Blog # 4

This blog post may feel a bit informal, which I hope isn't off-putting to you Gentle Reader. This is a hodge-podge of quotes from Nakamura's Cybertypes and Kristin Arola's It's My Revolution: Learning to See the Mixblood. Here we go:

Nakamura:

“The study of racial cybertypes bring together the cultural layer and the computer layer; that is to say, cybertyping is the process by which computer/human interfaces, the dynamics and economics of access, and the means by which users are able to express themselves online…” (3).

To put this into my own words, cybertypes are the ways in which people of color are viewed online, access issues that accompany the Internet, and how well people of color are able to show their identities online (this can be with regard to avatars, representation/non-representation in video games, or stereotypes of people of color-to name a few).

“I propose that a starting place for reseeing the mixedblood in contemporary terms is to look online to the spaces where users are asserting their identities in ways that illustrate not only the existence and persistence of the mixedblood, but whose visual, aural, and textual choices illustrate the complexities of this category and the embodied nature of the online self” (217).

Again, in my own words I rephrase this as: Let’s look at how people are rhetorically constructing their identities online, and how they chose to race or not race themselves based on their choices. I find this to be more compelling than Nakamura’s cybertyping in, although it’s only 12 years old- way young in human years, it’s already passé for online studies (not in its entirety, but some of the online spaces Nakamura looked at aren’t in vogue anymore). So now we have online communities such as Facebook, where folks can make certain choices about how they want to represent themselves. The Arola article got me thinking about my own: if a person was just creeping on my facebook page, and didn’t know me from Adam, what would they assume about me? I don’t use an actual photo of myself (it’s the panting of Girl with a Pearl Earring only instead of the girl in question, it’s a bulldog’s face). I do have my gender on there for all to see, but I don’t let the public see much more than that. So, what race would they guess I am?

So, whereas Nakamura is suggesting to shift the paradigm of how people of color are represented in online spaces “is to use its own metaphors against itself” (48), Arola makes the call to see how, in this case, mixbloods are representing themselves online, and to look rhetorically on the choices they are making to think through issues of race and identity.

Arola: “This “un-seeing” of Indians exists in part by the denial or brushing over of America’s bloody past and also through the belief that “real” Indians only exist in the stereotypes of what an Indian should look like, act like, and believe in. This act of unseeing comes with a host of problems for full-blooded Indians, including an unseeing by those in power of the political, economic, and social issues relevant to today’s Native American” (215).

Nakamura: “The idea of a nonstereotyped Asian male identity is so seldom enacted in LambdaMOO that its absence can only be read as a symptom of suppression” (39).

What I like about these two closely-related quotes is how stereotyped people of color are within popular culture. Riffing of off Arola’s thought, I too have notice that you never see an American Indian represented in street clothes, but rather always in full regalia; the spectacle of the Other, as Nakamura talks about throughout her book. This is much like how Asians are played onscreen: from Bruce Lee to Bai Ling, there’s a certain look Asian actors are supposed to have. It really is “a trap that fetishizes what it means to be American Indian” (216).  

Blog Post # 3

In Lisa Nakamura's Cybertypes, she is filling in the gap left over from new media studies. Nakamura examines the push from new media studies to separate from humanities to become "a separate, autonomous field, where the historical, aesthetic, cultural and discursive aspects of digitalization of our society may be examined" (Aarseth qtd in Nakamura, 3). The particular gap Nakamura fills in the thought that the Internet is a Utopian place where racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, and all other -ism's are eradicated. She introduces the idea of cybertype, "to describe the distinctive way that the Internet propagates, disseminates, and commodifies images of race and racism" (3). Nakamura supports her claim that the Internet isn't a classless, raceless space by looking at how different websites operate by looking at the ways in which different spaces occupy and use cybertype. For example, Nakamura goes into identity tourism, where superficially it appears as these spaces open up avenue's for folks to be who they want without scrutiny. Identity tourists are able to create avatars, where tourists can pick out what race, what hair color, what eye color, etc. they want to have. As Nakamura points out, the problem with identity tourism is that it gives a myopic view of what it means to be another ethnicity, and often leads to stereotyping (33-34).
Nakamura then turns to cyberpunk fiction, both the first and second iterations. She does a fascination job of analyzing the movies Blade Runner, Neuromancer (as examples of first wave cyberpunk), Snow Crash, and The Matrix (as examples of second wave cyberpunk). This section was my favorite of all the book. Nakamura's analysis of how The Matrix works as an anti-racist movie had me thinking about it in a whole new way: "...rather than a place in which race is "transcended" or represented solely by white actors...we are shown a world in which race is not only visible but necessary for human liberation" (73). Love this. Too often movies are whitewashed and the justification is always that white is all colors, so therefore white actors portray all races. Hmm...
I was struck with Nakamura's statement that all cyberpunk has an Asian aesthetic to it. I hadn't considered how futuristic movies have karate moves and Asian-inspired clothing. But it makes sense when Nakamura brings this up that it's a subtle way
My second favorite part of Cybertupes was the chapter regarding headhunting. Nakamura does a short close read on the movie Aliens where she writes about how the body is under attack by "both the antihuman (the alien) and the passing-as-human (the cyborg) seek to gain entry and colonize the character Ripley's human body" (45). Nakamura doesn't go into the gender implications of this, but she does make an interesting point of how xenophobia is played out within cyberpunk movies and cyber sites.
These two chapters are where I feel Nakamura's defense of her claim that cyber places are still raced are the strongest. It's the way she goes into close reading these spaces that I was exposed to a different way of viewing what was going on under the visage of something else (e.g. "strong woman lead" in Aliens, yet there's a good case of how it's propaganda against the Soviets at the time). Overall, I found this book to be compelling. There may have been times where Nakamura was reaching a bit too far with some of her analysis [e.g. when Nakamura's in a chat site and her avatar is dark-skinned. A blonde-hair, light-skin woman give Nakamura a light-skinned head for her avatar as if this is irrefutable proof that the woman is trying to say that white skin is better (52)], but she does the vigorous rhetoric that's needed to unpack and unearth the ways in which the color line is visible on Internet and cyberpunk spaces.

