Fiske’s capitalist conversation and this discussion revolving around the invisible hierarchy of the web, enforced by algorithmic structural elements, all work together to further differentiate individuals based on social-economic values. Is this true? It’s hard for me to believe that I live within a societal system that forges monetary value from human oppression. I guess the internet is a more free form of oppression, rather than physical abuse, it oppresses the individual in a subtle and enjoyable manner.
Here’s the link to a really good ted talk explaining the algorithmic nature of the internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENWVRcMGDoU
]]>On the most simple and basic level of analytical understanding, one can explore the differentiating nature of digital interactions within the broader ‘Digital Native’ group through internal distinctions made using geo-political affiliations. This spatially oriented way of understanding differences within the ‘Digital Native’ population can point to greater distinctions in the digital population relating to socio-cultural and political uses of technology, further specifying interactions with the internet. This sort of analysis could structure and sort through the different political uses of the Internet and their correlation to actual physical intervention or action. This more detailed analysis could grasp at ideas concerning the passivity of human interaction with or through the digital.
Another variable that is not given enough attention is age. The foundation of the language for Shah and Abraham’s study is based in binaries predicated on age. However Shah and Abraham’s intentional decision to ignore and not address the more ambiguous questions of age within the ‘Digital Native’ population is what makes their study more simplified and basic. Age has never been more crucial than it is today. Using age as a determinant of socio-cultural uses of the digital would prove incredibly helpful in better understanding the ways in which human growth processes relate to digital interaction and digital ideology.
]]>
Much of what Alexander argues and theorizes is related to ideas concerning technological determinism. For Alexander, technology has assumed a role in which it enforces these oppressive universal rules. Race is no longer directly confronted but is instead absorbed and diluted into a medium that distracts from its hard and compacted core. Alexander, by drawing attention to the inaccuracies of former post-modernist theories, he calls for a re-evaluation of what it is that post-modern thinking should concern itself with. The idea of sovereignty and authority should never be disregarded. These concepts have liberated themselves of the human form and now exist in the abstracted realm of hyper-reality.
]]>This current phenomenon represents the pinnacle of all parental fears regarding the Internet. It is in these moments that the Internet proves its ability to manipulate and convince the weak willed individual to act, a demonstration of the true power that the Internet holds. And as more and more western young-adults enlist themselves in the ISIS regime, what does this say about the current state of our ideological existence? How does this change the conversation about the Internet and social media and young individuals relationship to both? Here, the Internet becomes a place in which individual agency and ideological belief dissipates into nothingness, the individual solely becomes a representation of a tangible existence. Culture has no bearings, and the individual succumbs to the power of “truth”. The persistence of ISIS on the Internet illustrates the power of the digital world we have created.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-threat-home-fbi-warns-us-military-social/story?id=27270662
]]>
In Danah Boyd’s article she discusses and further clarifies the idea of the ‘Super Public’. For Danah, the super public is an entity that is defined as the unknown, or the public that extends beyond that of the immediately accessible public or audience. But as people become more familiar with the concept of the super public and aware of its existence, why do we continue to treat technology prior to us knowing of its presence. The infinitely larger audience, or super public, that commands the flow of content in the realm of the internet has forced the human-technology relationship into a strange place. I think its fair to say that people are overly affectionate and caring when it comes to their technological device. What I find so fascinating is that technology has immediately assumed the role of a diary of sorts. Its intimate relationship to the human is strange and a bit contradictory, as the structural nature of technological devices don’t necessarily support its intimate role, as things have naturally become more accessible and shareable. But when an individual shares data or information with a device, does the individual understand the device as representing a more personal grouping of people, a larger number of people, a public space, or an extremely private one. This perception of the iPhone (or whatever technological device it may be) dictates the information shared, it would also allow one to speculate as to whether people are becoming more or less extraverted with the advent of small technological devices, primarily used for social purposes. In taking a selfie, are one’s thoughts more outwardly focused, as they are more directed at the pure aesthetic of the photograph, instead of stimulating more critical thinking?
