More Lyotard

In reply to Sashay's post on the fear suffered by many people when it comes to technology - and indeed any form of change, J.F. Lyotard addresses this very idea in his piece "The Post-Modern Condition" [ironically comissioned by the Quebec government!]

He speaks of the slow process of change - using science as his example - that no discovery is adopted the instant is occurs - discussing the concept of adoptive norms and language games, he states:

"Countless scientists have seen their 'move' ignored or repressed, sometimes for decades, because it too abruptly destabilized the accepted postions. The stronger the 'move' the more likely it is to be denied the minimum consensus, precisely because it changes the rules of the game upon which consensus was based. " (p.337/338)

on a [very] less theoretical scale - i see what my professors fear of my research topic (avatars, identity...) the same as when the telephone was introduced into society and it was feared as work of the devil. In an earlier conversation, Sashay mentioned the social impacts it was feared to have created (cant remember the exact quote) - but look at the telephone now ... how many years did it take from its introduction to now? I figure, in another 20-30 years [50 to be fair], the idea of the virtual as an extension of self will be common place, at least in the industrialized countries.

Even the term 'industrialized' should be redefined, its been quite some time that the term was relative to western society's state of production. 'Industrialized country' was once synomous with the idea of advancement - with progress etc, and although it still does, there has been another rung added to the ladder. Industrialized countries are now emerging in parts of the world, where 100 years ago, were considered to be under third world conditions. We should move from industrialized to technocized. Maybe once we identify our current society as what it actually is, there will be more acceptance of where we are headed. And the fear of the technological will be shed [for a new fear no doubt].

Shades of similarity

Thinking about things Kelly spoke of her in post from last Tuesday and conversations we've had on the topic.

I agree that things do sort of blur into one another after a while. Goodness knows that as I read the theories of Max Weber, I see echoes of things I've heard about in other courses, within sociology as well as through other disciplines. The themes are similar and it matters not if you're studying sociology (as Kelly and I do), or PoliSci or Cultural Studies or History even, the themes are the same.

Is is because we're looking mainly into static things of the past? Is it because any study of humanity through any lense must necessarily hit upon the same issues and themes? Or is it just because a handful of dead people have come up with concepts that we as a species find so handy that we continually examine and pick apart their meanings, endlessly and incessantly?

I got to wondering about this today also as I thought about the research Kelly is doing on digital stuff and the reactions she gets from her prof on her topic. The reaction borders on outright fear.

Fear of what? Fear of newness, innovation and uncharted mental territories, I suspect.

So that got me thinking again full circle about the thematic nature of the past, the subtle shades of meaning that ultimately hide the truth that little of the thought of the past differs much from one another.

Which is probably why we take classes in which they expose us to the pantheon of human thinkers who, in their time, thought things that were seen as new and novel.

Makes me wonder if, at some point in the somewhat distant future, one of us will become part of the pantheon or at least part of the group that provided our own subtle shading in a theme that isn't yet fully coherent.

Requests and response

Kelly has asked me on occasion what I've thought about the things she's written here in various posts. I've rarely had an answer for her and I suspect she thinks I don't read this blog.

Now, while it's true that my days of regularly surfing to various sites are a thing of my now-long-dead pre-1998 past, it isn't true that I don't attempt to surf and read regularly certain sites and blogs, this one included.

However, while perusing here, the thoughts that I come up with while reading staying head-bound, caught up in a tangle of feelings and focuses.

True, I haven't studied yet much of what Kelly has been treated to of late through her courses and personal interest pursuits, so yeah, I'm a wee bit jealous of her erudition. But what this really means IMO is that I can't meaningfully contribute to the conversation unless she first takes the time to teach me a bit and even then I'd be a bit self-conscious, because I'd be aware that naturally she can only present what she herself has taken out of readings.

In the end, though, I suspect the real reason is that my headspace just isn't there these days. With the time off from academia I've been pretty much taking of late, my head is more caught up in travel plans, project management at my employer, and recipes/marriage/home renovations. I don't have the enviable ability Kelly has to read six books simulataneously and immerse myself in thought of the calibre she shows regularly here.

*sigh*

Kelly, I envy you your life right around now.

*chuckle*

Where's that Freaky Friday chinese lady with the fortune cookie when you need her, hmm?

Where props are due

Saturday, and i have been around most of the day with this season's specialty - a cold. Have had much time to think about several trains of thought rolling around my head. First things first, as i am told is the custom in the world of blogs, is giving props to who lead the way for you. In this nature, i want to thank sashay for being my mentor. She has been blogging for quite some time, always get a kick digging through her archives. =)

www.i-space.blogspot.com

More Procrastination

I had a conversation with kathleen the other day, and we were talking about power issues etc. Been reading more Foucault in my contemporary class, we were talking about concepts of power, that is not something one possesses over another but more like the thing that is between two people that creates the tension towards possession. No matter who seems to have the power, the power is actually a two way street of sorts. Example: If i punish my daughter to two days of staying in the house, i am exerting power over her - but in order for her punishment to be followed through i have to stay home with her - house-ridden as well. And so, my question is, who really has the power? With this, i see power as a ciclycle form.

