Longer Proposal

Gears grinding...wheels turning..

Long proposal coming very soon

Short Proposal

Sorry about the late post.

Though I haven't really narrowed down the scope of my topic for my paper, what I do know is that I want to write about video games and education. I know that there is a lot that video games get right as far as holding one's attention and they actually do teach a lot. I want to talk about video games and learning with specific examples and what can be learned from them.

I know that the staple resource for the paper would be James Gee's What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy and I'm open to other references that anyone might have. And mainly by that I mean Julie of course :)

Pardon the briefness of this post, but beyond that I just can't think of a better way to nutshell it for you until I can think of a way to refine the topic.

"Be a Man"

For this post I'll be lashing out against some of the masculine stereotypes in Lori Kendall's essay "Oh No! I'm a Nerd," specifically what one of her references calls 'hegemonic masculinity'.

In pages 260-261 of the article, Kendall dives into masculinities as expressed in the online forum BlueSky (though I'd argue they're most definitely not limited to online spaces) and its link to technological competency. In defining hegemonic masculinity as man's dominance over women, other men, and various technologies, she gives examples of this taken from the chatter on BlueSky as supporting this; men will log on an ask questions and give advice about technological problems and chart their future purchases and such. This ties the group together to the common theme of computer literacy and masculinity because, somehow, technological competency is something that has become tied to 'man' as a sex; it is viewed as inherent to the gender among other things.

With that said, I've grown to hate the idea of hegemonic masculinity. Granted, all men aren't out for domination, but those over time that have said that technological competency and the ability to get something done with the hands is a defining trait of masculinity has my full contempt.

With THAT said, it does feel good to work a long day and to have a sense of accomplishment, or to have that same feeling when overcoming a hard problem that requires a little bit of mental calculus so to speak.

However, these masculine stereotypes have made the world a little less pleasant as far as I'm concerned. Women have their own problems to deal with thanks to societies of patriarchy of history until now. Yet, while I don't think men in general (in developed countries) subscribe to the notion of blatant male superiority and female submission, I think that men tie their identities somewhat to these stereotypes of male accomplishment and technological competency and we pit them against each other to assert ourselves. Of course, women have a role in this, but specifically men among other men have created multiple masculine constructs that are played out in different social scenarios be it online or meatspace.

In my own life, I've found myself over the years wanting to learn certain skills or be a certain way or accomplish a certain feat in order to have something to say of "worth" around people, men or women. I've taken the manual labor jobs that pay $25 an hour verses the $16 an hour restaurant job, obviously for the money, but also so I could have a story to tell and a trophy to lord. I've went after a mechanical engineering degree because an old girlfriend's dad scoffed at the idea of pursuing social work because of its apparent pathetic pay and because she didn't think of me as ambitious enough (another trait associated with ideal masculinity). I still don't really know what the hell I'm doing in DTC (I just like it is all), but when I talk with older men or other successful friends my age, I fabricate more direction and ambition to them in those situations.

And why?

There's expectation put upon men by people, and its mostly based on the hegemonic masculine ideal that Kendall referenced in her essay. The men of BlueSky are a perfect example of this, in getting back to her article. "Did ya SPIKE HER??"

So, its not to say that I disagree with Kendall or anything. If anything, I agree with the stereotypes that she identified, and I, as well as many other men who didn't have a mechanic or controlling rocket scientist for a father, could also agree because of life experience around other men who are pressured by these same expectancies regardless if they're implied or bluntly put. The foolish thing is that, if certain levels of competency doesn't in a technical realm for example, a certain degree of femininity is attached to that. Since technological competency is masculine, and technological incompetency is apparently feminine in nature as Kendall states, there probably has been a whole lot of wounding to go around throughout the course of a man's life thanks to sub-par performance in that area.

Isn't it funny though that there are plenty of brilliant technologically savvy women out there? I think that the figure is much larger now than in the past. Are they butch for knowing what they do? Of course not.

I remember being very proud of my mother for learning HTML when 10 years ago she had problems doing some of the simplest functions on a computer. I also know many plenty of women out there who are great graphic designers and coders. If anything, I think the gap between technologically savvy men and women is closing rapidly and will continue to close as stereotypes like the ones Kendall identified are revealed to more and more and critically analyzed.

Viral

In chapter 3 of Digitizing Race, Lisa Nakamura offers an interesting dissection into The Matrix trilogy in regards to race, power, and representation.

In pages 99-101, Nakamura dives into 'whiteness' as a construct that doesn't represent white, but what is normal. She identifies the theme that I'll attempt to mildly explore before I'm done here: the evil white viral spread, and later the relationship of white and black to one another in this type of film. This is very well represented, as she points out, in the Matrix where you have the "old white prick" architect of the Matrix (an illusion designed to essentially fool all humanity so that they lay as docile prey to the machines who seek their BTU's for energy), and the white Agent Smith who is himself a blight upon the system - a infinitely multiplying virus who is enemies to both the rebellion and the machines.

