Barney and Andrejevic

              This weeks readings highlight the negative effects of network technologies. What a downer. Barney argues, “the networked computerization of production makes it flexible customizable, and responsive because when process information is reduced to standardized, universal form of bits that can be exchanged almost instantaneously and with considerable reliability across vast distances in great volumes, the need for friction-ridden human labor is greatly reduced” (Barney, 136).  I personally don’t view this as negative as Barney paints it to be. True, at the moment this is creating a large unemployment rate and jobs that are temporary and/or unreliable. This is the changing environment and we, as a society, need to adapt to it. “Flexible, customizable, and responsive” technologies are a good thing! This stimulates the economy. Unfortunately there the labor force is too large. As a result, we need some serious population control. We need to fight that biological urge to reproduce and have 5+ children. Lets keep it to three or less okay? Preferably two. I would say one, but I think that having a sibling is an important part of social development, lol. But honestly, there must be an algorithm that could indicate the appropriate population needed for optimal economic functioning, in addition to the health of the earth in relation to depleting resources.

            Another concern was the degradation and surveillance of unskilled workers. This is a legitimate concern. If workers increasingly do not have anything to distinguish themselves from others, then job opportunities are limited, which means that the monomaniac capitalist boss gets to dictate the turf rules as a result of the unskilled worker being forced to choose between unemployment vs. the conditions of the boss. Barney points out that “computerized surveillance is more extensive because it can be applied to a growing number of occupational categories and to a broader range of activities within those categories” (Barney, 156). This oddly is not of much concern to me. I have faith that some sort of legislation to monitor personal information would limit corporations from this unethical behavior. As far as monitoring worker performance, go right ahead if you think it will improve productivity, of course it might lower moral and thus lower productivity, but who knows? I’m not an industrial psychologist or an economist.

            Of course I wrote this before I actually read Andrejevic’s work. Evidently there are database companies that “keep lists of people who take Prozac for depression, believe in the bible, gamble online, an buy sex toys” (Andrejevic, 7) That’s mildly horrifying, but I assume it is for marketing reasons, not some creepy Big Brotha’ conspiracy. In fact, I think that’s great. Maybe Veronica will find a top of the line sex toy as a result of this sophisticated monitoring system. The problem comes in our desire for privacy. No one wants his or her name to be publicly linked to a sex toy…usually, *shifts eyes.* Moreover, why not keep track of people who are looking up how to blow up a plane? I would also like to comment on Andrejevic’s section on “watching each other.” I mean, this was really kind of funny. At work, “keystroke monitoring programs serve as a means to both monitor and discipline employees” (Andrejevic, 227). Moreover, spouses were using software to track their adulterous partners. For me, this is a human problem. If you have a cheating spouse and you are neurotic enough to buy software to check, go right ahead. If you are a parole officer monitoring a pedophile, go right ahead. I feel like I should be more concerned about privacy, but I view these advances as practical. 

Trippi, Kelly, & Lurie

            I think that the potential for a more egalitarian, freer, more productive, happier society with the advent of the Internet and the gradual withering away of old ways of communicating is definitely possible. I’ve spoken about the Egyptian Facebook revolution in my other blog. I think that this example beautifully outlines that it is possible for the Internet to act as a medium for encouraging egalitarian nations. However, in this blog I would like to focus on internal issues within American society, as the readings this week did.

            The Internet definitely opens doors to many things. We have access to a plethora of information. “The idea of a universal information port was considered uneconomical, and too futuristic to be real in our lifetimes. Yet at any hour of today, most readers of this paper have access to the full text of the Encyclopedia Britannica (or as I prefer, wikepedia), precise map directions to anywhere in the country, stock quotes in real time, local weather forecasts with radar pictures…etc.” (Kelly). This vast net of information can lead the citizen to participate more rationally in society and in a form that encourages democracy because she is more prepared to make educated decisions.

