Critical Response Assignment #4

Hayles, N. Katherine. “Prologue: Computing Kin.” My Mother was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

In this article Hayles expands on her previous article with new perspectives on what it may mean to be posthuman in light of the technological advances since her last writing six years earlier. She suggests that the fear we once experienced with the notion of posthumanism has been subdued with the realization that we are not as autonomous as previously thought as we are immensely influenced by countless nonhuman actors, as she argued for in her last article. Here she expands on dichotomies that have become dissolved due to the expansion of revision regarding our commonly held notions of normality through the technological advances of our time. She notes that the binary opposition of embodiment/disembodiment “has fractured into more complex and varied formations”, (2) and that this extends onto our notion of materiality. Like in her last article she suggests that we redefine materiality as “an emergent property created through dynamic interactions between physical characteristics and signifying strategies”. She also makes mention of how this idea of materiality is in line with her notion of the Computational Universe, “the claim that the universe is generated through computational processes running on a vast computational mechanism underlying all of physical reality”(3). She notes that this conception of the Computational Universe would not have been possible in past socio-cultural contexts and note the parallel observation of eighteenth-century thinkers, amazed by the watch, who noted that the world was like clockwork. She uses the sentence “my mother was a computer” to display the many ways in which society has changed as a result of technological innovation as the sentence can be interpreted in various ways that were not possible previously.

In the past, people were called computers because they performed mathematical feats. In this sense, some people’s mothers were computers. However she also points to the idea of the Computational Universe overtaking the idea of Mother Nature, as “the Universal Computer is envisioned as the Motherboard of us all” (3). Another sense she notes can be interpreted into the sentence “my mother was a computer” is that children are often taught to read by their mothers, which gives voice to texts and gives “a sympathetic resonance between the natural world and human meaning” (4). She notes that now, children may still learn to read in part from their parents, but there are many other programs and modalities which permeate our methods of communication. Computer programs were sold as educational toys for years now, ranging from video games on consoles to semi-interactive books. I personally know that my typing skills stem from the oh-so-important things I had to express as a twelve year old girl on instant messaging interfaces with friends. What she claims is so important about this is not that it changes our notion of mother as a computer but that it incorporates many more sensory modalities and encourages a much stronger, even kin like, link between ourselves and electronic environments. Another interpretation of the sentence is that which an artificial life simulation would say if it were asked who its parents are. This reminded me of the movie I, Robot where the main robot character keeps referring to his creator as his father (although I must add the book was much better than the movie!). However she points that this type of language is used frequently and has a sort of reverse undertow to it as well, as in when we say that programs “gave birth” to other programs or results, or as in how we question “the extent to which human beings can be understood as computer programs” (5). She then turns to some distinctions between electronic methods of understanding and some more traditional methods of understanding the world around us.

Hayles cites three broad categories of resources we may use to help us understand the world around us: mathematical equations, simulation modeling, and discursive explanation. She notes that mathematical equations are not particularly useful for understanding complex systems as they do not explain nonlinear behaviours. While my understanding of mathematical equations is subpar I wondered how the Fibonacci sequence would fit into this statement. Overall I found her dismissal of mathematical equations quite quick as she moved on to simulations and discursive explanations. Here I wondered if her favouring discursive explanations stemmed from her background in literature as she argued that narratives have been around for a very long time and are much easier for us to understand than simulations which are relatively new and written in a mathematical language that exists within a “(relatively) inhuman world of massive numerical calculations”(6). I think it could easily be argued reversely, that simulations appeal more to the visual system than discursive explanations, and that in evolutionary terms we are highly visual animals and this fact preceded discursive forms of expression. In this interpretation simulation could be a development not away from our natural tendencies for understanding but instead closer to our more primitive, engrained methods of understanding the world around us. However she does note the similarity/opposition of these forms of expression and hold true to her influence from complexity theory as she explains the “entanglement of bodies of texts and digital subjects is one manifestation of what I call ‘intermediation’, that is, complex transactions between bodies and texts as well as between different forms of media”. She notes that the immersion of digital analogies into our language for both our existence as humans and the occurrences in the world around us encourage the different version of posthumanism to be understood. Ultimately, even though media effects need to be expressed in the embodied world to have effects, she refuses an either/or choice in line with her feelings on complexity theory, invoking “the necessity…to think in terms of multiple causalities, complex dynamics, and emergent possibilities”(7). Despite possibly straying from her main point a little bit, she insists that “the most important significance of My Mother was a Computer… is to insist on the irreducible complexity of contemporary posthuman configurations as they continue to evolve in digital subjects and literacy texts, computer programs and human mindbodies”(7).

