Virilio's Open Sky

Reading Paul Virilio's Open Sky was a grounding and thought-provoking experience.  Much like reading Turkle earlier in the semester, Virilio prompts us to question our use, reliance and development of technology and how it effects our lives.  There is a sharp deviation though, in the tone of Turkle and Virilio respectively, along with the ways in which they explore our world.  Turkle's tone is balanced in between the benefits of technological advances and the worry or need to be aware of the ways in which those technological advances impact the way we live.  The tone is relatively subdued, and her mode of investigation is more psychological and/or sociological. Virilio, on the other hand, writes a bleak outlook of the future- still warning of the ways in which telecommunication in particular affects us, but the warning is particularly more dire (and it seemed to me as though no real alternatives were proposed.)  It was almost as if he was writing from the perspective that this future that awaits us, the general disaster, etc. is inevitable (or else already here.)  He investigates the ways in which our perceptions of time and space have changed, from a more scientific and theoretical perspective.  The ultimate idea is that technological progress and the "tyranny of real time" are leading towards a generalized accident, where there is a perpetual present that exists globally and intensely, breaking down the way that mankind relates to one another and his surroundings, to past-present-future, and the way he understands himself.
 

Virilio's exploration of the conditions that are leading to this "general accident" is what interests me the most.  His exploration of these conditions mainly revolve around the "intervals" of time and space.  He explores the ways that time has always been conceived: as past, present and future- as a linear and continual process that shapes human memory and history.  He additionally talks about the traditional conception of space, centering around the ideas of "here" and "there," or "not here."  He then explores the progression of human society (propagated by technological advances) from nomadic - centering on and defined by movement and the journey, to the urban- more localized but defined by relations between subject and object.

He talks about the industrial revolution and how advances in transportation technologies contributed to the de-emphasis on the journey, in favor of departure and arrival.  Space was still important, but for different reasons.  Along with the increasing efficiency in transportation came leisure and de-localized work.  Man could work "elsewhere," and could also NOT work.  He thus became less mobile, yet was able to cover greater distances and go just about anywhere.  Man moved from "mobilized" to "motorized."  Finally, in the revolution of telecommunications, man is able to be present from a distance and act indirectly...  With all of our modern conveniences, we may still be "motorized," but we are- according to Virilio- increasingly "motile" and sedentary.  Probably the creepiest illustration of our increasingly sedentary nature is when Virilio encourages us to contrast the "well-equipped" handicapped with the physically-fit man.  Increasingly, there is less and less distinction between the two.  Yikes!  With this sedentary-ness, and with the ability to be "telepresent," our perceptions and even existence inside of traditional notions of space are being challenged.

Further than the break down of space though, Virilio is equally concerned with changing perceptions in time.  Going back to the improved telecommunication technologies, our traditional ways of existing in time (or understanding time) have changed dramatically.  This is where Virilio puts a great deal of emphasis.  The traditional notion of time has changed just as much as space with the advent of instant telecommunication technologies: teletechnologies.  Virilio talks about our traditional perception of time, as I stated before, as a linear progression of past, present and future.  What is occurring now though is the promotion of the present above any past and extending into the future:  the perpetual present.  This is visible in the various "real time" technologies that exist today.  Not only are we intensely existing in the present, but the present is extended beyond geographical borders to the extent that there exists a sort of global present.

 The collapsing of the intervals of space and time onto one another indicates what Virilio calls the third interval: the interval of light or light-speed.  This is an interval where our understandings of the world are defined not by the passing of time or the here-there of space, but by the instantaneous transmission of what Virilio calls the grand-scale optic.  Virilio argues that this interval "mutates" the way man relates to his surroundings, to space and to time.  Duration is no longer defined by old understandings of time, but of "real time," with no real beginning or end to its duration.  Extension is now paradoxically both hyper-extended across great distances, and also inconceivable/nonexistant because it dwells in the virtual.  This mutation, he says, leads to the "accident of the present": a remote telepresence where our "sole entry into duration is the present."

One of the greatest effects that these changes are having immediately on mankind is in what Virilio calls "terminal sedentarization."  On pg 25, he argues that this movement toward sedentary life is intensifying due to our ability to communicate, interact, even live remotely.  He describes this sedentarization and its effects where man dwells in a "transparent horizon spawned by telecommunications, that opens up the incredible possibility of a 'civilization of forgetting', a live (live-coverage) society that has no future and no past, since it has no extension and no duration, a society intensely present here and there at once - in other words, telepresent to the whole world.