            This idea seems too optimistic. It seems that there is an atmosphere of apathy within the population. We can see this with the lack of voting. This really irks me. Neither my boyfriend (22 yrs old), my best friend (22), nor my younger brother (20) are registered to vote. The fact that I can’t even convince them to vote reflects the apathy, which sucks because all the crazy old bible humpers get to dictate the laws. Moreover, as a result of apathy, we enable capitalism to create monomaniacs. The idea that “billionaires and multimillionaires can bundle together obscene sums of money and use it to buy our government and perpetuate their own wealth and power while our nation’s problems are ignored,” is especially unsettling (Trippi, 235). Therefore I am forced to say that the authors are potentially overly optimistic. It honestly relies on the public. Do we not support the ideology of having billionaires because it could potentially be us one day?

            The problem is that I don’t like that corporation can basically buy laws that enable them to take advantage of our nations resources. I don’t want to enable a drug user, nor do I want to enable the monomaniac. Social media and new technologies deplore “traditional belief systems even as it creates a belief in a kind of heavenly paradise, a kind of Technopia” (Lurie). Within this Technopia we have access to knowledge that we can use as our weapons against the very hypocrisy that is demonstrated by the monomaniacs preaching for democracy, while they endorse the stupidest things. As Benjamin Franklin (supposedly) said to some woman who asked, “what type of government have you bequeathed us?” – “A republic, if you can keep it.” And I choose to keep it, to continue to educate myself, and to continue to vote, even if others don’t.

Gilder, Negroponte, & Barlow

Modern media definitely has an aspect of emancipatory power. It provides an outlet for the individual to quickly introduce an idea to a larger population. If those who were exposed to it share the idea, then they can collectively communicate and decide to take action. We see this through the example of the 2011 Facebook revolution in Egypt. As Barlow, in his essay on A Cyberspace Independence Declaration puts it, “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Egypt was able to literally make their own cyber declaration of independence. “We Are All Khaled Saeed” is a facebook group that formed in the aftermath of Saeed's beating and death by police. The group attracted hundreds of thousands of members worldwide and played a prominent role in spreading and bringing attention to the growing discontent. Facebook was used to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world. Asmaa Mahfouz, a female activist who posted a video in which she challenged people to publicly protest, made another potent viral online contribution. I realize this isn’t directly drawn from the readings, however, the use of the social media as a tool for emancipation is so prominent here. Moreover, the fact that it gives a voice to women parallels the importance of the role the social media has in changing gender roles, even in a very patriarchical society like Egypt.

            The role of mass communication is an interesting one because it draws on the ideologies of other cultures. In the information age, mass media got bigger and smaller at the same time. We are communicating to a broader base, however, the demographic of varying beliefs narrows. Negroponte points out that, “new forms of broadcast like CNN and USA Today reach larger audiences and make broadcast broader.” On the same train of thought, Gilder says, “television heavily determined which books and magazines we read…and which politicians prospered and collapsed” (8). The use of the social media was used as a tool, but there is also an aspect of a global consciousness. The people of Egypt were able to look at other ideologies and political systems and evaluate the effectiveness of their own. 

Haraway, Plant, & Turkle

            The readings this week were by far the most interesting. I enjoyed the aspect of questioning one’s identity in the age of the Internet. I just want to briefly address the prompt. Of course the world be significantly different had feminist writers had been the prominent theorizers in shaping the new media. I Imagine Haraway’s world might be significantly less segregated. She states that identities are “contradictory, partial, and strategic” (Haraway, 155). Essentially, the bodies identified as white-men created a social hierarchy in which males dominate females, low melatonin levels in skin dominate higher concentrations, and so on. I suppose if the feminist dominated world had become a reality and if Freud had still been living, he might need to alter his idea that woman’s one significant contribution to society was weaving and only to “unconsciously…conceal their genitals” because they wanted to pretend to have a penis (Plant, 256). God…Freud must have been obsessed with his prince charming.