To a large extent I agree with Hayles. I think complexity theory is a necessary interpretation in today’s world. Concepts like the earthship and academic emphasis on interdisciplinary studies and degrees show the push towards a more well rounded attempt at understanding and incorporating a variety of points of view or physical phenomena simultaneously and with ease. Even if we look at a young person’s resume today and the general shifts in the job market, as opposed to before a linear job pattern is less favoured and attainable today than a varied job path that is more flexible. While in relation to the job market it is arguable whether or not this i a an asset to society, there are many aspects of our world today that are leaning towards a more integrative and well rounded approach to a variety of problems. Another example is in health care where it is widely recognized that chronic care patients require a variety of support services including educational, social, nutritional, physical, and spiritual. I have briefly criticized Hayles above for matters of clarity in explanation but overall, aside from the general comments on the concept of posthumanism in general I mentioned in Critical Response Assignment 3, her arguments appeal to me. I would like to expand further on some possible interpretation of the phrase “my mother was a computer” to expand on some interpretations and follow in her footsteps to suggesting further avenues for the future of humans. Given that this book was published in 2005 it is likely that some of the things I will discuss were not even in development at the time of her writing, but they clearly apply to the idea of computers being parents. One particularly interesting example is that of 3D printing machines including the makerbot and the RepRap. The RepRap is a 3D printer that essentially was created to recreate itself. This gives a new ring to the “I’m my own grandpa” song as the machine was essentially built to recreate itself multiple times over. The makerbot was inspired by the RepRap but was more consumer oriented. It is entirely open source and can be purchased online or made personally at home. It is a 3D printer which the user programs to create anything that the program dictates. There are online communities already for sharing programs for the makerbot and people have made many things from iPhone cases to sculptures of the Statue of Liberty. In this case, the grandchild of the RepRap, as the makerbot developers referred to it as, is a tool that allows a wide variety of physical things to be parented by computers.

One of the most fear inducing ideas related to “my mother was a computer” I think is the implications of genetic engineering and direct physical organic/nonorganic integration. Now to some extent we could argue the rise in acceptance and popularity of a variety of body modification such as tattoos and piercings are one example of this that has been occurring forever, such as the genetic alterations we as a species have induced on our environments through selective breeding of plants and animals. In this TED talk Paul Wolpe gives us an outline of some of the evolution of genetic engineering and electronic integrative technologies. He specifically cites the first organism to be parented by a computer at about 17:00 which he explains was the result of a programmed genome being inserted into a living cell which then reproduced the programmed genome. He spends a great deal of time talking about bugbots and other technologies such as electronic arms. The bugbots are particularly fascinating as the computer chips are directly integrated into the creatures brain. This seems amazing until you see the mice and larger animals which they have also successfully done this to. He notes that there are ethical issues with these procedures as we have essentially removed the animals’ autonomy entirely. This returns to the problematic notion of autonomy in this newly developing world, and I wonder how Hayles would respond to these new technologies. Some more highlights of the talk include a successful lamprey eel brain in a vat and a self aggregated lump of rat neurons which essentially created the first organic computer chip entirely on its own. The genetic engineering fields have immense implications for the idea “my mother was a computer”, and they raise a wide variety of other philosophical and ethical issues that are imperative to discuss. This reflects on the vast complexity and interactions of our social, cultural, ethical, physical, and emotional selves with technology and how we are all ultimately inseparable.

 

Where do you think posthumanism will take us? What futures do you see regarding our relations with technology?

What do you think of the vast ethical dilemmas regarding genetic engineering and organic/nonroganic integration? There are obvious advantages to some of these technologies such as pacemakers and other life-saving devices, but I personally found myself excited by bugbots and horrified by the RoboRat – what was your reaction?