Another issue that sprung from this, something i watched in a documentary recently

www.www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool



The idea that young girls are encouraged to use their sexuality as an empowering tool that is theirs to control. In one way, one could be convinced that sexuality is indeed a tool (like wit and intelligence - that no one seems to mind if a girl uses that to get ahead..) that is ok to use as long as the girl using it is in control - as long as she maintains the power - this is common in the sex as a weapon mentality that women like Madonna made famous in the 90's. Anyways - Point is, these girls arent using "THEIR" sexuality but a socially constructed version of beauty and sexuality - so who is it that really has the power???

On this note, thoughts shifted to concepts and images of beauty - and its social construction.. there are people who are attempting to [radically] question and redefine the concepts of beauty.

www.orlan.net

Again, my question is this - if by altering one's body in a way that is not acceptable in the mainstream consciousness - to make people aware that there is potentially other concepts of beauty - how can anyone criticize someone like Pamela Lee Anderson for her breast implants - if she has made the decision to make herself 'beautiful' - even if the idea of beauty in question is one of the mainstream, is it still not altering one's natural beauty regardless? My point is, Orlan, although one can clearly say that her idea of body modification towards a redefined concept of beauty, is still about changing your body for beauty... so, the final question is, does it make it any different then Pamela Lee? Not saying i dont agree Orlan's theory [for as much as i understand it mind you] just that, i want to understand what makes one person right and one person wrong...
Does going against the mainstream for the sake of it alone, make it right?
And really, who has the power in all of it?

And now we rest

I must say, the anti-climatic feeling i felt yesterday was not because everything was over and expected too much - it was because i was simply passing through the denouement (sp?). Had the launch left on my brain.

Today was the launch for the research project - and i have to say, around 5:45pm, i could feel myself deflate, started at the toes, so it took some time to actually get to my head. But I must say - i am heading into this reading week feeling amazingly accomplished! I got all 4 papers done and on time (and they arent that bad if i may say so!) and the launch was a success with a steady stream of people [Special thanks to Shanly and all her hard work - amazing woman! and always with a smile =) ]
The day ended with a much deserved and needed pow-wow with Sashay - deflation complete - thank you for everything.

And now
Onto some much needed [undivided] attention to the research - nothing else but =)

Anti-Climatic

Like anything else that builds and builds and builds for too long, most endings are anti-climatic!
FINALLY finished all my [school] work that is due before the break...As much relief as i feel to be done, there is always something looming on the horizon. Tomorrow, there is a launch for the research group i am a part of. I know that it will go well, but i have invested so much of myself, if not only my feelings, into this project. Its all good - nothing a stiff gin and lemon wont fix!

When it all starts to look the same...

I've been working on a paper for my Contemporary Social Theory class (among too many other things it seems) and I have reached a point where all the readings are melding into one another...Even in the standard Foucault/Habermas debates, i am seeing similarities in thought - the same thing being said a different way...Lyotard and Habermas - same thing... Z. Bauman and Habermas.. Bauman and Foucault.. in class, the differences are distinguished.. but when I read it, it seems to blend into one.

I know that it leads back to the [pivotal] enlightenment period. Whether they are trying to downplay this event in social history, and its effects (or lack of..!) on the rest of history, or giving it full props for who we are today, all the theory seems to iterate the 'what if' or 'look at it this way instead' of theoretical debate.
I cant imagine how fine one can split a hair!

I was impressed with Immanuel Kant's work on theory of the present 'Aufklarung', until Foucault decided to dissect it, along with J.F. Lyotard.

This is what i see [based on the selected readings of my coursepack] in the Modernity vs Post Mdernity debate.

claim 1: There is no distinction, only evolution of modern, since modern is defined as distinct from the past. Bauman talks about this in terms of the fluidity of time being the key, not the solidity of space..

claim 2: Modern was created (very loosely speaking) to break free from the rigid rules of the 'ancients', but is now becoming as rigid as what it was trying to break from. (claim 1 makes sense according to this - but again, there are slight distinctions that keep them seperated..)

claim 3: Modern is predictability, Post Modern is spontaneous and in no way predictable..

claim 4: Even Post Modernity has become as predictable as modernity, falling back into the circle of claim 2 therefore - there needs to be a post post modernity?

claim 5: Post modernity is not about breaking away from modernity's structure, but to redefine better structures...

I think it is easy to see how the debate becomes blurred, and i have to say - all this cyclical thinking hasnt cleared up a darn thing and i have a paper due tomorrow !!

Technical Admin
Ill look into the reading list etc this weekend.
Worse comes to worse, you can always email me the list and i can post it.

Ive been dying to write the last few days as things are heating up as reading week approaches.. workload has increased, and alas this equation can only calculate to a big fat "0" ! Nothing left in my head but the spinning wheels without any oil..

come next thursday night, all should go back to normal... whatever that may be =)

Posting reading list?