            I loved that Haraway referred to herself, and others like her, as “bodies” sharing various characteristics, such as geographical location and gender. This whole talk of cyborgs and identity reminded me of the film Ghost In the Shell. The plot centers on a cyborg named Kusanagi questioning her role in society and purpose for existence; similar to the Haraway’s own questions. The title is a metaphor for the human. The shell is the body, while the ghost is the “soul” or consciousness (which essentially represents memories). In the film is argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself. Life has become more complex in the overwhelming sea of information (provided by the world wide web/Internet). And life, when organized into species, relies upon genes to be its memory system. So, man is an individual only because of his intangible memory... and memory cannot be defined, but it defines mankind. The advent of computers, and the subsequent accumulation of incalculable data have given rise to a new system of memory within the Internet. It makes me wonder if one-day computers, or whatever they might evolve into, might attain consciousness one day. After all, there is more than one element that has 4 bonding potentials. Perhaps a new non-carbon based life form will emerge from our endeavors to create machines that imitate out own behavior?

            This brings me to Turkle, who incidentally was my favorite author. In her chapter on virtuality and its discontents the discussion of identity in this highly virtual world continued. Rather than the external representation of cyborgs, Turkle uses an internal approach. She references the use of creating avatars in multi-user dungeons (MUD). For the purpose of the blog though I will refer to massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) because the rapid rate of virtual evolution. MUD’s consist of describing a virtual reality, while MMORPG’s consist of actually seeing your avatar in a virtual reality. Is this avatar part of the individual? Turkle argues that “it is hard not to play an aspect of oneself, and virtual encounters often lead to physical ones” (Turkle, 249). If consciousness is a network or memories and emotions, then why is the virtual memory of making love to your virtual life less significant? Turkle misses this point and suggests that the only reason this behavior is not seen as maladaptive is because avatars are not paid. We have to put this into the context of our environment. We are organisms in the physical world. The virtual act of sex resulted in no offspring…in the real world…who knows maybe this hypothetical couple got pregnant. I suppose it comes down to the things you put value on.

Hayles (the Queen Honey Bees Knees) & Turner

               I think that Hayles is a genius. She is the BEES KNEES! Everything she wrote I loved. I love the metaphor of the anorexic individual who is of the mind as so disconnected from the body that he simply sees the body as an object in need of controlling. The self then, only resides in the brain. This brings me to another point she brought up in relation to the posthuman (an undistinguishable self-will from other-will). This let Hayles to state that she sometimes refers to “sleep agent” wanting to rest, while her food agent says it should go to the store (Hayles, 6). This caught my attention because of a number of fights that have occurred between my boyfriend and I. I suppose Hayles might say that it is the result of a human and posthuman intermingling (although from my perspective it is the result of someone who operates more easily from consciousness, while the other is governed by emotions). Essentially, I often try and regulate my emotions and consciously say out loud something like, “I’m being governed by my anger systems right now” or “calm down, you’re making my brain release cortisol.” For some reason, this only leads to anger. I imagine another posthuman might appreciate it, haha.

            In reference to Hayles third stage virtuality, I thoroughly enjoyed the example of “virtual ping-pong” (Hayles, 14). This immediately made me think of playing wii. Essentially, the games take place partially in the real world because we move our bodies in the same fashion; however, it also visually takes place in the virtual world. In my neuropsychology class we have read articles in relation to the fact that the same brain regions are activated when a human watches another human perform a behavior (i.e. literally watching someone perform a yoga pose in hopes of repeating it), as when they actually perform the behavior. This makes me wonder if individuals who are better at this, make better video game players.

            In this virtual world that the posthuman has created, Turner suggests that the virtual network has no epicenter like an atom does, rather it is a random network of information (Turner, 202). This entropy is evident to me, considering the fits of ADHD I’ve experienced while writing this blog. I was beginning to read Ch. 7 because it is about Wired magazine, which I love, but then I was like wait, I need to write this blog. Obviously my next step was to get back on Wired.com, on to the gamer section, where I found a game, then off to the site, then off to Amazon.com to see if they have it for mac, the to facebook, then to pictures of myself, pretend to be interested in someone else, then back to me me me. Haha…I’m tempted to fade away into oblivion now… We all get the point right? Virtual networks are ever expanding; they are born from what births them, and then become that which birthed it (Hayles, 8). I’m my own grandpa?

