DIGITAL AMERICA

Author Archives: Molly

Technology: Rebuttal to Turkles “Alone Together”

// Posted by Molly on 04/13/2014 (11:52 PM)

The New York Times article “Technology is not driving us apart after all” takes an interesting perspective on how technology has (or has not) effected interpersonal communication.  The article discussed a social experiment conducted by Rutgers Professor, Keith Hampton. Hampton… Read more

The New York Times article “Technology is not driving us apart after all” takes an interesting perspective on how technology has (or has not) effected interpersonal communication.  The article discussed a social experiment conducted by Rutgers Professor, Keith Hampton. Hampton decided to recreate an old experiment conducted in the 1960s and 70’s  (by sociologist, William Whyte) in which he examined how people used and interacted in public settings. Using hidden cameras, Whyte filmed people gathering in public spaces, observed how they behaved, where they migrated to, how long their conversations lasted etc. Using this experiment as a point of comparison, Hampton observed how people communicated within a public space in contemporary society, as we are in the midst of a “communication revolution”. Hampton’s research challenged the widespread concept that today we are overly “plugged in” and completely engrossed in technology at the expense of face-to-face communication. Using 38 hours of comparable film footage, Hampton’s research found that only “10% of modern adults were seen to be using their phones, while actual face-to-face communications and meetings were up significantly”, further “People on the phone were not ignoring lunch partners or interrupting strolls with their lovers; rather, phone use seemed to be a way to pass the time while waiting to meet up with someone, or unwinding during a solo lunch break,” (Hampton).  Hampton claims humans are really “bad” at looking back in time, and that we over idealize how things used to be, and how people really behave, when in reality, things have not really changed all that much. Hampton goes on to challenge and criticize Turkles book “All together”, in which she claims public space isn’t communal anymore, and her theory that no one interacts in these public spaces anymore, because they are so engrossed in their own technological worlds. Hampton claims there isn’t enough real evidence to prove this, and theorizes that our idea that technology has alienated us is a product of our own romanticism of the past. His work shows that over the last few decades, our tendency to communicate with others has actually grown rather significantly. We are looking back at the world without technology through rose colored lenses in a way, technology isn’t necessarily making us isolated or disengaged, it may be changing how we interact, but Hampton’s research seeks to oppose the common stigma or “misperception” surrounding technology and communication.

 

Why do you think there has become this widespread cynicism surrounding modern technology, or “technological dissidence”?  Do you think technology is really alienating us? Why do you think hipsters are either so closely associated with technology (bloggers, photographers etc.) but on the other end, perceived to be so far removed from,  or the ‘counter culture’ to this digital revolution in which we are living in?

 

 

Hampton’s Research Video !!!!

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/magazine/technology-is-not-driving-us-apart-after-all.html?_r=0


Categories: Video
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Overwinding & The Greater Mash up Culture

// Posted by Molly on 04/07/2014 (1:25 PM)

 

 

Rushkoffs fundamental argument is the phenomenon of presentism, or as he coins it “present shock”.  He theorizes that humans have lost the ability to engage traditional narrative and over time developed new ways to replace the once present… Read more

 

 

Rushkoffs fundamental argument is the phenomenon of presentism, or as he coins it “present shock”.  He theorizes that humans have lost the ability to engage traditional narrative and over time developed new ways to replace the once present narrative structure, as we try to adapt to this shock induced by the loss of a real sense of future, and the long term. Rushkoff argues that the future is right now, and we have completely reinvented our definition and relationship to time itself. Everything we do is in the NOW, like HFT based on algorithms, we take loans we can’t pay off or live out of our means because we want that house, that car, that boat NOW, the younger generations are constantly texting and in cyber space trying to figure out if something better or more fun is happening NOW, but somewhere other than were they are at that very moment.  Rushkoff uses this technology obsession as one way to illustrate that the future is the now. He calls this notion “Digiphrenia”, in which technology allows us to be in more than one place, more of one self, simultaneously.  He argues that we exist and operate in more places than once all the time, your personal self, your Facebook profile, your twitter feed, and is your email account. We are all online living in these different spheres that are out of our control. We live this digitally induced “mental condition” in which we ultimately have multiple separate yet parallel identities which are created to connect us, yet seem to just become an overwhelming distracting that create an atmosphere in which we are not ever really fully present, lose touch with that moment in which we are in and who we are within that very moment. The access to these different mediums of connectivity, and a continuous stream via, twitter etc. of information 24 hours, 7 days a week begins to erode our capacity for attention, as we are constantly pervaded by push notifications and the cyber world.