Just as a part of our political activist self has become more passive with the advent of the “like” button, one could also argue that our private persona is becoming more “public”. I guess this could come full circle and relate to the idea of technological determinism, in the fact that we now filter or edit ourselves for pre-determined and larger groupings of individuals. One could argue that this self-editing parallels that of which takes place in the real world, and to some degree it does, but it in no way can the internet provide such a spectrum of interaction. I think that Danah Boyd’s Super Public sheds light on the errors and fallacies present in our current understanding and relationship with technological devices and virtual communities. We all aren’t fully getting the Internet. But I guess our misunderstandings have generated a diverse range of content. Would a strong analytical understanding of the connective pathways of the digital world enlighten us to not make bad digital decisions? Would it make the internet more boring? Or would it become a place riddled with intentionality (which could be boring)?
]]>These affordances, as discussed in the reading, can be associated with the inherent structural qualities present in the technological device and the response of the individual. What is of equal interest to me is the way in which various cultures or communities react to technological advancements in the way they perceive and interact with or use certain devices. A very present topic of discussion is the image, as an all-accessible tool and how its accessibility is affecting cultural and industrial hierarchies in the Western world. Since all individuals have been empowered with the ability to take and edit a photo to have it appear to be on a professional level, it’s exciting to predict the various ways in which sectors of capitalist America and Europe, that are heavily reliant on the image and its social power, will respond. Since the image has become almost entirely democratized, how will companies assert their social power and dominance? I believe that the image is a very powerful political tool, along with its increased use and accessibility it can empower marginalized people and deter injustice.
But, as I said in an earlier post, the world’s inability to properly read photographs can be understood as a factor that reinsures this uneven balance of capitalist power and still allows the image to become a symbol of power and social hierarchy. The power dynamic has only become more subtle.
]]>Because of the inhuman qualities of the Internet, the process of composing an identity, for the adolescent, has become more abstract. Instead of having one’s identity tied to a sort of physical being, it is constructed through the use of digital devices that produce nontangible extensions of the self. It is the sort of peer-to-peer driven nature of these online communities that creates an identity for the individual. No matter how the teen views his/her digitally fabricated self, whether it is in a serious or joking manner, that version of the self becomes an indicator of how that individual aspires to be understood in a specific social context. However, as the lines distinguishing between the real and digital self become more and more blurred, one must be careful not to become too heavily invested in any form of online socializing. Since the structural apparatus supporting these communities are rigid, an individual obviously cannot interact socially with something that is, utterly, non-human. An affordance that comes with social digital communities, which must be recognized, is their inherent non-human structural qualities and restrictions that ultimately shape the way users interact with one another and form any semblance of an “identity”. What I’m trying to say is that Identity shouldn’t be confined or attributed to a digital, non-real space, but rather something that permeates all realms of “existence”. A perspective that I believe would allow for a more healthy understanding of the self.
]]>
However, siding with either category of thought does not sufficiently address the issue of properly weighing and understanding the nature of our social uses for technology. A perfect sub-topic of technology that parallels this discussion is the image, and its prevalent usage in the digital world for the purpose of human interaction. In using the two extremes Nancy Baym discusses, technological determinism and social construction of technology, one can easily see the ways in which the digital image can be argued for either side. But the simple grouping or labeling of the image as being one or the other ignores the subtleties and nuances that are necessary to understanding this relationship between the human and the digital image. Though I would like to argue that technology and its relationship to the image does assume a role in which both tend to the social needs and impulses of humans, something it definitely does, I think the way humans categorize their interactions with it is troublesome and ultimately problematic. The greatest qualm I have with digital technology is its love of the image. I find the relationship between digital technology and the image as worrisome solely because people lack the ability to correctly interpret or read images/photographs. Like language, the photograph is a linguistic instrument who’s doubly articulated existence is subtle. To read the subtleties of the image is to make an extra effort to interpret an entity that one can appear to have been adequately read almost instantaneously. However, the emphasis and dominance placed on our visual receptors is deceiving humanity. As images become more and more easily accessible, a result of their scalability, and if we continue to lack the skills to critically examine images, what will become of our more critical thinking processes or nuanced understandings and relationships to things and ideas. Has technology honed in on a human weakness? Lacking the skills to critically examine the digital image, humans would continue to perpetuate stereotypes and misinterpretations that could eventually harm social and cultural groups and possibly even further divide and segregate people as being similar or dissimilar. How would this affect our societal understandings of global cultures?
]]>