Hayek

               The prevailing message in The Road to Serfdom is that centralized planning is inherently undemocratic because it requires that “the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people (Hayek, 77). This can be a dangerous form of government because it limits individualism and creativity. The government essentially has the power to take money and property from individuals in pursuit of centralized goals, or the good of the community (Hayek, 82). This sounds all fine and dandy, however, is limited to the perception of the authority, which at times can be ill informed. After all, we are all humans and run the risk of human error. For example, the current leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, has proclaimed (and assuredly believes) that he is doing what is best for his people. Unfortunately, as we see with the current revolution, not all agree with his political views.

            I like to think of this phenomenon in evolutionary terms. The environment naturally selects various traits that are most adaptable for the environment, as a result of random mutations. Without the variance, the organism runs the risk of going extinct. For example, the finch beak variation allows for big beaked finches to crack big seeds in times of drought, while all the other finches die out. The point is that there is variation amongst the random mutations. In a free market, the entire population is involved and allows for random insights of genius. Centralized planning hinders this process.

             Hayek also stresses the importance of the flow of information in The Use of Knowledge in Society. He asserts that a centrally planned market could never match the efficiency of the open market because any individual knows only a small fraction of all, which is known collectively (Hayek, 30). This is an interestingly true. Here I prefer the image of society as many tiny neurons, consistently communicating with one another to guide the body (or the economy). The problem here is that we are all specialized, which means that we need to communicate. The neurons in the amygdala (essentially, emotions) cant control the entire organism. Nor can the cerebral cortex (essentially, consciousness). Effective communication between both is needed for optimal functioning.

            I suppose then that I completely agree with Hayek. From my perspective, centralized planning is too risky, oppressive, and limits creativity. 

Debord and Baudrillard

- Knock, knock.

- Whose there?

- Modern Electronic Media.

- *Gasp* Go away!

            Honestly, the main concept of these authors is summed up in the first paragraph in Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle, when he says, “all that once was directly lived has become mere representation” (1). The idea that there was once a time when society experienced life to its fullest, and that what we currently experience is but a façade is indeed disturbing. Although I would argue that we are made of the same genetic makeup that we have been for at least the past 100,000 years and thus are subject to the same hormones and chemicals, which essentially reflects a continuous life experience. Nonetheless, biology only provides the groundwork, the environment still significantly shapes the life experience.

            Debord argues on page 16 that there as been a “decline from being, into having, and having into merely appearing.” This is a critique on capitalism. At first I didn’t agree, but lets consider the example of children and video games. Playing is a very essential part in mammalian neurological development. All mammals play, whether you are an adorably ferocious lion cub or a human. Playing connects vital neural pathways that create standards for social interaction, interpersonal intelligence, etc. However, with the invention of video games, children aren’t directly interacting with each other as often as they should during this highly plastic period in their brain, which results in mild to severe antisocial behavior. As Baudrillard points out, “the reader is thereby plunged into a kind of idleness…instead of functioning himself…he is left with no more than the poor freedom either to accept or reject the text” (281). The children (or more likely their parents) must go out of their way to be exposed to social interactions because the technology isn’t going anywhere.

            My point is that we lose a degree of simply living in the natural world and experiencing the life that we have been designed to live via evolution. This spectacle that Debord has been alluding to is the inverted image of society in which relations between commodities have replaced relations between people. As a result of being influenced by these images from the capitalist media, we strive to try and convince others that we are normal be appearing to have what the media tells us that we need. For example, having haircuts designated for gender roles. This can be completely unconscious (and potentially simply due to exposure), for example craving Wendy’s over McDonalds because you recently saw a commercial for it. Moreover, we consume products we are exposed to and familiar with more often than off brands (or at least I do). This I think is partially due to human nature. From an evolutionary perspective, it is safer to eat the berry we are familiar with to avoid an accidental poisoning.