Reflective Post

Well, I guess this is it, huh. One last post before we all go our separate ways for the holidays - oh wait, we've got some sort of essay due before then, don't we... :)

So, the weblogs. How were they as a learning tool? Well, as a means of introducing people who had never before seen an online community such as this, it was probably a pretty good learning tool, an experience that they hadn't had before. From my perspective, however, from a person who is heavily involved in several online communities, I don't think it was a good example of the scope and involvement that 'true' online communities can offer. Participants (myself included) stuck pretty much to their required posts and comments, and there wasn't much use of the weblog beyond that. This could be because participants didn't see the weblog as a community, just as a place for assessed work to be posted. In any case, the weblog served its function adequately.

I don't regard myself to be a cyborg. Despite the theories put forward by various people in the readings we dicussed in tutorials, my idea of cyborgs hasn't changed: a man-machine hybrid, yes, but a human in which the machine parts are an integral and extensive part of the whole. I don't consider things like hearing aids or glasses to be integral or extensive parts of the humans who wear them, and unlike true cyborgs such things can be removed. Similarly, I don't believe things like mp3 players and computers make us cyborgs - they are merely new ways of interacting with our peers and the environment.

I came to the course with a heavy background in digital technology and online interaction. Approaching the readings with that perspective, I often found the authors made assumptions and conclusions that directly contradicted my personal experience of similar situations or statements, which was quite jarring. This was, I think, often due to the age of several of the readings. With the current advances in digital technology preceeding at a fast rate, such readings often become outdated very quickly. However moving past the readings, overall I enjoyed the course. So often the issues we discussed in the tutorial are marginalised by academics and critics and the general population, so it was a great experience to participate in a unit such as this where current issues can be discussed and debated.

I really enjoyed the tutorial discussions (and apologise if anyone thought I talked too much!). If anyone wants to keep in touch you can drop me an email: velithya AT hotmail DOT com. :)

~Jen

Jen: Playing Politics Workshop Response

I selected September 12th and Donkey John as my two games to focus on.

1. Do you think the political simulation games you examined would have been "effective" in communicating with people via the Internet?

I think they would have been effective in communicating with people over the internet, yes. September 12th, other than requiring the installation of Shockwave, is very easy to play, requiring only mouse clicks, and Donkey John harks back to the 'old-skool' style of gaming, in particular Game and Watch and of course Donkey Kong. Both of these feature, I feel, would have helped make the games attractive.

2. Was the political message underpinning the political simulation games you examined immediately obvious? If not, were you driven or interested to find out what the game was trying to "say" (apart from the fact that you have to as part of the workshop)?

The games make their point very easily - as soon as you fire the first shot in September 12th, and watch one or more civilians morph into terrorists in front of your eyes, the point of the game is made very clear. The Newsgamming press release linked in Webct says "As you try to kill the terrorists, you will always kill civilians ('collateral damage')." I actually managed to take a few shots without killing civilians, and soon discovered that taking out large buildings could also be done without killing anyone, and was a good way to see who was hiding behind them and possibly approaching your line of fire, but in general, the game's designers were right. It is almost impossible to fire without killing civilians along with terrorists.

One thing I noticed that I thought was very cute, and harkened back to the initial notice that it was a simulation, not a game, was that when you kill the civilian-turned-terrorists, some of their 'corpses' are civilian corpses, not terrorist corpses. In addition, every so often one of the civilian-turned-terrorists will turn back into a civilian. Little details like these are ones that can help sell the game to more people, because the game designers could have not bothered to put them in - but they did anyway.

Donkey John was a little harder to understand, and I think it was only because I read the accompanying interview while I was waiting for Shockwave to download that I understood what it was about. Unlike September 12th, Donkey John is non-intuitive and the gameplay is a lot harder. You require actual coordination to play the game, and I was surprised when, after dying about a total gameplay time of 30 seconds, I was told I had reached a high score. I must confess, however, that if I hadn't read the interview and had just stumbled across it, I probably wouldn't have gone looking for the context as to why it was made - although having been linked the game the person doing the linking almost certainly would have summarised what the game was about, or I wouldn't have clicked the link to the game in the first place. This is probably a symptom of the iGeneration that Tama was talking about a few weeks ago - if it doesn't immediately impact you or yours or isn't something shiny and cool, you're not really interested.

3. If you had to write a political simulation game similar in size and structure to those you examined, (a) what would be the point you were trying to make and (b) how would the game be structured and operate in order to make that point? (Just give a very brief outline).

Not being very politically minded, I don't really know that much about the current political situation and such. I would probably focus on America and their illegal war, and about how they banned press coverage of things like the coffins and tried not to publicise the casualty numbers and such like that. As to the second half of the question, I would want to make the game as simple to play as possible, because complex gameplay would drive potential players away. Perhaps some sort of whackamole-style game where players have to click on coffins as they poke out of holes, with the cursor being a big hammer with the american flag on it, or something, to symbolise the Bush Administration's attempt to hide the truth.