Addendum to post 2

Whoop. Forgot to include the link I alluded to in my blog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o

Blog Post # 2

For the second half of Reed's book, Reed continues along the vein of the pros and cons of digital technologies. Chapter 6, "Does the Internet Have a Political Bias?" delves into intricate political issues like Obama's run for president during both elections. I found this section particularly compelling section because of my interest in politics. The '08 campaign for both Obama and McCain marked a shift away from advertisements made only by the politician's ad campaigners to regular folks making youtube videos in support (or opposition to) the candidate. I was fascinated at how people were getting involved with the process in ways that were, until then, unheard of. Anyone could make a video for youtube for millions to see, and the best part was that the candidate didn't have to spend funds on these videos, yet reaped the benefits of more exposure. The videos showed what was on the minds of Americans: why they supported who they did, for what reasons, and in some cases had a more authentic feel than videos disseminated by a politician's supporters.

Reed doesn't just limit the conversation to obvious political issues. On page 130 Reed riffs off of Ella Baker with differentiating between mobilizing and organizing people for a movement; "Mobilization refers to the process by which inspirational leaders or other persuaders can get large numbers to join a movement or engage in a particular movement action. Organization entails a more sustained process as people come to deeply understand a movement's goals and their own power to change themselves and the world." This lengthy quote contributes to Reed's argument by drawing attention to the various ways people make political statements on facebook et al., and also contemplates how much, or little, an act is politically. An example to illuminate what I'm trying to say, Reed offers the example of The Harry Potter Alliance, an online community whose members think through social justice and literacy issues by using the Potter books as a template. Reed enumerates the changes this group was able to make globally, and uses it as an example of how apathy and inertia isn't as widespread that some folks think (130). Yet, the pendulum can swing the other way. Reed gives examples on the other side such as hate groups creating pages that would catfish folks who use certain keywords, allowing them to spread their ideas to unsuspecting people (131).

As mentioned above, I found this chapter compelling because of the own questions it lead me to raise. How much 'civic' is in a movement when that movement is online? Why would people prefer to protest over, say, facebook rather than march in a rally? There's (potentially) less to lose with an online forum than having to march: there's no police officers armed with mace online. There's less personal human interaction online than in real life. Yet, as I thought about that last one, I immediately thought about the Bob Dylan (yes, I can feel your eyes rolling, but deal with it) fan club I'm apart of on facebook. I was reading a post by a fellow a few days ago where he wrote about his nephew battle with a disease (I don't remember which one now), and how Dylan's music helped pull both he and his nephew through a difficult time. Granted, this bloke could have been lying, but to what end? And, maybe just maybe, he was more authentic because he didn't have to say difficult things face-to-face, but rather monitor-to-monitor. I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, and I'm still working this one out for myself. I was yet again impressed by the level of detail Reed put into this book. It seems to me like no stone went uncovered. Reed expertly ties these, sometimes seemingly disparate ideas together to show that there's a lot to consider with regard to digital technology, and to not get carried away by saying that it's the best or that it's the worst thing for humanity.

Chapter 7 had me rollin' my eyes at the title. It's a tired old argument that games make us more violent and sex-crazed. Reed brought up many good points for why games don't do this, namely that there are lots of gamers out there who don't commit crimes. And, again, it's the age-old argument that TV, music, you name it, makes us this or that. But, it was important that Reed include this chapter. It would have been remiss to not consider the ways in which race, gender, and class are played out on games, and how that supports/subverts normative thoughts. What I mean by that is how, "people way be more actively engaging the stereotypes, may, for example, be killing racially coded aliens or fantasy creatures. or shooting 'redskins.'" I don't know much about gaming, so I hadn't thought about the implications of the roles some characters in games play, and how they're (mis)representations of marginalized groups.

