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.