Through this telepresence and sedentary life that Virilio perceives, I begin to see some of the danger of his vision of our future.  Life where we are instantaneously connected with "neighbors" at a distant, at the expense of proximate neighbors; life where we intensely exist in the present because "real time" is all that there is, neglecting both past and future; life where mankind is almost exclusively sedentary, living by proxy (as he is already communicating often) rather than living in reality- this is the picture of the world that Virilio paints.  In essence, as he says on pg 43: "the very notion of physical proximity is in danger of finding itself radically changed."  It seems to go without saying that this change would be to the negative.

He situates us in the world of large scale optics where there is innovation and also disaster/accident.  The innovation is the ability to perceive that which is remote.  Virilio neglects to really talk about the "good" side of this innovation, likely because it goes without saying that it is a "good" thing to be able to talk/see a loved one who is miles away.  However, as he says every innovation also invents a disaster, and the disaster of the innovation of "large scale optics" is in the invalidation of that which is physically present.  This is where I connect him with Turkle:  whereas Turkle might agree that there is a certain invalidation of the physically present occurring (and interestingly Turkle wrote after Virilio,) she would likely say that there is a remedy in being aware of the ways technology works on you and making a conscious effort not to lose one's grip of that need for physical presence.  On the other hand, Virilio says no such thing, rather he paints a picture of a world that is evolving into one big "global city", not a geographical/political city but a metacity, one that occurs in the frontier of the virtual- outside (arguably) of the realm of politics.

What we get in the end is this picture of society as global metacity, mankind as physically distant and inert, but visually and temporally ever-present.  The danger in this sort of harsh/sharp form of existence is that mankind- caught up in perceiving, communicating, relating and acting at a distance- is at great risk to lose his place in the world.  He is in the process of trading in relations to physical space, to the past, to the future, to the proximate other; for relations that occur in the non-existent world of telepresence.  He is in the process of reaching an escape velocity from the limitations that have always "suppressed" human progress, thus transcending space and time and coming to what Virilio calls "the end of the world."


Questions:

1) Virilio wrote this book in the 1990s:  do you think his outlook would change at all if he wrote this book today, with all the advances of the past decade and the evolution of these technologies?

2) Virilio obviously is very interested in our mutating relationship with "time."  Do you feel that our modern society exists in the tyranny of "real time" as he says?  Do we still relate to the past and the future, and is there a possibility that telecommunication technologies and particularly the great databasing capabilities of the internet enable us to still exist in relation to the past in particular?



Image Links:

http://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/products/49/571/P12930469.jpg

http://www.theodora.com/maps/new9/world_climate_map-large.jpg

http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/nevada/las-vegas/images/s/las-vegas-sky-diving.jpg

Ulmer's Justice, Conductive Reasoning and Y-Wishing

In the closing section of Ulmer's "Electronic Monuments," he goes further into depth on the idea and concept (?) of conductive reasoning, along with giving demonstrations for the practice of intuitive reasoning, mystory mapping across the discourses of the popcycle, and documenting a very insightful MEmorialization practice done by one of his UF colleagues in the wake of 9/11.

Chapter 7 on the Justice Miranda really made the differences between the literate and the electrate, as well as their differing modes of reasoning stand out.  Ulmer uses the literate concept of justice as the starting point, building an electrate concetto in the process to demonstrate what an electrate process of "knowing" might look like.  The crux of this process is to find connections between independent entities, identify the gaps/connections that exist and to fill those gaps using inferential logic.  In the search for an electrate concetto of justice, Ulmer draws on a comparison between logical and literate modes of investigation (interrogation) to an intuitive mode of reasoning.  In electracy, thinking/knowing relies on intuition the way dancing or boxing relies on it.  It does not (just) apply analytical rules, but uses past experiences and patterns as a sort of guiding "memory" - as the Dreyfi say, it is more of "acquiring a skill rather than solving a problem."

What skill then, is to be applied?  It is the drawing of connections across the transversal of the various discourses of the popcycle, creating a cognitive map across which one can jump.  I thought Ulmer was artistic in his drawing of metaphors- between learning/interrogation/3rd degree and their relations to the concept of justice in the literate apparatus, and intuition/dance/3rd (obtuse) meanings/samba as a mode of reasoning/thinking in the electrate.  Perhaps most pertinent was the way he tied together the Miranda rights (concerning interrogation, justice, etc.) to Carmen Miranda, a famous Brazilian samba dancer.  The turning to a "Miranda" in the popular culture highlights what Ulmer has to say about conduction:  that it "is based on this tuning of discourse to culture, using these lucky finds as points of departure for further elaboration and development."  In his connections between and organization of Miranda Rights, justice, the Turing test, Samba, Carmen Miranda, and Ludwig Wittgenstein (chiefly) into a coherent pattern, Ulmer sets up an opposition that is tied together in the field of justice.  The ends of the scene/chora/pattern he builds is different from the logical ends of literacy.  As he says, "it is not about the literal dance, but the figurative one, changing our cultural style of information into knowledge.  It is not the dance but what is felt."  Essentially, the literate information-to-knowledge is all about the essence of what is, what happened, etc.  However, Ulmer is making an argument that a different apparatus demands a different way of creating knowledge, and that mood (and not essence) is what creates knowledge in this new way of thinking.