Earthships are eco-friendly homes that integrate a variety of previously used systems and largely recycled building materials to create a home that interacts with the environment to encourage efficiency. They have referred to themselves as “biotectures”.

http://www.earthship.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=711&Itemid=3

This Google Tech Talk goes over the development of the makerbot, explains the RepRap, and shows some possible applications of the makerbot in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirHL_rRBu0

Paul Root Wolpe: It’s time to question bio-engineering: TED talk uploaded March 24 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector#p/u/14/ovV7v2XYJAI

 

Critical Response Assignment #3

Hayles, N. Katherine. “Conclusion: What Does it Mean to be Posthuman?” How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

In this conclusion to her book, Hayles addresses how the notion of becoming posthuman often arouses terror but also excites. She hopes to address the causes of these ambivalent feelings and give us a more positive outlook on the question of what it means to be posthuman. The prefix of post- implies that humanism is ending. However Hayles says a lot of the fear associated with posthumanism comes from the idea that humans are coming to an end; that we will be “displaced as the dominant form of life on the planet by intelligent machines” and that are only options are to give up or become machines ourselves. She notes that this fear can only be accurate if we view what it means to be human in a rather specific way; namely, we do not accept the changes that are happening or will happen to our day to day existence as humans. This view of what it means to be human is stagnant to a degree, and she argues that this is not appropriate as humans are subject to evolution. Not only our physical selves but also our social, cultural, political, and emotional selves are not stagnant at all – we are constantly evolving on multiple levels. Similarly, these multiple levels of possible change influence each other, for example, the technological and cultural innovation of increasingly popular mobile devices has led not only to a change in just how important our thumbs are but also to social innovations such as twitter which likely would not have existed practically without the popularity of mobile devices. And if we think about some of the revolutions aided by the advent of these mobile aimed social networking technologies we begin to see a cascade of new abilities and opportunities that arises out of something that can seem rather simple, such as the expansion and evolution of mobile phones, but in fact becomes immensely wide-reaching in influence. She also points to the power of history in having influenced our lives, which is rather mind blowing to think about when we consider the immense statistical improbability regarding each of our individual existences.

Having convincingly discredited the notion of what it means to be human as being justified in being perceived to be stagnant, she turns to possible futures for us humans and therefore possible interpretations of what it means to be posthuman. Some options she notes are a symbiotic relationship between humans and machines or a more one sided take over by machines. She notes that both of these possibilities are already occurring to some extent, in the case of symbiosis in our everyday lives and the more invasive reliance on electronic devices such as pacemakers or other life saving medical technologies. Similarly machines have taken over in a lot of ways, as in factory assembly lines. She notes that here the fear is not as strong; it is more a fear of change than a fear of obliteration. From this more neutral point she goes on to discuss what is exciting about the idea of being posthuman. Again she maintains that the idea of what it means to be human cannot be stagnant and that what this means for posthumanism is not the end of humanity but the revision of the conception of humanity. She points to some functions of computers which we actually enjoy; one particular example she uses is a program that learns from your actions how to prioritize your email inbox for you. However this raises another objection by those who she characterizes as being fearful of posthumanism. Part of what scares us about the increasing invasion of machines into our lives is the idea of losing control, but Hayles counters we never had any control in the first place. She again mentions how we as humans have been reliant on, and will continue to be, evolution which encompasses multiple levels of our existence – social, biological, environmental, cultural, technological, and so on. No single aspect controls the other; they are all influenced by the other aspects.

One particularly vivid argument she uses to convince us of this is in response to the fear that arises out of us perceiving that cognition and decision-making capabilities should be reserved for human minds. She notes a reinterpretation of Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment that aimed to discredit the idea that machines can think. The reinterpretation of the Chinese Room under complexity theory and Hayles’ general outlook is that the Chinese Room is a distributed cognitive system, and that we participate in these systems on a regular basis. Our cognitive abilities are magnified past our individual ability by the addition of technology, when it connects us with other minds but also when it connects us with relevant data and/or technologies. Similarly, decision-making is distributed along these systems as well. The availability of certain technologies, our reliance on them, and our use of them, all greatly influence our decision making and have for thousands of years. This does not take away from what it means to be human, she argues, but instead; “to conceptualize the human in these terms is not to imperil human survival but is precisely to enhance it, for the more we understand the flexible, adaptive structures that coordinate our environments and the metaphors that we ourselves are, the better we can fashion images of ourselves that accurately reflect the complex interplays that ultimately make the world one system” (290). Basically, the only fear we have of posthumanism is unfounded as it is based on a flawed notion of what it means to be human. In fact, we have always been posthuman.