In the Matrix, white, or whiteness, is represented in a very negative light. While white has dual representation and also represents the modern and cleanliness, it is generally represented as evil while black is the organic, the "mojo", and the authentic. Even though Neo's whiteness is debatable (he certainly looks white enough), he disassociates himself with whiteness in his reference to the Architect as being an "old white prick" and in his obvious opposite polarity to Agent Smith, Neo's powerful counterpart throughout most of the trilogy.

While most agents were originally designed by the machines to work as their servants as programs within the matrix (and i should point out that they're all white men), agent Smith broke free as is for most of the trilogy a virus in the system. Still, he is still white and still represented as an evil virus. He also brings up an interesting thing to look at in how he can infinitely replicate himself. This is an interesting theme to look at in a different sci-fi film series: Star Wars. Even though Nakamura states that things have come a long way since Return of the Jedi, I think Star Wars films are still good examples to reference in this context.

In Star Wars, most specifically episodes 4, 5, and 6 (the ones with Vader), you have the agent Smiths in the form of stormtroopers. They're all adorned with the exact same uniform - a white plastic looking full-body suit. No matter how many stormtroopers die - and oh how they do die in droves - there are always more stormtroopers to come in seemingly from an infinite supply of them to bust the parties of the rebellion. They are the limitlessly duplicatable virus in the Stat Wars saga. They are servants of the Empire and the 'dark side'. Of course, in episode 2, the Clone Wars, the clones in that movie are of color, but are still part of the pale wave of the Empire. Sure, it can be a stretch.

The most powerful wielder of the dark side of the force is embodied within the iron-fist ruler of the Empire, the Emperor. He is unnaturally pale, his form rendered lifeless and deformed from the corruption of evil. This is very well shown in his obviously exaggerated whiteness. His cannon fodder stormtroopers are also white, and the technology associated with his Empire is sharp, sterile, and cold in its aesthetic, which is fitting with his character and vision for the galaxy.

His right hand man, Darth Vader, is in obvious contrast to the character of the Emperor. Of course, they are both evil and bent on galactic domination, their styles clearly contrast. Compared to the Emperor, Vader is much more direct and aggressive, his methods much simpler. The Emperor you could say is the brains of the operation, more behind the scenes and cunning. Of the two, he holds the true power, and Vader, while powerful, takes order. Vader is coincidentally dressed in a pure black suit which contrasts with basically the rest of the pristine Empire aesthetic. He stands out in any room. Its also good to point out how Vader came into his role; He was saved by the Empire's technology. He was made who he was and given life because he was turned into a cyborg, his body a product of technology, not because of his own technological prowess or access. I thought that was an interesting little thing, especially in light of the relationships between people of color and level of technological access in the Matrix Trilogy.

In these ways, these sets of films are related, and the interesting constructs of whiteness and blackness can be seen in their representation and in their relationship to one another.

I hope this all made sense. It was pretty hard putting together a supportive argument when Nakamura said so little that a fully agree with in chapter 3. Even so, its still an engaging and definitely interesting read.

An Experience in Cyberspace an lnvalid One?

Sorry y'all for the late post....My selected passage is as follows:

Kevin Robbins. CyberCulture's Reader: (middle) p. 230 - (beginning) p. 231

In Robbins' article "Against Virtual Community," he points out many potentially negative things about virtual community and the virtual experience that he dubs in the passage I selected as 'that which does not exist'. He states that those that favor the immediacy of 'that which does not exist' over real experiences are escapists: people who seek to get away from life's unpleasant realities by retreating into other realities or fantasies. He says that if we seek to truly master the virtual realm, then we are headed towards a collective disavowal of true experiential community.

On one hand, I can see his point. Communicating through a digital space to someone else who exists in meatspace isn't as personal being in the physical presence of that person. Also, people could very well lead lives quite disconnected from a typical person's involvement in physical society with the ever advancing virtual tools and technological progressions perpetuating that..

On the other hand hand, however, I most definitely want to argue in favor of our collective access to virtual community as something that exists as a compliment to how we (humans) are naturally programmed. I'm not saying that it was natural for us to inevitably integrate the virtual and the physical (we could just as well have not have had the industrial revolution and been fine), but it is an allusion a generalization that I believe to be justified: all people are made to relate to other people, and it is true meaningful relationships that we are naturally drawn to.