For chapter 8, "Are Kids Getting Dumber as Their Phones Get Smarter" speaks to the pedagogical side of me, and how I'm trying to shape the way things are played out in class. One idea contained within the chapter really jumped out at me: "But what are we making of all this information? Information, after all, is not knowledge..., and knowledge is not wisdom..." (164). This reminded me of when the printing press first came into play and the explosion of information that accompanied it. It marked a time where there was an abundance of stuff being put out for anyone to see, and it changed how people processed the information. The same thing is happening now, and we gotta sift through the information, asking good questions along the way to find the truer of info out there.
This chapter includes proponents and naysayers alike in how much (or not at all) technology should(n't) be used in the classroom. "This should be seen as neither a cause for alarm nor elation because computers are neither the problem nor the solution to issues in education in the twenty-first century" (166). In the link I have included below, while super-interesting and thought provoking- ends with the notion that "some say technology can save us." What I have appreciated throughout Reed's book is his treatment of technological determinism, urging us all to not say tech is what'll save everything, or destroy everything. Reed points out that technology is a tool and as any tool it's only as good as the person using it. Agreed.

Chapter 9 had me thinking about folks Reed identifies as the "don't wants" (189). Hmm, I hadn't thought about it in that way before. Reed makes the analogy of folks who prefer vinyl to those weirdos who think digital music is better. Obviously I am in the former rather than the latter camp. So the idea of people not wanting to bother with digital technology should also be considered in a broad talk about technology issues. This, yet again again, made me marvel at how much Reed included in his book.

Blog Post # 1

To sum up T.V. Reed's book in one sentence: Don't get lulled into a false sense of security when dealing with technology. Reed delves into the invisibleness of technologies; from thinking about how manual laborers are treated and the conditions they work in (39), to the cultural in the degree to which a culture is considered modern based on its technology (5), Reed covers many hidden- yet right in front of us- areas of digital spaces.

Cool quotes:

Page 53-54: "Fundamental to most of these discussions is some sense that cultural identification in our postmodern era are less stable, more malleable than they have been historically, and that ICTs are playing a role in that destabilization."
- This quote is situated within Reed's discussion of online identities, and how folks are able to create an identity that may not be representative of their actual lives. I am drawn to this quote because it reminds me of my own online identity. I am very much aware that I am creating a certain persona on facebook: my posts tend to be heavy on the silliness, a goodish amount educational (in that I post stuff from places like "I fucking love science." Really, that's what it's called!), and a dash of political happenings, just for good measure. I try my hardest to stay away from anything too personal. I see some of my friends post emotional rants often enough that I've realized I don't want to make the same mistake; facebook isn't a catch-all where anything can and should be posted. A notion that Reed goes into, and hints at with this quote.

Page 87: "However just as it is possible to change the default settings on most programs, it is possible to move beyond the default identity initially built into much digital culture..."
-  I got this gem from chapter four where Reed goes into who's represented most in technology, the internet specifically, and who's not. It's interesting how the icons we all know (e.g. the floppy disk we click to save stuff) has an American-centered way about them; shows where it's made, for whom, and why. It's true that Reed may not be bringing up anything new here, but it fits well with the over-arching argument of how technology can be invisible, and the implications behind that.

Page 111: "These and various other modes of digital diddling in and of themselves are safe sex, in terms of physical health..."
- Wow! I would love to know how much research, and of what kind, Reed put into formatting this chapter! Or maybe I don't... I use this quote because, again, it ties into the larger argument of how innocuous technology seems to be, but when we peel back a layer or two, then more insidious issues crop up. I did have a bit of a problem with this chapter: Reed got too cute with his puns (like, "digital diddling"). Yes, this is geared to undergrads, and yes, it deals with sex, which might be uncomfortable for some folks, but being punny doesn't help.

Issues:

Although Reed may not be bringing up problems that haven't been talked about before, I do find it helpful book to read to give me a sense of what's being discussed in digital culture studies. In the third chapter, Reed writes about shows like MTV's Catfish, where folks can create completely false identities in order to date, panhandle, and/or hurt another person. These are issues that need to be discussed, which are sometimes (conveniently) left out of the discussion of technology. There are plenty of folks out there that think technology is gonna save us; that the only way is the technological way. Reed isn't trying to steer people away from this valuable resource, but to realize and think about how even the internet, an ostensibly amorphous thing, has a physical being.
Chapter four I found to be important with regard to what I study here. Thinking about who is represented and who's isn't is one of the more compelling chapters in Reed's book. Again, what he brought forth may not be ground breaking, but when situated within the larger problem of the ways in which technology is look upon or NOT looked upon, is always an important question to ask.