One main criticism I have of the notion of posthumanism under Hayles interpretation is that she wants a nonlinear, constantly evolving notion of posthumanism but frames it within a linear evolution. While I understand her goal of dissolving dualities and that evolution can be both linear and dispersed, it does make the idea of posthumanism a little more difficult to understand and she does not address this problem directly. It seems it would be more appropriate to rename posthumanism to not imply linearity but then again I don’t think anybody said that words had to reflect their actual meaning, it simply seems favourable. It seems somewhat problematic to say that we have always been post-human but are coming from a standpoint where we do not recognize ourselves as posthuman. The prefix of post implies a linearity that is hard for me to get over. However I do see how this could be a clever ploy on her part to imply the dissolution of our notions of linearity and time within the term itself, I still find it makes her interpretation slightly less approachable.

 

What do you think about this ambiguity in Hayles’ notion of posthumanism? Intentional play on words or overlooked ambiguity?

Can you think of some examples of distributed cognitive systems outside of those on the internet?

 

An extensive suggested reading list relating to a wide variety of implications of posthumanism

http://www.carywolfe.com/post.html

An easy to digest interpretation of posthumanistic themes in the storyline of the video game Dead Space which includes a mention of the dual reliance on and avoidance of technologies seen in complex systems.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/136789-the-cybernetic-conundrum-posthumanism-and-dead-space/

 

 

Critical Response Assignment #2

The world wide web of surveillance: The internet and off-world power-flows

By David Lyon

1998. Information, Communication & Society, 1: 1, p. 91 — 105

 

In this article Lyon contends that the development of surveillance “as the automatic electronic gleaning of personal data” has been rapid and is likely to intensify. He cites different types of surveillance, including employment monitoring, policing and security, and marketing. He says that marketing is “the most generalized and least imperceptible to data subjects”. He states that “off-world” power flows reinforce real world social inequalities, and portrays a rather dark picture of the “web” as something that traps and entangles struggling prey. While this is a dark portrayal he goes on to say that there are of course democratizing possibilities but that “it is worth exploring the capacity of the ‘Web’ to capture and control, to target and to trap, to manage and to manipulate”. He argues that internet surveillance is much more subtle than the monitoring of your work computer by your employer or the video camera in the shopping mall and that “power is now bound up with an extensive, increasingly integrated, surveillance technology”. He points out that many sites you visit today automatically collect information about what kind of computer you have, whereabouts you are in the world, and your recent internet activities, sometimes with their own site, sometimes with other sites as well. He gives a brief history of surveillance, pointing out that in modern times “surveillance became much more routine and general” as countries began to take censuses, require marriage, birth, and death certificates, and voters were put on lists. Record keeping became emphasized to a much greater degree, to the extent that “by the mid-twentieth century it had become clear that surveillance was constitutive of modern organization”. He notes that after the cold war there was great fear of Orwellian or Kafkaesque regimes and an increased interest in surveillance and studies of surveillance. Out of this arose two debates: one focusing “on whether electronic technologies contribute to a qualitatively different kind of surveillance from that characterized by paper files and classic bureaucratic organization”; and the other questioned how far Foucault’s work could be applied to electronic surveillance. He describes the two debates as converging in an area that is rapidly expanding – consumer surveillance. He notes that mass customization “creates incentives for collection of personal data for use in the production-marketing process” in a much more convincing fashion, but still in a similar manner, as coupons, club cards, or traditional advertising. He argues that retailers want to “establish a service-type relationship with customers, collecting, storing and manipulating information about them in order to control their behaviours ”. He cites Oscar Gandy’s work on what he calls the ‘panoptic sort’ which is when database marketing is used as a sort of discriminatory technology to grade consumers and guide the retailers, based on information provided wittingly or unwittingly by the consumer, to determine which consumers would be better to pursue.