"Miranda" then, by way of its connections to the literate concept of justice becomes an electrate chora all its own, tying together a united mood surrounding the idea of "justice" across the popcycle of family, community, culture, career.  It is within this popcycle that Ulmer highlights the "Soft Wishing Y," a MEmorial project/process that Ulmer collaborated on with colleague Will Pappenheimer.  In Chapter 8, Ulmer displays the MEmorialization process through the documentation of Pappenheimer's thought processes, his personal mystory across the popcycle, the situation of his own personal "burning question" within the disaster of 9/11 and the ways in which he forms and utilizes connections to trace both his peripheral (the Y of pom poms, converging at a park dedicated to the man who is considered to have laid the groundwork for the skyscraper; set to the periphery of Ground Zero) and his testimonial (the website on which people could write their wishes/questions, forming a sort of collective testimony.)  Ulmer introduces a couple of new concepts in this chapter.

First, the idea of Choramancy- an idea of divination applied to cognitive mapping.  The idea is that in certain cultures (oral/magical?) a person with a problem or question would consult a diviner, who would use some uncanny or intuitive ability (chance procedure, as Ulmer calls the electrate practice) to connect one's individual problem to the larger collective community.  This obviously nails the idea/hope of choragraphy and the EmerAgency itself: to recognize the problem in us and to situate ourselves in relation to the greater, collective disaster.  When we see our part in the disaster, we are immune to compassion fatigue (or so is the hope.)  The second new concept is the idea of the wish.  Pappenheimer harkens back to Ulmer's "Y," and the idea of the wishbone.  While we are prone to explore all of the reasons "why" in culture, the one that we tend not to explore is the one that is represented both by the wishbone, the wish and the why:  the dimension of human desire.  Wishes represent this human desire, and as Ulmer says, a way to commemorate one's wish as a part of life.  Connected with choramancy, the wish functions as a question to a diviner and in the process of MEmorialization it helps to situate the individual within the field of collective history.

Overall, the biggest things I took from these sections were the importance of mapping connections through the various discourses of life, the importance of recognizing one's place among the collective history, and then the different mode of reasoning which takes place in electracy, rather than literacy.  Electracy is all about capturing a mood through mapping connections that must happen by chance or by intuition.  Image category replaces logical category.  Concepts become concetto.  Fact becomes mood.

Questions for Ulmer:

1) You use a great deal of metaphor to explore electracy and many of the ideas in this book.  What is it about metaphor that makes it such a great vessel to explore and elaborate on your ideas?
2) What is it about pop culture that makes it so conducive to electrate thinking/reasoning?
3)  On pg 199, you mention the samba as a relay for the formation of image category based on mood.  If we are forming image categories based on mood, does this not limit the possibilities of classification (there are fewer "moods" than "concepts") or am I still thinking of mood from a literate perspective?

Ulmer Reading Three - November 17, 2011

In the third section of his book, Electronic Monuments, Gregory Ulmer writes of the process by which an event, or disaster, might become an emblem in the EmerAgency process of MEmorialization.  Ulmer also talks about the importance of MEmorialization itself, the attempt at viewing and understanding oneself in relation to disaster (or any event that "stings.")  The basic process for MEmorialization is to feel the sting from an event; to construct a concetto, or to form connections based on incidental similarities of various discourses related to the event; to infer from those connections some abject value/sacrifice; and to construct an emblem which captures a "trace of the real," of the emotions or mood of the abject sacrifice, which will allow the egent to "write a disaster we can't think or feel."  In doing so, the egent is able to place himself in the field of the disaster in an awareness of how he relates to that disaster or to that abject value/sacrifice- all for the goal of fostering a collective awareness toward that abject, to the end of (hopefully) ethical action.

