revision of the course to better fit the online realm led to a revision of the face-to-face lesson as well. One thing is for certain, as Reed argues, online classroom spaces lead to more student interaction (172). Whether it is the ability of a less-confrontational way to participate, or rather the extra time to really carefully develop a response, online learning environments typically generate more thoughtful and course-specific discussion (much like a graduate seminar). Lastly, I was also happy to see that the chapter references HASTAC, which is a scholarship I plan to apply for, as I am interested in aspects of the digital humanities and how technology can bring learning communities together to achieve great things in the academic world.

Chapter nine titled, "Who in the World is Online? Digital Inclusions and Exclusions" focuses on the notion of the digital divide, and who does (and doesn't) have access to technology, and as a result what that can say about us a culture as well as a global society. Reed reminds us that the World Wide Web isn't necessarily "World Wide" as many people do not have access to technology in even first world countries. According to the evidence presented by Reed "70% of the world's population have no engagement with digital culture at all" (180). This is a truly staggering amount considering the globalization that occurs through the use of technology. Reed attributes this lack of access largely to three main issues: "lack of economic resources, lack of computer literacy skills, and lack of information relevant to many cultural groups combined with a lack of information on the benefits of the Net for those groups, and lastly relative lack of linguistic and cultural diversity in the material available on the Web" (180). Within these populations, Reed notes that the predominant population that utilizes technology comes from North America and Europe (Anglo-European Cultures) (180). In reference to access, the notion of who needs the internet is discussed. Due largely to socio-economic disparities, we generally see a lack of access in people below the poverty line. In a time of what Reed refers to as a "digital divide" he argues that "the digital divide is the [human] rights issue of the 21st century. Why? Because the internet is (potentially) the greatest educational invention since the printing press" (183). This is a human rights issue because lack of access is a notion that is creating more discrepancy between social classes to which Reed argues "if not dealt with, lack of meaningful digital access will increase all forms of poverty (economic, social, and informational) and deepen all forms of inequality" (183-184). Mark Warschauer describes a way to combat this digital divide called "technology for social inclusion" which emphasizes a more proactive approach to new media (185). Within these digital inclusion projects, Warschauer argues that one must have "physical resources (hardware), digital resources (culturally relevant content to a full range of potential users), human resources (in terms of people competent to assist in helping users achieve techno-literacies of various kinds), and social resources (in the form of a supportive culturally competent cohort of fellow users)" (185). However, with the argument that access to the online world as a human rights issue, Reed also brings up the notion that people are simply putting too much online for the world to see. With this comes the notion of intellectual property rights, which fight to keep cultural traditions and practices akin and original to their origin (in other words, not be snatched up by users on the Web and taken or sold to gain profit. The chapter ends with the push for a conversation about why digitizing matters, and particularly how we can look to technology as a way of understanding (and being ready for) what's to come. However, in order to look to the future, emphasis on lessening the divide between the digital "have's" and "have nots" needs to close.

Lastly, chapter ten is a summative conclusion focusing on the concept of "Hope, Hope and Possible Digitized Futures". Reed begins the conclusion by noting that "which technologies get developed, which become widely used, and how they get used (to better our lives or make them worse) will be up to us, not to the technologies" (195). I think this is a really profound statement because it gives the ownership back to us, as humans and dismisses the notions that our lives are controlled by technology. We are in control of the technology we choose (or choose not) to incorporate into our lives. How dependent we are on those technologies is entirely by choice. Reed mentions the medical breakthroughs with technology and how technology can be utilized in a way that can sincerely benefit peoples lives in the medical world. Additionally, Reed also introduces the notion of Artificial Intelligence and what kind of implications such AI's can have on our society. Lastly, Reed leaves us with the task of considering what kind of world these new technologies will thrive in. Will it be a society akin to The Hunger Games? I certainly hope not. Or perhaps, as Reed notes, do we wish to "use our human intelligence and astounding technology to make the world a place where all beings, human and otherwise, can thrive"(198).

I like this image to portray this week's section of reading because I think it pairs nicely with the common perceptions and assumptions made in reference to technologies role in the classroom. Notice the far right picture which is the actual depiction focuses as the students using the technology, not the teacher. To me this is a successful integration of technology in the classroom and not just "using" it like you would a projector in the slide before it. The teacher is actually standing over the students, clearly directing them in what he wants them to accomplish.