He characterizes three main categories of cyberspace surveillance, those relating to (1) employment, (2) security and policing, and (3) marketing. He notes that these categories in practice are blurred, because the “existence of electronic networks makes it easier in principle for data to be shared between different agencies” and the networks used by large or powerful bodies like governments and corporations can also be used by smaller bodies like groups or even individuals and that thus ‘cyberspace surveillance is not necessarily centralized”. He again profiles some brief history of controversies of privacy violations, including a ‘bug’ in Netscape web browsers that allowed site operates access to hard drives, but goes on to point out that sometimes a degree of informed consent is required in surveillance activities such as product registration or account creation. While some sites seek consent, many do not. I personally have noticed that most programs installed on computers are defaulted to send personal information back to the manufacturer but have a setting you can disable if you happen to find it. Similarly many websites collect personal information without your permission, “providing data about users’ needs, habits and purchases, based on their visits to the site in question”. One good example he notes is cookies, which “give extensive tracking capacities to companies” as they allow sites to store information on a user’s hard drive and then read the hard drive each time a site is visited to see if the site has been previously visited. Marketing “applauds these practices” as beneficial to the consumer as it provides personalized, customized advertising that is “tailored to their needs”. He notes that some companies make money off of teaching others how to find people online – selling handbooks “that give details on how to use Internet search engines for finding personal data, gleaned from multifarious sources, including ‘private’ bulletin boards”. This reminded me of Spokeo, a website that for a minimal fee allows you to import your contact list and see a wide variety of information connected to your contacts. This information includes scanning some twenty social networking and dating sites, financial information, email addresses and physical location data like address, telephone number, and even pictures. Some of the sites function are free. However Lyon seems to be arguing not for the capital gleaning properties of such services but instead insists that “all contemporary institutions in the so-called advanced societies are characterized by an internal imperative to obtain, store, produce and distribute data for use in the risk management for and of their respective populations”. The key for him is the potential predictive value seen in such data mining by the police, marketers, and employers. He points out that two main concerns that arise from this elevated surveillance activity and justification for it have to do with the outcomes of surveillance: specifically social division and inequality and invasions of privacy and the protection of identity. Identity is especially concerning as people increasing lose the ability to control what data about them is available to others.

He later turns to Foucault’s notion of biopower; “the power of human biography, of constructing biographical profiles of human populations for risk management and security provision”. This can clearly be seen in the massive amounts of customization we engage in today – personalized ring tones, phone backgrounds, computer programs, stickers, website features, coffee mug printings, and so on. The internet makes it possible to be highly customized both on and offline by making a wider variety of items available for purchase. I have found in the past it almost feels like an achievement to search for a torrent that is actually difficult to find, enforcing this notion that we want to be unique and perhaps we either feel like we have to try harder to be unique now that we have ready access to so many others like us or simply feel more comfortable pursuing our interests, no matter what they might be, because of this wide access with others like us. Lyon argues that “while such computerization started as a way to enhance and augment already existing systems of surveillance, its technical possibilities have provided opportunities for novel practices, geared to coping with risk by pre-empting and preventing or by managing and manipulating”. One criticism I have of this is he seems to downplay the potential good such data mining could have. While he does mention personalized advertising and identifying people at risk of committing certain crimes he leaves out the ease at which valid scientific research can be conducted for the purpose of bettering lives. Also, even though he mentions both biopower and panopticism, he does not declare which one his thinks is a better characterization. I personally think biopower is a better characterization but perhaps that is my optimism. However the vast amount of data mining that already occurs, with and without any form of consent, should not be ignored. One example of a response to this is the Google Chrome app (independently developed) called Facebook Disconnect. Because Facebook is so pervasive it has the ability to automatically connect with websites that you visit, so that you can “like” and “share” whatever you may see on external sites without having to sign into Facebook again. While this may be the convenient aspect for the customer, it also allows Facebook to directly monitor what sites you visit and how often, carrying their massive data mining potential from not just their own site but countless others (anywhere you see that little ‘f’ you can click on to share something). The Facebook Disconnect extension for the Google Chrome web browser disables this function for you so that Facebook cannot do this without your consent (disabling or enabling the extension). Similarly there are ad-blocking extensions that stop ads from loading and installing cookies, and I use one. I noticed one day one site i visited actually detected that I was using ad blocking software and asked me to stop, citing that they make their money from ad space and need me to see ads so that they can continue to run their site (I did not disable my ad blocking extension). Facebook’s massive data mining abilities and cheap stalker-esque sites like Spokeo aside, there must be a bright side to all this surveillance. Johanna Blakley did a TED talk recently that cited that advertisers have literally been forced to look at consumers in a new way because of the internet. She cites that before, we were all characterized based on demographics – age, sex, and income level or geographic location. No, however, we are sorted due to interest, which she argues is a much better predictor of what we like and how we are to behaviour than basic demographics. She argues that future media will be data driven , not demographic driven, forcing a shift in current rating systems, and potentially persistent stereotypes, including those of gender. While I am not sure that I want to give this shift in how advertisers decided they will formulate ads that much credit yet, it is an interesting talk to see just what kinds of influence this types of data mining could have outside of their initial, directly intended purposes. Can you think of any other potential results of the now prevalent, and presumably increasing, data mining? Things like biofeedback, Arduino controllers that save you energy, valid scientific research, and products and services that are more consistent with consumer needs seem to be good things. What about negative consequences? Having those sweet sixteen birthday pictures out there may not be what you would like when you are looking for a job in your twenties, nevermind the vast complications and implications that can arise from identity theft. And what if you have a stalker ex (hopefully not that likely but still)? One final thing I thought was interesting about this notion of prediction is movements like the Global Consciousness Project, who contend that massive data mining can actually predict the future in ways not necessarily connected to the specific data they mine – like natural disasters. While I think their hypotheses are pretty shaky, it seems like an extreme version of this data mining for prediction concept that was work looking at, even if it does not seem that plausible.