The Process of MEmorializing


According to Ulmer, the process of MEmorializing begins with the sting/punctum of a current event- something (maybe inexplicably) stings me and makes me feel it, even in spite of my own compassion fatigue.  From there, the egent must fill "out the sting" (118) by way of building a "concetto" - a collection of associations and information from various sources and discourses, in order to map the relations of these things, not only to one another but to oneself.  This process is rooted in the need to "feel" something.  Ulmer would likely say that under literate apparatus, and under our societal conditions, it is impossible for us to truly understand the way that we exist in relation to any event or disaster- to be aware of the abject- for a few reasons:  1) because the literate logic would be to describe and explain, rather than to connect, represent or evoke any emotion; 2) because of our compassion fatigue as a result of the spectacle, we know more but feel less; and 3) because we (society) tend only to recognize and commemorate those disasters/sacrifices that fit with societal ideals, ignoring the abject sacrifices as such.

While Ulmer would say that we cannot become aware of the abject under normal circumstances, he clearly sees MEmorializing and the EmerAgency as a way to foster awareness of these things.  From my own reading, there are a few reasons MEmorializing- and electracy itself- would work differently in bringing about our awareness.  First, in stepping outside of the literate operation of "explaining" or "describing," we are freed from an apparatus which relates to the object/event from afar.  In representing or evoking emotion, it may be possible for the viewer/subject to be interpolated by the image and find some way of relating to that image.  Second, Ulmer would argue that the only way to break through our own compassion fatigue is through response to an event that stings.  Further than that, compassion fatigue is amplified by the sense that any disaster occurs separate and independently from the "self," while the EmerAgency would strive to make the "self" aware of his relation to a disaster.  If that is successful, it would be hard to maintain compassion fatigue, at least toward that particular event/disaster. Finally, in the process of MEmorializing, the abject itself is searched for and commemorated- not in an idealized or subliminal manner but for itself.  If the abject is recognized and (ME)morialized, then it is more likely that we will be aware of it.

Ulmer's investigation into the abject begins with the juxtaposition of the inner and outer self in the form of human excrement.  At a basic level, the outer self represents that which is ideal while the inner self represents that which is vile, repulsive (or unknowable, specifically to the subconscious) but a part of the self nonetheless.  The suggestion, along the metaphor of human waste, is that the inner self naturally comes out and is manifest in the world and in our lives.  However, just as our own waste is seen as filth and even at times shameful once "outside," the manifestations of our own subconscious are seen along the same lines- as repulsive, or to be feared (not that they are understood.)  In these collective manifestations of the inner, the subconscious, the abject is created.  Not tolerable to look at or talk about, the abject is a part of us nonetheless.  Specifically, the abject is a value which demands a sacrifice- just as the ideals (outer self) of society demand sacrifices:  freedom, liberty, justice, etc.  The difference is that the sacrifices to the ideal are commemorated and even celebrated (or perhaps even turned into spectacle,) while sacrifices to the abject values- which we still cling to as a part of our way of life- go unnoticed or even worse, are met with shame or disgust.

However, Ulmer would say that overcoming these obstacles to feeling or even seeing the abject is essential to both an individual and collective identity in the age of the internet and electracy.  If the MEmorial can cause a viewer/individual to "feel" the disaster, then it is possible for that individual to come to an understanding of his own role and relation to the abject and/or to the disaster.  The typical mode of thinking of a disaster is "outside of self": as Ulmer quotes Blanchot "There is death and murder... It is an impersonal, inactive, and irresponsible "they" that must answer for this death and this murder.  And likewise this child is a child, but one who is always undetermined and without relation to anyone at all."  The goal for the egent is to shift this perspective, through the punctum of an emblem representing the abject values surrounding some disaster/sacrifice, to a perspective of thinking of a disaster as "inside of self."  A successful result for the egent would be to confront the question, "how am I a part of this problem?"  Given the nature of the abject, it is a reasonable goal of the EmerAgency to cause people to confront this question, because the answer will seemingly be a "yes."  I am a part of the disaster of child abuse, because I hold inside of me the value of family and the rights of a parent to raise one's own child.  Upon this realization, two responses are desirable for the egent:  one, a collective recognition of the abject sacrifice as such; two, the arising of an ethical situation in the collective psyche. If an individual or a collection of individuals realizes that it plays a part in some disaster, and is outraged/disgusted/etc, the natural question is "how can we fix it?"  And this is where Ulmer leaves us, with the question of what comes next after a successful MEmorial project?

My suggestion is that an appropriate reaction would not be the eradication of the cause of the abject.  You don't eliminate parenthood because you realize that child abuse is in part due to your own family values, and you don't outlaw driving because you realize that car accidents are a sacrifice so that you have the freedom to drive.  In the same vain, you don't eliminate the ideal of freedom because of the horrors of war.  You do all that you can to avoid the horrors of war, while celebrating and remembering the sacrifices made in the name of your ideal.  Similarly, I think the "ideal" next step once we become aware of our role within the abject is to continue to commemorate and remember the abject sacrifices in the same breath as the ideal.  With the sheer volume of possible abject sacrifices existing in the world, the Internet seems like the perfect forum for that.


