Pre-Break Stuff

During the last two weeks, I was really missing the sociability of a f2f class -- I think because that f2f sociability (in other theory classes that have been f2f) has helped me better understand the work my classmates are doing or preparing to do and to use that to work on my own stuff.  In other classes, at this point in the semester, where we're working-through initial ideas about seminar papers, I have found that f2f discussion has helped soothe my initial "I don't know what the hell I'm doing" panic and I haven't felt that yet.  It certainly helped to meet with Anne and talk-through my initial thoughts, but Anne is but one person and I have several other classmates who know about the stuff I'm interested in (because we've been in other f2f classes together) and they have been incredibly helpful...but I don't receive that in the on-line course.  Yes, I know I could organize a group discussion, but that's time consuming (the organization of it and then actually doing it) and in a f2f class, that time is already worked-in to class time:  It happens before, during, and after class.  It happens during class breaks.  It happens over drinks or coffee. 

Also, I've been thinking about the increased amount of time required to take this class online (vs f2f).  I don't think that its because its "theory" because I've had theory courses before this and they have not required this much time.  It simply takes more time to read the texts and to read everyone's (or many) posts (I want to *read* and not *skim.*)  In a f2f class, I'm not reading all (or any, for that matter) of my classmates' weekly responses -- that's the closest analogy I can make.  And, in a f2f post, besides *listening* to them talk in class and then having a f2f conversation, I'm not responding to my classmates' weekly responses.  The *work* (reading weekly responses and then responding to them) of the course is spread-out from the instructor to the class participants.  I don't have an answer for this problem:  I suspect that Anne has assigned fewer readings than she would if this were a f2f theory course to help account for this time consideration.  But, still. 

Paper Idea

I think my dissertation research will be focused on our uses of public databases and their technology and influence upon and place within our (U.S.) culture.  So, for this class, I’d like to take a step toward that research by writing about a couple of things:  

a/ the way that databases add to or a rea part of an information culture

b/ the way they create separation of emotion/affect and the technical with their operation. 

b/ the ways these media have become ubiquitous yet invisible in our culture (and the values and systems that are supported by these characteristics )

c/ the ways that databases reify a relationship between our private information and technology.

d/ their overall placement and fit within larger structures (economic, work, personal, leisure).

I don’t know (yet) which authors from the course I’ll be using.  I could use Adorno & Horkheimer to validate the database medium, when seen as a popular culture medium, are valid places of study.  I could apply Benjamin’s ideas about reproduction changing *everything* to private information that databases collect.  Or, I could write about specific databases or data elements or operations/functionality by using any of the authors we’ve read so far.  (This might be my best option.)   

I’m going to spend this week doing some reading of outside authors, including two from UW-M:  Sandra Braman and Michael Zimmer.  Then, I’ll make some specific decisions about proceeding. 

Week 6

I found McLuhan to be quite accessible -- not in the sense that his writing style is more *folksy* (many passages were, but some important ones were not) but in the sense that the basis for his argument makes sense to me.  Before reading these authors (and I've not read any of them before now), if pressed to describe the fundamental components/operations/nature of media, I think I would have said something along the lines of it functioning as a communication-like extension of individuals and the systems in which individuals exist.  I visualize media as extension-like, with some humanness in the middle, and cross networks of media extending from the humanness core (and then moving around a lot and being not linear or making sense).  And that type of visualization is what I took-away from McLuhan.  Also, the prevailing common-person view of technology as neutral is pretty important  to me because it drives us to ignore large and often invasive effects of technology and, just as important, to not capitalize on or under-utilize the human-building and democratic potential capabilities of technology.  (I wrote about this in my thesis.)  I  see McLuhan making a very strong and accessible statement about technology as not neutral and that gave me a "right on, bro" feeling whist reading him where I didn't have it before.  (Although, I thought Benjamin was rather inspirational in the brilliance and beauty of his argument and his writing.)  I was especially interested in McLuhan's basic premise that the medium/technology loses his ability to function as such when it is disconnected from (or, I suppose, are in conflict with) the systems that support it and that interact with it.  I don't know the art of rhetorical or philosophical *argument* or have it as a honed skill, but I think this systems theory basis (those are my words....I suppose there are academic systems theories) basis that McLuhan relies upon *proves* technology/medium cannot be neutral because those systems cannot be neutral by definition. 



Finally, as an assessment of the semester thus far, I'd really like to go back now and re-read Benjamin, Adorno & Horkheimer, and Barthes and re-group and reconsider each in light of the other -- especially before I decide on my topic for the seminar paper arising from this course.  But, the moving forward basis for the calendar doesn't seem to allow this.  Or, does it?  (Yes, I know I could do this on my own, but the time to do so would preclude new reading.)