Jen: As We Become Machines: Corporealized Pleasures In Video Games | Martti Lahti

The article discusses the relationship between the body and technology, as represented by computer games, It discusses the evolution of computer games in brief detail, suggesting that as that evolution progressed, instead of separating us further from our bodies, it actually grounds us in them. It then briefly discusses 'cyber envy', described as a longing to cross the human/machine boundary, represented by various games in which you can change your 'skin', play as your opposite race or gender, or ungrade your 'body' to become faster and stronger. However the article concludes that we can never cross this boundary and leave our bodies behind.

There are several issues to discuss regarding this article, and while I'll go into more detail in the tute I'll briefly outline some here. Do you agree with the main argument of the article, that video games ground us in our bodies rather than freeing us from them, or do you think that new media allows us to have 'out of body' experiences? The article mentions physically ducking and leaning in response to stimuli on the screen as evidence of a cybernetic loop between player and computer. Do you think this is evidence of such a loop, or merely an ingrained reaction to certain stimuli that would occur in the real world? What is your opinion on what Lahti describes as 'cyber envy'?

Finally, one can take pleasure in all sorts of leisure activities, many non-technological. Is it overanalysing to talk about cybernetic loops and desires to blur man/machine boundries when regarding a player enjoying his computer game experience, or is it a necessary analysis of his enjoyment?

blogging survey

If anyone missed the workshop on Wednesday, it would be greatly appreciated if you would go to webct and fill in the blogging survey. Tama and I are really interested in your responses to the blogging aspect of the unit, and will be using the surveys to review the unit.
When you've filled it in, you could send it by email to me (bartlett@arts.uwa.edu.au) or the to English office (eccs@arts.uwa.edu.au) if you want it to remain anonymous.
many thanks,
alison

Menu Driven Identity Workshop Response

After spending all day organising the Cameron Hall Charity Vigil, I suddenly realised that I hadn't posted my workshop response. So here it is, a few hours late. (If anyone's interested, so far we've raised over $2600 tonight and we still have til 8am tomorrow morning.)

1. Which categories are available for users to choose from when signing up for Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail or in order to use the Second Life gameworld? What presumptions do these categories make about users, and what does the absence of certain categories of identity say?

Hotmail requires country/state/name/DOB/gender(choice of male/female).
Yahoo also requires country/state/name/DOB/gender(choice of male/female), and you have the option of enterring your occupation/industry as well.
Second Life requires country/name/DOB/gender(choice of male/female). You also have a choice of avatar when you signup, catering to most racial profiles bar black people (there are darkskinned avatars, but they're not very dark).

These are fairly standard categories for signing up for online services. The 'gender' choice is restricted to the standard 'male/female' choices only, and all three services offered it in either a drop-down menu or radio buttons with no option to type in your own answer - a new user is forced to select one of those two options. There isn't a category for race, but I have yet to see any online service such as email or games require users to do such - being an online service, it's just not relevant. In addition, requiring users to select a race may paint the service provider as racist, whereas by not offering a choice in this category the service provider might be hoping to be seen as welcoming and non-discriminatory.

2. What sort of 'identities' are visible in the profiles on Lavalife? How are they displayed? What presumptions does this display make about both the people reading these profiles and those users who made them?

Profile details on Lavalife were only basic details - appearance (gender/age/height/body type/ethnic background), location, and very basic social things (religion, zodiac sign, smoking and drinking habits). Some of these details appear to be optional, as not all profiles contained all of them. The site itself seems very superficial in its profiles - the one-line comments the users make and the details the site asks for in profile creation are mostly about appearance and very basic social interactions. You could get a more specific idea of someone by walking into a bar. There are no options for interests or likes/dislikes, or anything more personal - the profiles we filled in to create our Blogger accounts were more detailed, with options for interests, music and movies!

I believe Lavalife, and the users of Lavalife, are therefore very visually oriented and looking for matches based on appearance first and interests second. (I could go on a bit of a rant here about relationships and such but I'll spare you in the interests of space :P Suffice to say that in my opinion the best and most lasting relationships are those that started out as friendships.)

Workshop 4 on WebCT this week only

Some fantastic webliographies posted - well done!
Just to let you know that this week's Workshop IV is online on WebCT and will only be available for this week. It's on time release and disappears at the end of the week, so do get on and do it while you can.
Alison

Jen's Webliography

3. Critically assess the ways in which gender identity is embedded (or not) in the cultural construction of information and communication technologies.

I started my research with major search engine Google using the keyword string 'gender identity technology'. The search string was broad enough to return a lot of results, while being specific enough that the links it returned were either articles of interest, or webpages that linked to articles of interest. Once I had a decent selection of articles, I assessed each article for validity, taking into account the general appearance and credibility of the sites as well as the references the articles cited.

