It seems so odd to me that so many people don't understand that the world wide web is far from world wide and that much of the world doesn't even have access to it. In another DTC class of mine we are discussing how to create an on-line library of unpublished works from all over the world that anybody could contribute to, and its funny how people in the class just assume that anybody in the world could get on-line and access the library. Many of us living in this society with all the technology at our fingertips don't even think twice about it. It doesn't cross their minds that others aren't as fortunate to have this stuff.

The statistics in the article by Andy Carvin (Mind the Gap...) seem a little crazy though. I know this article was written in 2000 so things have definitely changed somewhat. It's actually pretty amazing how many people in this country do have access to technology and the internet. I know people on welfare who don't have a high school diploma, or even enough food in the fridge and still have internet access at home. The problem I think at least here in this country is more what Mark Warschauer was getting at in his article in that it's not all about the haves and have nots, the digital divide so to speak, but rather the lack of education and training on the use of technology. "The internet itself must provide the right tools so people are able to take advantage of and use it for more varied purposes, more learning styles, more languages and cultures" (Carvin). Because I've noticed that even though many of the lowest socioeconomic level households now have access to the internet and computer, they don't know how to use the stuff effectively. Then their kids don't learn at home what other kids with the same access are learning and that increases the gap between the two groups.

Providing the technology just isn't enough. Attention needs to be given to the human and social systems that must also change for the technology to make a difference. "A digital divide is marked not only by physical access to computers and connectivity, but also by access to the additional resources that allow people to use technology well" (Warschauer). Couldn't say it better myself. There are so many factors that go into the "digital divide" besides the actual divide of digital technolgy access.

Both of these articles were very enjoyable to read and made some excellent points!

Cyborg Manifesto by Haraway

This week I'm taking a little different approach to posting my blog for the article. I am actually posting this as I read the article and so far I'm a paragraph into this thing and am having a difficult time with her use of rhetoric. Exactly how is she using the term blasphemy? I just don't get what the hell she's doing here. "Blasphemy protects one from the moral majority within, while still insisting on the need for community. Blasphemy is not apostasy?" I keep running this over in my mind and I'm coming up with this: blasphemy means to see yourself as as good as God, having God type qualities, or even better than God right? And apostasy is a separation from your religion or cause. So I'm trying to put this together. Seeing myself as equal to God isn't a separation or departure from my own religion or cause. Hmm. I guess it is just interesting to me trying to understand her use of language. Yes, i get it that she is talking about the humor and irony in politics and that she feels the need for that approach in socialist-feminism, and this leads her into talking about the cyborg. She wants to create a political myth that is faithful to both feminism and to materialism.....Blasphemous and ironic. But I'm just thrown off by this introduction.

Okay, maybe this isn't how I'm gonna do this. It might take forever. I'll read this overwhelming 'article' and come back because I probably don't need to pick it apart phrase by phrase. Bad idea mixed with too much ritalin.

So it sounds like Haraway is saying that we are all cyborgs, hybrids of machine and organism in today's world and that the cyborg will change what counts as 'women's experience' in these times (this article being a little old but still just as relevant). Cyborgs are not a thing of the future, but instead a commonality in modern medicine, reproductive technology, manufacturing, etc... so whether we know it or not - we are all cyborgs. And her socialist and feminist views do not agree with separating mind and body, animal and machine, idealism and materialism into dualisms. She sees cyborgs as being mixtures of biological human beings and mechanical/electrical components so intertwined that they can no longer be separated.

The point she tries to make about the classification of women being a socially constructed category rather than biological is quite interesting. When thinking about the cyborg and even the other stuff we've talked about in class like creating a virtual identity in cyberspace, it becomes clear how not only gender, but race, sexuality, and class can be socially constructed. So, disregarding the biological aspect of gender, we must take a different view on feminism altogether and throw out the binaries of either male or female. We are human cyborgs. ? ?

Okay, I just can't do this anymore. It's really hard to read into these metaphors upon larger metaphors.....I'll have to come back to this article. I don't know if it's just me or what but it is killing me. It's a tough read.

I guess I am going to come back and read the rest of the article another time because just reading the first few pages has taken some time. And trying to relate that to some of the issues raised in class is challenging. I didn't even realize the different waves of feminism and influences and stuff.....But I can make some comments on relative ideas that come to mind. It seems like we can certainly throw in the issue of feminism to the discussions we've had on race in cyberspace. Power is given to women by allowing a sort of equal voice and the ability to invent either true or fictional identity. But have you guys ever heard of second life? I haven't messed with it at all but have just recently heard of it. A 3D social networking site where you actually create an avatar and interact with other avatars virtually or whatever. It sounds like there are all kinds of uses for this site - psychiatrists interacting with patients who won't actually come into an office, characters giving on-line performances like singing or speeches or whatever...... I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess just that when you think of this kind of thing on-line it puts a whole new perspective on race and gender and stuff being anonymous on-line. Your avatar is actually doing on-line things that you do in life. How crazy is that? Interesting to me I guess.

Kolko and Gomez-Pena articles

I apologize for being a little late on this weeks entry, but I see that no one has posted comments yet so hopefully this will work out anyways.

Beth Kolko's article was quite a long read for me as I lost interest somewhere around the third page or so and it just seemed so repetitive and dry after that. Since I have never experienced a text based virtual world (a MUD or a MOO), it was also a little hard for me to imagine this world without images and photos and all that stuff. But I guess I found it interesting to raise the question of whether the @race option was relevant in these MUDs. If the MUD is a social networking place where people try to connect with others, of course it would be relevant. Not necessary, but certainly relevant. If I am looking to find people to connect with and socialize with, I am definitely interested in things we have in common. It can be helpful to know whether they are male or female, what age they are, race, culture, religion, hobbies....... But I really don't think leaving it out is a huge deal either. Yes, the components of identity that you are allowed to express kind of govern how you are able to self present, but written communication is going to express so much that doesn't have to be said. Kolko says in her atricle that some MUDs have the option of identifying with a race, but most don't. This can be seen as the designers assumption of white as default. Or it can be seen as unnessesary to the purpose of the MUD. I don't think any of them ask what religion or political party you are affiliated with and one could certainly take issue with those kinds of things also. It may be said that Christianity is kind of the default and norm represented by designers and that people involved in Islam aren't given the option to represent themselves as so.

I don't know where I'm going here anymore or even what i'm talking about. Being white, i guess I haven't really put too much thought into the design of interfaces and their power to prescribe representative white norms and patterns. The construction of the technology reflects the experiences of the designer so what does that say about the designers? It is becoming more clear to me through reading these articles how interactions amongst users of technology are controlled by the program (mediating space) and are predominantly white by default. So i certainly think that users of social virtual worlds could benefit from the @race option in some cases.

Looking at Gomez-Pena's article was a bit more interesting, though not much easier to read. This man has really caught my attention just because I am so confused and so interested in what he does - both at the same time. I can't figure him out. What kind of artist is he? What exactly does he do or promote? What religion? How much education? Mexican or American or Chicano or Mexican-American? I guess I just feel like he is a very interesting character, especially looking at some of the other stuff he's done. Like the book that was passed around in class. Just Fascinating.

In his article Chicano Interneta, Gomez-Pena said several things that caught my attention; the very last statement in his article really left an impact. "As for me, hopefully one day I won't have to write in English to have a voice in the new centers of international power." I was like, "Hello. This is it!" Cyberspace and the language of science and technology are white English and this is a problem! It's more than Mexicans not having access or the desire or whatever; it isn't designed for them. And I say them because this article is focusing on them (Mexicans) but obviously them can refer to anyone who is at a disadvantage because they aren't English speaking white Americans. I like this...."Chicano artists in particular wish to 'brownify' virtual space, to 'Spanglishize the Net,' and to 'infect' the lingua franca."

Again, don't even know where I'm going with this. Just some thoughts I had on these articles.

Cybernetic tourism

It's interesting how Nakamura talks about cybernetic tourism and transnationality through the internet and how these virtual field trips are metaphorically taking us, as privileged first world "tourists" or users, wherever we want to go. The theme of all different nationalities sharing the same language - computer talk, technology language.... is found in all sorts of advertisements. There is also the implied theme of unity and connection between people of all different races, ages, ethnic backgrounds, etc...ultimately leading to utopia. The technology advertisements try to give us the message that "cybertechnology.....will magically strip users down to 'just minds,' all singing the same corporate anthem"(Nakamura, 25). Yet the world wide web and other technology is far from World Wide. How will people from all over the world be united by this technology when it is inaccessible to a vast group of them? And then the question would be - if we were all to be connected without the factors of race/gender/age/culture/religion.... would it lead to utopia?

For many years advertisements have attatched the concept of unity and understanding amongst people of different cultures to utopia in order to sell their product. Nakamura mentions the Coca-Cola ad from the seventies and eighties showing a very diverse group of people united by a song, "I'd like to teach the world to sing" and drinking Coca-Cola together.

One of the commercials I viewed on youtube from this summers olympic games was the AT&T "We are all Team USA" in which people of all different nationalities are coming together and being victorious as, essentially, members of the same team. The add says, "We will shatter records; we will pull off miracles; we will make history. Stay connected with your TV, Computer, and wireless phone. AT&T." Again, this commercial strongly presents the image of utopia when we are all connected and speaking the "transnational tongue" of American technolanguage.

The interesting thing I'm finding in this article, as well as the other articles we've read and discussed is the idea that technology, networks, and the internet can solve the dilemma of cultural, ethnic, racial, age, and gender differences. At the beginning of Nakamura's article she introduces the idea of human interaction occuring as "pure, democratic cerebral form of communication....uninfluenced by the 'rest of it'. I find this fascinating because even without a face or body to attatch to the written communication, culture/age/gender and all of that still influence a person's communication. Their thought processes, beliefs, values, experiences..... all play a role in what comes out "on-line" or whatever. They have a distinct mind set that will inevitably influence their responses and "image" with any style of communication. But it is great that minorities can be empowered because the label minority isn't attatched so readily and quickly to them. But to just cross out 'the rest of it'?? I don't think it's quite that easy.