I, along with many of you I'm sure, are drawn to new tech and new spaces because they are intriguing and it feels adventurous to explore new things, but if not for the people that inhabit virtual space, why bother? I know many who might not be the most technologically savvy or even interested in the idea of a Facebook or Twitter account for example, yet they pioneer the space because the prospect of connecting with people drives them to do so (even if they don't ever post and just follow people). Robbins' words hold credence when thinking critically about the dangers of these new and unexplored things, but if there wasn't something fulfilling about the virtual experience and the relationships experienced in virtual space, only then would his words be fully valid in my opinion.

Take Twitter for instance. How foolish, right? It glorifies the mundane; who honestly cares about you having to take your cat to the vet because she has the sniffles? Yet, over time, the fragments begin to collectively create a sense of the person who is putting those fragments out there. I can have a dim sense of what is going on in the life or mind of someone who I realistically wouldn't get to ever talk to save a couple times a year maybe because of the problem of distance. Using Twitter, I could have a sense of how that person is doing and have a wider basis of conversation the next time I see that person. Things like Twitter allow for maintaining a range of contact not possible apart from the virtual even if it isn't as pure as it could be relationally speaking.

If experience is the issue, I believe Robbins misses the idea of the virtual experience being better than no experience. Time moves on, and with it, people do too. Staying connected to those people requires participation through media whether we're talking about a phone call, texting, skype, or a simple letter. Communication over distance requires mediation. The lines are continually blurring because people care about legitimate communal experience, not because we want to escape it.

Eggs Benedikt - Retrospekt, Prospekt

Prospect - "The possibility or likelihood of a future event happening."

The definitions of cyberspace in Michael Benedikt's essay "Cyberspace: First Steps" didn't really leap out at me; that is to say, there wasn't really one in particular that leaped out at me that made jump for joy or made my heart go pitter-patter. Instead, it was a line or phrase from this one or an idea touched on in that one that made me go "Hmmm," not because of the language being perfect at describing it, but because it touched on the more ethereal soul-level concepts that make up the basis for cyberspace.

In his referenced definitions, there is a theme [in some] of limitlessness and ubiquity, like a place with no line on the horizon in any given direction. This is interesting to me. One definition likened cyberspace to a "parallel universe" which, interestingly enough, is quite like our own. Our universe has been expanding in a spherical 'every way at once' trajectory since either the "big bang" or the "let there be light" episode (if really there is a difference between the two in this context), much like cyberspace since its onset; information is always discovered, generated, and inputed from this universe to that one.

I prefer to stick with ambiguous and ethereal terms like "limitless" and the like in referring to cyberspace, because, like Benedikt developed in the essay, cyberspace is an evolving project of ridiculous scope and subconscious ambition that spans ages, not decades. Its story can be followed through the journey of technology - from cave paintings to the global village, from the stone tablet to the scroll, to the book to the blog; cyberspace pays homage to the massive trek in its entirety.

I've never thought of cyberspace as the most evolved version of this "third world" like Benedikt talked about it when I first logged onto the internet or even got immersed in a video game, but tracing the broad idea of cyberspace, there are very important pillars that come into play that he discussed that really enlightened my perception when thinking about it: mythology, history, architecture, and mathematics. The merging of the idyllic on one hand with the psychological underpinnings of architecture and the logic of math has allowed for this parallel universe to come about in such a 'real' way in the past 30 or 40 years even though it is virtual. "It" was inevitable.

We come, we partake of intimacy and "security" all at once. Where are we? We're on our computer our we're on our phone or we're playing as our avatar in our video game in front of the television. Right? In world number one, sure. In an increasingly legitimate world number three? Hell if I know. If cyberspace were laid out in a cartesian coordinate system (in an X, Y, and Z graph), where do those locations fall? More important yet, where is (0,0,0)?

Genesis

Hello there my fellow digitally diverse human beings. My name is Josh Colby and I am the fellow in charge of writting this I'm sure to-be incoherent yet hopefully amusing and intellectually stimulating blog..

A couple things about myself: I love Jesus but I drink a little and, 60% of the time, I'm right EVERY time (yes, idiotic comments like this should be prevalent for my own amusement).

I am currently in my senior year of the DTC program. I'm hoping that this semester will be the funnest and most challenging yet, and I believe it will be. Should be fun.

Generally speaking, I really enjoy and center my life around things dealing primarily with the right side of the brain: music, art, being creative, and being "sensitive" at the right moments (really hit and miss on the last one). I have been involved in several musical projects over the past few years and have played at several different local venues, the most memorable of which have been the few times playing at the Toyota center. I don't really feel that my design skills are very good, but that's kinda the point of being in the program. Again, really looking forward to this semester.

Since my hard drive that stored most of my music and my iPod simultaneously decided to fail on me, I've only really been listening to one record by 30 seconds to mars - This is War. Taste and see..



Some extra extraneous information for ya:
- I'm 23
- I'm 5'10''
- I'm Norwegian and Scottish

Thanks for reading.