Questions:

1) Ulmer leaves the "next steps" after awareness of the abject up to the reader or the future.  What would you say the next step is after the MEmorial is successful?
2) The abject values and ideal values of a society seem to be sharply separated; is it possible to cross that plane, for something that was once abject to be held in the ideal?  Could that be a desirable "next step," after the awareness of the abject is formulated?

Ulmer, the Call and the Transversal

In his Third and Fourth chapters of "Electronic Monuments," Gregory Ulmer looks to news reports and pop culture for models of how a MEmorial might function.  This blog will serve to document some of the relative features that Ulmer sees as useful to the EmerAgency in its attempt to use the MEmorial to draw the public into a virtual civic sphere.

The Provocation


The starting point for the MEmorial, as related to a news story, is that there must be an event, a disaster or a circumstance that provokes the egent to action.  We live in a world that has become so over-informed and inundated with stories and images that we become numb and unresponsive when we encounter them.  The key for the egent is to be touched by something, anything.  If the egent is touched by something, this provocation calls him or her into an interaction with that disaster or event, and this is the starting point.  This provocation can come in many shapes and sizes, but it typically comes for one reason:  something about the news story or the event hits home, it relates to the egent in a personal way.  When one has a personal way of relating to an event (or image,) then he or she can feel and be compelled to action or reason.

Reasoneon


Apart from the news story, Ulmer equates the proclamation of a "state of emergency," or its representation as an image, to a neon sign.  A neon sign catches one's attention, but as Ulmer says the reasoneon does more than catch one's attention.  The sign (MEmorials might be one manifestation of this reasoneon) in this case does more than simply indicate or convey historical information or the "facts" of a disaster or state of emergency.  The role of reasoneon is to capture one's attention to the extent that it provokes further inquiry into that situation.  The neon (sizzle) grabs the attention, the reason stimulates critique.  The neon sign, under the idea of reasoneon sets the stage for the consulting practice that is to come.

The Aura and the Punctum


Ulmer begins speaking of "aura" by equating its role in electracy to the role of clarity in literacy.  In the literate world, clarity reveals truth or makes knowledge of the truth more possible.  So, in the electrate society, aura does the same thing.  How does it do this?  Aura gives to an image a quality (emotionally provoking or personally significant) that draws us, touches our emotions or connects to us.  Ulmer associates it with the "ax blow" of the punctum- that "third meaning" of an image or photograph that somehow "pricks" the viewer.  Something about the image or photograph breaks through the thick skin that we have developed, and we feel it somehow.  We are personally situated in relation to the event or disaster because the aura of the image or the news story harkened us to some past memory or experience in some way, shape or form.  The relevance to the EmerAgency is this:  that the news story that I connect to because of its aura is somehow a reminder of something "I already know or should know."  This is the point of departure for the MEmorial- as a response to a news event that has somehow pierced its viewer in a personal way.

The key for the MEmorial and the models that it is based off of is that the goal is not so much to tell a story in the traditional sense:  to provide the details of the story and how things happened.  The aim is more to capture feelings, moods, memories that evoke a different sort of connection to the viewer.  Practically, a viewer can see a news story and not feel anything- but when that news story is represented as a collection of images that connect him to a mood, emotion, tone or memory- the viewer (or egent) is situated inside of the story.

In his chapter on the Transversal, Ulmer takes the news from the previous chapter and places it in the realm of entertainment, leading us to the world of the spectacle- where, as Ulmer says, "actuality and images merge and become indistinguishable."  Ulmer makes mention of an argument that says that the effects of the spectacle- namely, the condition in which people see/know more and feel less- is a necessary defense mechanism, lest we become overstimulated and overwhelmed by the amount of images, events and information surrounding us.  The MEmorial, and the EmerAgency, look to find ways to exist that are compatible with the vast "data stream" of the spectacle.  In this chapter, Ulmer documents ways in which arts and entertainment are capable of being used to grasp "a situation holistically in an image."  The use of image categories is important in that it allows the connection between individual identity and collective identity to be formed.  Image categories are the "transversal" mentioned in that they connect all levels of identity/being.

Simulacrum


In the context of the MEmorial, categorical images which are transversal can be considered "simulacrum"- images that are representative of something else and needing no reference to an origin.  Simulacrum are a way to "map" the relation of an item or meaning between different spheres (such as the various arenas of the popcycle- family, entertainment, career, school) which express the idea or image in different ways.  Relevant to EmerAgency is the way in which an idea or image can cross between these different spheres and be interpreted and related differently in each arena.  As a whole, they can create a map that can demonstrate our collective understanding of an idea/concept/image, while still maintaining individual perspectives as well.