Digiprenia is also connected to this idea of “over winding”, in which we are compressing time and its consequences into the “short forever” where there is no longer time to prepare and we lose all sense of anticipation.  Rushkoff argues the result of this to be detrimental to the way in which we live and learn. As the over availability of information separates it from its original context and removes the middle man, we lose the journey and the experience that was once involved in finding and accumulating information as it was gathered over time. “When everything is rendered instantly accessible via Google and iTunes the entirety of culture becomes a since layer deep. The journey disappears, and all knowledge is brought into the present tense. ” (Rushkoff, 153).  Rushkoff blames the loss of new and unique cultures on the death of the journey. He suggests without the chase of the information, our culture has fallen stagnant. We hold on to music styles and fashions as middle aged adults attempt to cling to their youth, because developing these cultures and these fads, these genres took time to grow and develop, it was a process, not a fleeting fad. Culture is shallow in a sense and we don’t take the time to develop and acquire these layers and experience that push and evolve a certain genre, therefore making fashion, or music more of a disposable trend, a one hit wonder.  Rushkoff suggests this is where the mash up culture is born, as artist’s forces genres and different time frames to merge and interact in the now, this also exemplifying the consequence of this digiphrenia as we “hop from choice to choice with no present at all (115).  Mash up artists and deejays use copy and paste to create “one perspective from multiple moments” instead of waiting to see how music genres and time periods may organically fuse.  Do you think mash up music actually represents more of a mash up culture as a whole? For example, minutes scanning Facebook mash up years, a hundred experiences, a hundred friends from hundred different places into a single now. In a click of the button on your timeline you can be immediately taken back to 2009, high school prom, or to that family trip with your ex best friend, who you haven’t talked to in years, yet somehow stayed completely connected to their lives through a website. Rushkoff argues that virtually, we live all of ages at once, every day. Nothing is left behind, as “our recorded past then competes with our experiences present from dominance over the moment… in the short forever, nothing recedes. Everything relative is relevant” (157).

 

Do you agree that this mash up music culture is more reflective of our culture as a whole? Do you think our culture, specifically as shown through fashion and music has come to a standstill? Do you think the genre of “mash up music” is the recycling of the past because we no longer take the time and research to create a new, unique counter culture to call our own? Do you agree that we have lost the journey as Google and/ or research databases such a JSTOR allow us to reach the final destination without really even embarking on the trip?


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Computers in the classroom: Problematic or progressive?

// Posted by Molly on 03/03/2014 (12:22 AM)

 

Before reading the article “The digital Divide Is Still Leaving Americans Behind”, I always thought of the digital divide more so as a distinction between age gaps and computer literacy, not so much by socioeconomic status.  The numbers speak… Read more

 

Before reading the article “The digital Divide Is Still Leaving Americans Behind”, I always thought of the digital divide more so as a distinction between age gaps and computer literacy, not so much by socioeconomic status.  The numbers speak to the fact that America is indeed a nation digitized.  What is most concerning is the impact internet availability and usage is having on the political and social side of America.  Interestingly, the initial concept of the internet was created as a medium of unity, free of any hierarchy, however today it is now only further perpetuating the very things it intended not to, including a nation deeply separated according to socioeconomic standings. With jobs and college applications almost exclusively available online, homework assignments, news mediums and even healthcare, the need to be plugged seems to be more important now then ever. Susan Crawford telecommunications expert and former white house official even goes as far as to saying that fast and reliable internet is a basic human right. The digitization of America and this new dichotomy seems to only further disadvantage the ones who need help the most.  Do you think  the Internet should be considered a basic human right? Or do you think this is going to far? Do you think this is a “poor persons” problem? The markets problem? or rather a problem for society as a whole?

 

I also found it alarming that some middle and high school teens didn’t know what Times New Roman font was or how to save a word document, but can still maneuver their way through twitter and other social media sites. By giving students “smart phones” in hopes that it will be used to further education may sound good in theory, however I think can be problematic then anticipated.  Incorporating too much technology into education is a slippery slope, especially into social media, technology obsessed generations. I find it interesting that our generation specifically is targeted for being technology “junkies” and often criticized for being glued to our devices, but what do people expect, when we are basically required to be plugged in to function in society? I realize that incorporating technology into the classroom is just the evolution of education, attempting to adapt to the times, however I think it is beginning to take on to large of a role.  Ipads have replaced notebooks, “smartboards” have replaced blackboard and chalk, and “blogging” and other online resources are often required aspects of our curriculum, posing the question is society trying to keep up with us or are we trying to keep up with society? I think it is incredibly important to have technology play a role in education, but I do think it we are getting further and further away from some of the fundamentals of education, creating a whole new playing field, at the expense of poor, lower class Americans. Do you think technology has too large a role in education? Do you think this a good thing or a bad thing?

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Social Media & Modern Revolts

// Posted by Molly on 02/09/2014 (9:50 PM)

In Marks Posters book “Information please: Culture and Politics in the Age of Digital Machines” he argues that the internet/technology has become a major component of globalization allowing for a newer and heightened level of interaction between cultures. As a… Read more

In Marks Posters book “Information please: Culture and Politics in the Age of Digital Machines” he argues that the internet/technology has become a major component of globalization allowing for a newer and heightened level of interaction between cultures. As a result of this, people no longer consider themselves separate from technology, and the rise of this transculture interaction have changed and “redistributed” culture as we know it.  This new media allows for a more open forum for people to discuss and exchange cultural objects and ideas making it easier for people to connect across the world with just a swipe of the mouse. In the Wired Article #Riot, Self-organized, Hyper networked revolts- Coming to a city near You, Bill Wasick addresses the growing international relationship between “flash mobs” riots and social media.  Recently, the world seemed to witness a trend of sporadic social gatherings, the majority of these stemming from a form of technology. The year 2011 ushered in some of the biggest street action the world has seen in decades as a “new generation of activists rediscovered- and subsequently reinvented through social media” (Wasick). Although riots and street mobs have been happening long before the creation of twitter or BBM, how big of an impact do you think social media has on the ability to catalyze a riot? Do you think there needs to be an ongoing or preexisting social or political issue for these riots to break out, or can these riots truly random and sporadic?  Do you view technology as solely a medium to spread word or as a main driver of a massive gathering? Do you think the sponatenous riots in the UK, the revolution in Egypt, or Kascade crowd on Hollywood Boulevard would have happened had technology NOT been a factor?

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: