Between The X-Files
I thought I could fire off some witty commentary on the readings during commercial breaks of The X-Files. That obviously didn't happen. (Who can function with the distractions of David Duchovny?)
While reading Turkle, I was reminded of our task during the last class to define "community," "identity," and "design." Turkle claims that technologies such as windows and MUDs help people to define themselves through various communities or interfaces. "[...] windows have become a powerful metaphor for thinking about the self as a multiple, distributed system. The self is no longer simply playing different roles in different settings at different times, something that a person experiences when, for example, she wakes up as a lover, makes breakfast as a mother, and drives to work as a lawyer." Apparently, windows (etc.) distinguish and separate out different aspects of our identities. I am violently opposed to this notion, as I was (somewhat) violently opposed to the definitions "we" (ahem) came up with in my previous post. Betsy wanted to define things as they are related to Web 2.0, which makes sense as a task but offends me as an idea (especially "identity," which, for whatever reason, is a very sensitive topic for me). Technology does not define me. Web 2.0 does not define me. Technology, Web 2.0, etc., is all a part of me, but they do not define me. Turkle's distinguishing between the lover, the mother, and the lawyer similarly irked me. Yes, I can have aspects of my identity that include a lover, mother, and lawyer, but I am not the sum of these parts. Maybe it's arrogant of me to believe that I am too complex to be parsed out in this manner, but I don't care.
Warning: possibly racist comments to follow
I suppose that's the American side of my upbringing (again, a part of me, but not what I would call a separate identity). I think it's funny that activity theory (i.e. Wenger's "social theory of learning") is such a novel idea in Western culture. Westerners are so deeply ingrained in their belief that the individual is king, and the community follows. No wonder it took outside influence (the socialists) to bring in something completely new and novel, like social learning, activity theory, etc.
I would say more on this, but Stargate is on. I probably shouldn't be completing assignments with the Sci-Fi Channel in the background.
While reading Turkle, I was reminded of our task during the last class to define "community," "identity," and "design." Turkle claims that technologies such as windows and MUDs help people to define themselves through various communities or interfaces. "[...] windows have become a powerful metaphor for thinking about the self as a multiple, distributed system. The self is no longer simply playing different roles in different settings at different times, something that a person experiences when, for example, she wakes up as a lover, makes breakfast as a mother, and drives to work as a lawyer." Apparently, windows (etc.) distinguish and separate out different aspects of our identities. I am violently opposed to this notion, as I was (somewhat) violently opposed to the definitions "we" (ahem) came up with in my previous post. Betsy wanted to define things as they are related to Web 2.0, which makes sense as a task but offends me as an idea (especially "identity," which, for whatever reason, is a very sensitive topic for me). Technology does not define me. Web 2.0 does not define me. Technology, Web 2.0, etc., is all a part of me, but they do not define me. Turkle's distinguishing between the lover, the mother, and the lawyer similarly irked me. Yes, I can have aspects of my identity that include a lover, mother, and lawyer, but I am not the sum of these parts. Maybe it's arrogant of me to believe that I am too complex to be parsed out in this manner, but I don't care.
Warning: possibly racist comments to follow
I suppose that's the American side of my upbringing (again, a part of me, but not what I would call a separate identity). I think it's funny that activity theory (i.e. Wenger's "social theory of learning") is such a novel idea in Western culture. Westerners are so deeply ingrained in their belief that the individual is king, and the community follows. No wonder it took outside influence (the socialists) to bring in something completely new and novel, like social learning, activity theory, etc.
I would say more on this, but Stargate is on. I probably shouldn't be completing assignments with the Sci-Fi Channel in the background.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Between The X-Files.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blogs.psu.edu/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/3162
Leave a comment