 

Spokeo: http://www.spokeo.com/?q=f (go ahead, enter your name or email address – its free for that much and you may be shocked to see what picture of you comes up!)

Facebook Disconnect: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/ejpepffjfmamnambagiibghpglaidiec#

Johanna Blakley’s TED talk on social media and the end of gender

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR4LdnFGzPk&feature=feedu_more

Wiki on the Global Consciousness Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

Arduino: http://www.arduino.cc/

 

Critical Response Assignment #1

The Ambiguous Panopticon: Foucault and the Codes of Cyberspace

By Mark Winokur

Date Published: 3/13/2003

www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=371

 

In this article Winokur assesses the question of whether or not the internet can be seen as analogous to the Foucauldian panopticism. Panopticism is a notion developed by Foucault in Discipline and Punish elaborated from Bentham’s idea of the panopticon. It is a circular prison with a tower in the centre where a guard could stand. The idea is that the prisoners would never know for sure if there was a guard in the tower and thus would also wonder if they were being watched. This would lead to an internalized governance of the prisoners by themselves. This method is argued to be a much more efficient method of governance than other method because each individual acts as their own guard. Winokur addressed the question of whether or not the internet functions in this way by examining the internet in relation to five key aspects of panopticism: the gaze, spatiality, authority, totality and discourse. Winokur defined the panoptic gaze as “at least initially unidirectional and fictive” in that the guard is invisible (not necessarily there) but the force of the idea of being watched is enough to keep the prisoners well behaved. He compares the gaze produced in film and television to that of the internet, explaining television and film as “easily identifiable as panoptic institutions” because they are “disciplinary in the sense that they provide their own defining discourses” and they attempt to be total, monadic experiences, and “as with the prison tower, we are to keep our attention riveted to this central structure; stillness is enforced”. Films and television give us models to tell us what is normal, and in this way control our behaviour. However he also notes that this gaze is cryptic in that we think we are watching something more than we think we are being watched. This contributes to the internalization of the influence film and television impose. He then argues that the gaze is both more and less panoptic than television or film – it is ambiguously panoptic (this becomes a dominant theme within the article). The reason for this is rather simple; the gaze of the internet is more clearly bidirectional. Internet engagement requires the user to choose to a certain degree what they see and allows for direct engagement with other through chat or posting. When addressing the fact that we can alter or hide our identities with avatars he also notes that “ I cannot be Palomar the Invisible without swearing fealty to PayPal the Verifiable”, explaining that even in situation where we may perceive our identity as hidden, there is a degree of identifiability that remains. He notes that in some situations, like when we are on a public or work computer, we are more aware of being monitored than at other times, while other time the gaze is more cryptic.