The first, the best-known, and perhaps the ultimate in technological feminist theory, Donna Haraway's 'The Cyborg Manifesto' sparked huge debate when it was first published and virtually launched single-handedly the cyberfeminism movement as we know it today. Haraway, of course, argues that gender identity is embedded irrevocably within information technologies, and more interestingly, that culturally constructed technology is embedded within our gendered identities, both digitally and in the real world. She goes on to redefine our traditional notions of identity to include these points of view. I would use her article to answer the question inherent within the essay question itself, as her essay overwhelmingly confirms that gender identity is embedded in the cultural construction of technology.

Becky Michele Mulvaney in her article 'Gender Differences in Communication: An Intercultural Experience' argues that gender is inextricably tied up with communication, and that gender communication and cultural communication can in fact be viewed as the same thing. She observes that different genders observe and are taught different communication practices, and I would use this in my essay as an argument to confirm and tighten links between gender identity (because the way we speak is a central part of who we are) and the cultural construction of communication.

Following on from Mulvaney's paper regarding gender and communication in general, Hoai-An Truong's article 'Gender Issues in Online Communications' discusses the more technological issue of online communication. For many, the cultural construction of the users of technology is that they are male and fit a certain age category. The assumption that almost every digitised person you meet online is male is also widely shared. Truong's article brings to light some of the issues faced by women as they attempt to establish their digital identities, and how their femininity seems to 'follow' them online. As the article reinforces the central point of my theoretical essay, it would be very useful to use in illustrating said point.

The paper by Lisa Nakamura, 'After/Images of Identity: Gender, Technology, and Identity Politics' provides an interesting counterpoint. Despite making reference to Haraway's notion of a cyborg at one point, the article is actually arguing against what would be the central argument of my hypothetical essay. Nakamura argues that the act of creating a digital self frees the technological user from issues of self, including gender, and that such issues of identity are present only as 'after-images', hazy reflections that cannot really be grasped. I would use Nakamura's article to illustrate the opposing point of view to my central argument, that gender identity isn't embedded in the cultural construction of technologies, but ultimately disagree with its main theme. Nakamura argues that you can leave the self behind; I would argue that no matter how digitised we become, the core essentials of self remain.

As soon as I saw that Elizabeth Lane Lawley’s article ‘Computers and the Communication of Gender’ opened with a quote from Donna Haraway’s work, I knew it was going to relevant for my essay. In her paper, Lawley discusses the impact communication technologies have on gender categories, much like Haraway’s work, but focuses mainly on what she calls ‘computer-mediated communication’. This would include both email and posting on message boards as well as instant messaging and chatrooms – any form of communication mediated by a computer would be fair game. She also examines how shifting identities in the digital world (particularly the shifting of women’s’ identities), are causing people to take a second look at the cultural constructions of technology in society. Her article, then, would provide a slightly different take on the main point of my essay, while still supporting the thrust of my argument.

The last article I found was ‘Marketing masculinity: gender identity and popular magazines’ by Anthony J. Vigorito and Timothy J. Curry. The authors make an excellent point in their first paragraph in that there isn’t a lot of examination of masculine identity in media – there is a huge emphasis on femininity and the female self, but I had a lot of trouble locating gender studies that focused primarily on the male gender. Although the paper doesn’t deal specifically with what I would normally classify ‘technology’, confining itself mainly to popular magazines, I think that it would definitely be relevant to my hypothetical essay. I would spend a short time arguing that magazines did fall under the broad category of information and communication technologies, especially with the current trend into mirroring magazines and newspapers online, before moving on with the masculine perspective for my main argument.

I think gender identity is inextricably linked with a person’s digital self. In my hypothetical essay, I would argue that no matter how virtual someone becomes, the essence of who they are, which includes their gender, remains. In this manner, I would then argue that gender identity is definitely embedded in the cultural construction of information and communication technologies, using the articles I have selected to enforce this point with examples from both the feminist and masculine perspectives. I would conclude that even were we to completely transcend our physical form and become truly digitised, our gender identity, which is inseparably bound up in our sense of self, would remain.

Bibliography

Curry, Timothy J. and Vigorito, Anthony J., ‘Marketing masculinity: gender identity and popular magazines’, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n1-2_v39/ai_21136466, 1998, (accessed online 27 August 2006).

Donna Haraway, "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century," in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York; Routledge, 1991), pp.149-181 (available online http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html, accessed 27 August 2006).

‘Google’ http://www.google.com, (accessed 27 August 2006).

Lawley, Elizabeth Lane, ‘Computers and the Communication of Gender’, http://www.itcs.com/elawley/gender.html, 1993, (accessed 27 August 2006).

Mulvaney, Becky Michele, ‘Gender Differences in Communication: An Intercultural Experience’, http://feminism.eserver.org/gender/cyberspace/gender-differences.txt, 1994, (accessed 27 August 2006).

Nakamura, Lisa, 'After/Images of Identity: Gender, Technology, and Identity Politics', http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gentech/Nakamura.html, 1998, (accessed 27 August 2006).

Truong, Hoai-An, ‘Gender Issues in Online Communication’, http://feminism.eserver.org/gender-issues-online.txt, 1993, (accessed 27 August 2006).