Ulmer uses various stories of transsexuality to show how this idea passes through the popcycle.  He starts with the idea of transsexuality in the life of an individual, in the school setting- and shows a story of some of the concerns and complications that may (or may not) arise in that setting.  He then passes the simulacrum through the lens of entertainment- showing how a news story of a bank robbery that was prompted by transsexuality was the motivation for a movie.  He then shows how the movie motivated a fine arts piece, which represented the story in a different way- bringing back the original and actual bank robber and created a spectacle of the story through the blurred lines between "the movie" and the "real movie," or the way it really happened, as told through the reenactment of the robbery.  Finally, he shows another perspective of the movie itself, one which does not focus directly on the character itself but on the environment and the other actors as figures for something else.

Becoming Image


One final idea of note is the transformation that Ulmer describes of the individual, the self identity in an electrate culture.  Ulmer first points out that what is considered real (including individual identity) is relative to the apparatus of the day, and thus being renegotiated under the electrate apparatus.  The "new experience of identity" in an electrate world is that of "becoming image" in the sense that celebrities become an image more than an individual.  An "image" of a person can become determinant of the self's identity- sometimes even more so than the organic body, to the extent that it can the image can impose itself on the "self's" behavior and circumstances.  The phrase, "I have an image to upkeep" resonates- as there is, for some, a pressure to conform one's physical appearance or behavior with that of his "image."  This is also becoming more of a reality in a virtual world, where "images" are easier to produce.  This highlights the transformation of the concept of identity in the electrate apparatus.  In the oral apparatus, identity was formed through spirituality in religion; in literacy, identity was shaped through rational science.  In electracy, identity is shaped by imaging or self becoming image.


Questions:

1) Has there been a news story recently that has "pricked" you?  What was it and what about it pricked you?
2)  Have you ever felt like "you" exist and are identified more through an "image" than some notion of physical/spiritual self?
3) Ulmer says "Commemoration in the public sphere is dominated so far by the spectacle, which is to say it is a collective process that sanctions certain images and not others, around which group subjects form."  What is an example of a "sanctioned image," and what would be an example of a non-sanctioned image- that which the MEmorial might pay attention to?

Gregory Ulmer and an Introduction to Electronic Monuments

In the opening sections of his book, "Electronic Monuments," Gregory Ulmer speaks of a societal shift in "language apparatus"- away from literacy and toward what he calls "electracy," a sort of digital literacy.  Ulmer talks about how literacy (and orality before it, and electracy in the future) has impacted the way things are memorialized.  He documents the traditions of orality- that things were remembered through spoken language and ritual; and of literacy- where things are remembered through writing.  Ulmer proclaims the basis of his EM project out of the need "for a compositional practice capable of supporting learning with digital media, to do for the Internet and hypermedia what the essay did for the library and argumentative writing."

Ulmer sees "electronic monuments" as a method of inviting the collective into this realm of an "electrate civic sphere."  The basis of this theory comes from the ways our literate culture constructs monuments to commemorate people, places and things that have passed.  Particularly, monuments are used to form both an individual and collective identity through making sense of traumatic events (9/11 is the main example in the book.)  However, in an electrate society- memory and socialization will be less tied to the physical and more tied to the virtual.  Further, Ulmer references Paul Virilio in stating that we are now living in a world of "instantaneous activity," a world of "real time"; with "unprecedented immediacy" that leads to "the displacement of the real city by the telecity, the loss of a lived public space in favor of a virtual gathering on the Internet..."  Human identity is at risk in such a context.  However, Ulmer argues that these things may appear as crises from the perspective of literacy- but electracy provides a new apparatus for these shifts in identity.  The venue for these shifts is in the digital world and on the Internet.

Electronic monuments themselves operate off the basis that commemoration is a basic human operation which, as I said before, helps shape both individual and collective identities.  In electracy, this commemoration happens, at least in part, in the digital realm.  Ulmer concerns himself mostly with what I can only guess is a specific kind of electronic monument in these first couple of chapters- the MEmorial.  Whereas a memorial "bears witness" to a prominent specific person(s) or event, a MEmorial is the opposite- it refers to that which is "neither clear nor distinct."  Furthermore, Ulmer goes on to compare the two in terms of the ideal and the abject.  A memorial is a celebration and a conceptualization of an ideal of some kind.  He uses the example of the Vietnam memorial as representing the ideals of freedom, and contrasted it to the "sacrifice" of car accidents as something that might be "MEmorialized" as an abject value.

An abject value is an underlying societal value; one that is not visible or readily apparent, and one that the collective might not even be consciously aware of- let alone accepting of.  Ulmer uses the example of car accidents, by making the point that car accidents are social sacrifices of a sort- just not in the ideological sort like a soldier at war.  The abject value that is demanding this sacrifice is this- we want to be able to drive, where we want, when we want, how we want; as Ulmer says.  The sacrifice that we willingly give up is the knowledge that accidents happen and that thousands of people die every year in traffic accidents.  This value is not a national or cultural ideal- it is abject in that it reflects the "base" or perhaps the underbelly of human existence that often only takes place in our subconscious.

The goal of these MEmorials is to recognize the abject, the things that aren't recognized by the dominant-hegemonic ideology of the time.  This does not just mean car accidents, but anything that is suppressed by the dominant ideology- homosexuality, minorities, etc. The hope is that, in recognizing the abject through these electronic monuments, both the individual and the collective would become more self-aware and in becoming so, would grow into an electrate society.  Ulmer mentions the ways in which monuments (particuarly in America) invite people into national ideals and a national spirit.  People "tour" (a key analogy in the book) our national monuments- the Lincoln Memorial, for example- and they are somehow ushered into relationship to the ideals which those monuments embody.  Similarly, electronic monuments can invite individuals into a better understanding of self and community in the digital age- and usher them into a new way of relating- that of electracy.

Me, Myself and I, Robot - From 9/29/11

In Sherry Turkle's first part of her book, "Alone Together," Turkle paints an interesting picture of the psychological shifts that are occurring in the way humans view and approach both interpersonal interactions and our interactions with machines (or robots.)  In a very different tone than Jenkins in "Convergence Culture," Turkle mainly traces these changes through studies and observations in the way children interact/play with "interactive computer toys" (and eventually robots themselves) through the 80s, 90s and into the current day.  Her main argument seems to be that the trends set by children (and perhaps the elderly) and slowly co-opted by adults, of how we interact with and understand artificial intelligences; tell us a lot about the ways we are coming to view human interaction as well.  Namely, that an increasing willingness to "participate" in the interaction with AI can be seen as a psychological shift away from the messy, unpredictable, "dangerous" state of human affairs and into the arms of the safe, predictable, reliable robot.  This is a very frustrating thought for someone like me, and I catch myself wondering how much truth there is in some of this analysis.

One concept that caught my eye in the first chapter was the idea of what constitutes "liveliness."  Turkle cites a 1920s study which looked at an object's life status by "considering its physical movement."  She then moves into the 1980s when, first confronted with computational objects, children shift their understanding of "liveliness" from physical movement to psychology.  Machines were "alive enough" (a common phrase) if gave off the impression of "knowledge" or "thought."  In the 90s, amongst the advent of simulation video games, this liveliness was more concerned with evolution- a changing, growing and adapting object was life-like.  In the late 90s, this changed again and a certain "sociability" took hold.  Turkle says: "...as criteria for life, everything pales in comparison to a robot's capacity to care."

This idea of a robot caring is what frustrates me.  To belabor the obvious, robots don't "care."  They don't "feel."  They don't "understand."  They don't have "emotions."  According to Turkle, humans have started looking to robots for these things- but what they are truly getting are ILLUSIONS of these things.  Turkle calls it the "performance" of caring, understanding, empathizing, etc.  The disturbing thing is that, according to Turkle, humans are becoming increasingly willing to seek out and accept the performances of these things, in place of the real thing.  The performance of caring gives us an outlet, but requires little to nothing of us- there is no REAL interaction required.

Turkle argues, and I will vehemently agree and focus on the idea that these limited interactions deprive us of the depth that human life is designed to have.  While robots may have certain functional uses in the future, I have a hard time seeing them stepping into a motherly role, or a role where they are turned to in order to truly fulfill human emotional needs.  They are not human.  I am a firm believer in the value of interpersonal interaction, so it makes all the sense in the world to me, some of the things Turkle lists that are missing from companionship when it is made with a robot, and not a human.  She goes so far as to say that there is a "psychological risk" in this "robotic moment."  Turkle argues that when humans seek  companionship with a robot, it boils down the "notion of companionship" all the way down to the basics of interaction.  It doesn't even have to be interaction with feelings, as long as there is something we can interact with.  No empathy, no understanding.

So why would humans turn to robots at any point rather than interact with another human?  Turkle phrases it well when she says "to sustain relationships, one must accept others in their complexity.  When we imagine a robot as a true companion, there is no need to do any of this work."  She goes on to describe, in some of her case studies, the ways in which kids preferred their Furbies to real pets because they were cleaner and less complicated; or preferred a robot's interaction because it "seemed real" or was able to interact.  Robots offer neatness; simplicity; maybe even order or safety in a world full of humans disappointing one another.  Robots, and all sociable technology, promise what it/they cannot deliver.  As Turkle says, they promise friendship but can only deliver a performance.

But it says something about humans and the way we are in this world, that we are so willingly complicit with this illusion.  Turkle describes a lot of ways in which we willingly fool ourselves into making robots (or any machine) more than they are/is.  She also describes any number of ways in which robot interaction is illegitimate, particularly in comparison to human interaction.  While Turkle describes these changes to preferring more safety and order in our companionships, and settling for cheap imitations- it seems as though it is just one direction into which the world is going.  However, the importance of recognizing these things is not to see just what it is that drives us further into being "alone, together" - that we fear being hurt, humiliated, let down, etc. It is also important to see that it is worth the risk of all of those things, to be open to true, human interaction.

Images:

I, Robot
Skynet Becomes Self Aware

Henry Jenkins Photoshop and Conclusion - From 9/22/11

Chapter Six:  Photoshop for Democracy

In his final chapter, Henry Jenkins takes a look at the ways in which pop culture - and convergence culture by proxy- could impact and is impacting politics.  Jenkins describes all of the topics covered in the book as "serious fun" - we are not just studying trivial pop culture or media; but ways in which all of these things interact to shape the ways in which we live our lives.  Jenkins takes the next step in this progression- from knowledge communities to fan participation, all the way to its applicability to politics.  Jenkins mentions first the impact that pop culture had on voters in the 2004 election, as evidence of the potential that studying pop culture and convergence culture can have on more than just our media consumption.

One thing that Jenkins mentions early on in the chapter is a "revolutionary potential" that comes from the development of communication technologies such as we have today- that would enable "grassroots communication."  Information travels faster and is more available in this environment.  As Jenkins points out, "innovative and even revolutionary ideas" are accessed by more and more of the population thanks to the internet.  In talking about these points, Jenkins refers often to Paul Trippi- the campaign manager for Howard Dean's famous internet campaign.  Unfortunately, the downside to the widespread availability of information is also further scrutiny for public speakers.

That is how this >>

Turns into this>>>>>


One minute, the internet was gaining Dean enough of a following to fund his campaign- and the next, it was turning against him and bowing him out of the race.

More than the simple internet though, Jenkins talks about the wide variety of ways politicians have started capitalizing on popular culture as a way to get a message out-  the approaches spread to concerts, movies, and even games (Howard Dean's game was the best example.)  At the same time, the public has begun participating in politics in a different way too.  Jenkins mentions the advent of political blogging as a way for politician and citizen alike to get ideas out into the public eye.  This, like many other methods is a grassroots oriented activity that can still have a widespread impact and be co-opted by the mainstream.

Specific to citizens themselves, Jenkins mentions various ways that the "consumer" is changing how he or she behaves in the political process:  between online community gameplay, participation in knowledge communities, blogging, and spreading politically-grounded Photoshop images on the internet- the average voter is changing as well.  One specific thing Jenkins looked at was an online gaming community called "Alphaville" which ran its own presidential elections back in 2004.  This game gave everyday citizens a chance to encounter the political process in a very real and invested way.  These new ways of engaging voters is one of the big hopes for a Democratic convergence culture- but it has obviously a ways to go yet.

One final thing that Jenkins looks at is the relations of our pop-culture knowledge communities to the political stalemate condition in the United States today.  He mentions that knowledge communities are formed based on cultural interests and knowledge- whereas political affiliation is formed based on... well, political affiliation and ideology.  He investigates the possibility that a form of knowledge community might be a tool in uniting such an ideologically divided nation- that we are willing to let go of our ideological differences in lieu of pop culture might suggest that there would be a way to get around our differences politically, on the basis of working together.  As Jenkins put it in conclusion:  "We need to create a context where we listen and learn from one another.  We need to deliberate together."

Conclusion:

In his conclusion, Jenkins once again sums up what convergence culture is all about- not a change in technology or media platform; but a cultural change, or a "paradigm shift" toward media that flows across multiple platforms and channels and interaction amongst different forms of media.  While he does say that this move is largely about turning out a profit, Jenkins does go on to mention the way convergence culture is creating new ways of producer-consumer (and consumer-consumer) interaction.  It is changing the ways in which we interact with one another and with the media that we consume (and now, create!)  Jenkins argues that we are developing important skills- he calls them participatory skills- first through pop culture but that it has the potential to spill over into the way we view politics, education, or any other number of things.  It's a cultural change that we are just at the beginning of; as Jenkins says- "convergence culture is the future, but it is taking shape now."