He then moves on to the question of spatiality, which he again determines to be ambiguous as it is both homogeneous and heterogeneous. While the user has control over where they navigate to, to a certain degree the spaces are the same (Facebook, Google). People often return to the same sites repeatedly despite the available variety. We can use the internet from our homes, in public places, or on our mobile devices, increasing the number of spaces in which we can identify with the internet; but again, at the same time, we are likely to engage with the same sites in all these different spaces in a monadic fashion. This is a critical component for panopticism as Foucault noted that “disciplinary space tends to be divided into as many sections as there are bodies or elements to be distributed ” as this encouraged the ability to defuse and diffuse political opposition. Whether we perceive ourselves to be alone in our experience of the internet or with others seems to be critical to whether or not it is like the panopticon in this sense. We may be by ourselves focused on a screen in engaging with the internet, but we may also have the impression of being connected with other. Another interesting aspect of spatiality Winokur touches on is that of time. He notes that like the panopticon, the internet is perceived to be eternal. Time on the internet continues whether or not you are engaged in it and the global quality of the internet disperses television-like qualities of ‘prime times’; “all times are one uniform time” he notes. While spatiality is ambiguously like the panopticon, time is more clearly like the panopticon in the way that it continues with or without your engagement. He then tries to parallel the types of authority in the internet and the panopticon to see whether they are compatible.

Here he notes that the internet “is capable of a perfect panopticism in a way that perhaps no other social institution or form of representation is” because the surveillance on the internet is mischievously democratized. He argues that certain software exists that encourage self- and peer-surveillance, “such software is advertised as security against corporate and governmental surveillance” and that a degree of self-consciousness has developed about our Internet behaviour. Given that we could be being watched at any time, like the invisible, possibly present watchful guard, “such software keeps everyone in the game, distributing a little bit of power and authority to every player who owns a modem. This distribution of power — not the actual top-down intimidation of Carnivore – is panoptic”. Carnivore was a packet sniffer installed at internet service provider servers by the government to sniff for specific types of activity. Instead of this type of monitoring we are more used to the dispersed and constant monitoring of our internet activity. I immediately thought of clearing our browser cookies and history on a regular basis when he mentioned that we have developed a certain self-consciousness about our internet activities, and the idea of “parental control” programs and key stroke loggers that keep track of activity similar to servers in the workplace or on public computers. Some of these programs only pay attention to activity that is undesired, while others do not discriminate. Concluding that this type of monitoring is in fact panoptic, he turns to the notion of totality, or the degree to which the internet is totally encompassing. Panopticism is itself totalizing because it constructs what is possible to think within the system, making it very difficult to think outside the system. Winokur argues that the “panoptic society is always already virtual. We can always know only what we need to know in order to ensure the continued operation of the panopticon”. He also cites that the internet has been spoken of as a virtual reality and that especially with technological advances it seems we are getting closer and closer to a yet more totalizing virtual reality. While he does not mention some of these advances i particular as he is writing in 2003, the prevalence of smart phone and rise of 3D technologies, along with interactive game consoles that respond to body movement all imply a great leaning towards a literally, physically, total experience with technology, if not the internet in particular. Finally he addresses the topic of discourse.

He takes an interesting approach with the topic of discourse, stating that internet code is a discourse because it creates the framework in which the internet can be understood; “we can create only what these languages allow us to express”. This reminded me of Wittgenstein’s private language argument, where he states that a private language cannot exist because meaning is public and thus a private language would have no meaning. However, code can also be viewed and readily changed, and it serves as a somewhat universal language. So code has a hidden meaning that can be discovered and creates what its own structural space. He calls the global meaning “structurally monolithic” as nothing really distinguishes the production of meaning from programmers in different countries, speaking different languages. Another point for code as a discourse in the Foucauldian sense he raises is “understanding the signifying system of the Internet would change our notion of how signification works. For Foucault, this kind of altered understanding implies an alteration in the way that we experience the world”. This seems to be once again more ambiguously parallel to the panopticon. While code obviously structures its surrounding language does this in an implicit way. Winokur argues that this could lead to a shift in the way that we understand the relationship between the signified and the signifier from one which instead of seeing words and meanings as being separate from each other we move towards an idea of them being connected or the same; again we are back to the idea that Wittgenstein gave us where language and meaning are inherently connected. In sum, the internet is only ambiguously panoptic in gaze, space, and discourse; but more obviously panoptic in regard to authority and totality, he argues. This is an important issue because it responds to previous theorists who have tried to liken the internet to the panopticon and provides a detailed way of answering how the two concepts can be paralleled. Furthermore it directly assessed both the positive and negative current aspects and potential futures of the internet, at least in regard to these few qualities.

While not really a problem with Winokur’s argument itself, I have one major problem with the general argument for the panopticon. How do we know for sure that the presence of others would regulate our behaviour in a positive way? One interesting example against this would be the documentary “We Live in Public” (2009). This documentary follows a internet involved businessman through the rise and fall of the dot com boom. He conducts social experiments that include having people live underground but be videotaped entirely, and even places cameras throughout his own home. The behaviour of the people under surveillance makes me question the true power on behaviour of being watched. Is the difference that we do not know for sure when we are being watched or not? Many of the people seemed to show off for the cameras, while others seemed to withdraw and become uncomfortable. Did they not internalize their governance, and this is the important difference? Many of the people did not know each other, and it seems it could be argued that we self-govern more in the presence of people we do not know. While I cannot answer whether or not my criticism of the panopticon fully applies, it seems to me to be as bit presumptuous to assume that the internalization of being watched would always result in a change in behaviour. In regards to Winokur’s arguments specifically, I mostly agree with him. He does a pretty good job of assessing the internet on five dimensions related to the panopticon, although i did add some more modern interpretations where I could (which feels funny to say given the article was written less than a decade ago). The one aspect that interested me in particular is the one about discourse and code. The part I find especially interesting is the idea that code creates what it signifies. This reminds me of the idea of ideas themselves being replicators. He notes that code can be a kind universal language that can be relatively easily edited and copied. Susan Blackmore, in a 2008 TED talk, proposed the idea that ideas have an interest in begin replicated; that memes – that which is imitated, or copied from person to person – will get copied if they can, regardless of whether they are good or not. I think this puts a rather interesting spin on the purpose of the internet. Maybe the internet, as an idea that will be replicated if it can be, was created not for us, but as a massive idea propagating machine. Blackmore argues that memes use us as meme propagating machines. If code is the language of the internet, and it is easily edited and copied, then under this interpretation that would make a lot of sense as it would further enable the propagation of memes over this massive meme generating and transporting machine. What do you think about the idea of people being meme machines? Of ideas having their own ‘self-interest’ so to speak? Is this too far – an unwarranted personification? Also, Arduino controllers seem to be a specific example of how code creates what it signifies, and similarly how code is open to programming and edition and how this is becoming increasingly mainstream. Another ambiguous criticism I have against Winokur is that, because he focuses on strictly paralleling the internet with five key aspects of panopticism, his discussion is limited to these aspects and does not expand much beyond that. This is ambiguous because it is more foundational in that it encourages more specific discussions on the subject of the internet in relation to panopticism and how it is or is not similar.

 

IMDB for “We Live in Public” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498329/

Susan Blackmore’s TED talk on memes and temes http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html

Arduino: http://www.arduino.cc/

 

Some related readings

http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/Articles3(1)/return.pdf

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=pWv1R2o_PWsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=foucault+discipline+and+punish&hl=en&ei=wUJXTeSRL8KdgQfFmYjyDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

90s Baby

I think Molly and I are like the same person some how…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s4Ul3UquBU

definitely fun if you were a kid in the 90s like me 🙂

Eclectic Method’s Babies

Two things that make me smile have come together in awesomeness, Eclectic Method, and babies 🙂

http://player.vimeo.com/video/6806017

Eclectic Method – Baby Beats – part 1 from Eclectic Method on Vimeo.

Babies’ understanding of language

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-babies-language-grown-up.html

Awesome article detailing new research on just how much babies understand of what adults say. 🙂

Ted talk on creativity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkRJG510CKo&feature=sub

 

I really enjoyed this. As a 3rd year psychology student some of it was review material but ultimately this makes it all that much more accessible. Creativity is considered a highly desirable trait especially when it is considered in relation to the highly debated definition of intelligence. Creativity really is a universal advantage when it comes to problem solving, and it is one of the questions about the brain we are still desperately trying to answer.

Do it

I read The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho recently

and you should too.

Magic Cup

My boyfriend put this video together the other day and I can’t get it out of my head

We got some glasses as a Christmas gift and one of them turned out to be magical

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YZ7VSsXlE