Kelly - have you figured out how the rest of us can participate in the Reading List over there on the right? I don't think with blogger you can give us access to the template -- or can you?

If you get bored this week between writing papers, being a mom, a research assistant, a student, a SO, etc. etc. can you check into it? ;-)

Thanks.

Notable site

Kelly - given the explorations of power that you are doing in your classes and in the post you put up last week, I thought you might enjoy this site that is about all things Foucault...

It's called Foucault Resources -- dumb name but great site.

May I suggest we put it in the site links over there at the right?

Experiences at uni

This one isn't so much a rant as an actual question to y'all...

It seems I end up in classes all the time that have at least one person who is...what's the PC term these days?.... "mentally disadvantaged"?

I mean that literally, not ironically. In each semester at Concordia so far, I have at least one class in which there is a student who seems to have some sort of impairment, be it down's syndrome or some other actual acknowledged _thing_ that means that they aren't at the same mental level as the rest of the class.

So what I want to know, at the risk of sounding callous and mean, why are they there? They don't seem to understand most of what is going on in class. Prof hands out an assignment and inevitably they'll pipe up with some comment like "But I don't WANT to write a paper!" or worse..."what's a paper?" (that really happened in my AHSC 220 class!). If they aren't at the university level mentally (and each of the 4 people I've had in four different classes haven't seemed to be past primary school, mentally)...why are they there?

Another corollary question -- how did they get in? And what to they hope to get out of it?

Am I the only one who has noticed this? I know Tamara has seen it too, 'cause she is in a class with me this year that has such a person in it.

Kelly? Any experiences with this? Any insights? Can you sell me a clue?

Differences between "real" world and academia (Part 1)

Okay where do I start?

I think I'll just be generally prolific today (i.e. spewing opinions)! So you're warned! This is the first of many over the next few days...

/rant on

For Kelly's post about learning through talking things out the way I think happens in a seminar session in the upper years....made me think about something that happened at work lately that stood in stark contrast to that and made me think about the difference between so-called "real world" and academia...

I'm the type of person that figures things out and sorts them out by talking them out with someone or writing them out. I'm also a collaborative type. All of this means that when I've got a problem to solve or an issue to address or a bunch of avenues to explore to do some type of task, I want to sit down with someone and hash it out by talking it out loud.

No problem right?

Sure. No problem in academia.

Try doing it on the job. Especially with a man (there's no gender police on this blog, is there?)

See...I've gone through three bosses in three years on this job in big pharma here in Laval. My first two bosses understood my collaborative and vocal tendencies and indulged me. To digress a bit, given that I'm doing web stuff AND I'm kinda doing bleeding-edge stuff (as least, bleeding edge compared to everyone else in my company and the pharma industry)...no one gets me. So I can't talk to just my general co-workers, cause I don't have any ...and I can't talk to my clients...cause they don't get it...

Anyways, I get this new pseudo-temporary-boss last fall when my second boss went off to become a sales rep in the company. I'm working on a project. It's an important project for the company. I hit a snag or an issue or whatever on a few occasions. Project, life. Normal right? I schedule a quick meeting and I sit down with my pseudo-boss dude and I talk about it with him. We come up with solutions. I implement them. Figured all was well.

Not so fast.

Today I get my annual performance review for 2003 in the internal mail from my actual boss, who's the VP of the department. Turns out she's asked my pseudo-boss to do most of my review and he has put something in there about how I have trouble problem solving and managing projects and he had to hold my hand on more than one occasion and that means that I need serious help and coaching and trianing on project management!

This...from the guy who ALSO got pissed when he ISN'T consulted!!!

So because of that ONE DAMN COMMENT from him, I won't get a bonus this year!!!!

ARGH!

Someone! Quick! Check! Is the top of my head still there????

/rant off

Media/Technology/Politics - Discussion Topics

I complained about the girls in my class yesterday, and must retract [SOME] of my commentaries.. since i got off by butt to answer the questions the professor posted, i kind of suppose maybe they had some relativity BUT to be fair - they also told the prof. not to argue with them!
Anyways
Figured i would post the questions we had to answer this week for our online discussion group along with my answer - see what you think...


Is political power affected by technology? Reworded: Do the enframing qualities of technology act as structural determinants for power?
The development of technology has its history in military funding, and therefore, politics and power are inherent within its materiality. Structural form and function were, by design, intended to benefit the power structure of those funding the research and development. The relationship between power and technology is apparent in how we determine a nation’s position within the global hierarchical power structure. The most “powerful” nations are those with the furthest technological advances.
Food for thought…In Z. Bauman’s foreword to his work “On being light and liquid” (2000) discussing [political] power in post-modern times, he writes;
Power can move with the speed of the electronic signal – and so the time required for the movement of its essential ingredients has been reduced to instantaneity. For all practical purposes, power has become truly exterritorial, no longer bound, not even slowed down by the resistance of space…This gives the power-holders a truly unprecedented opportunity: the awkward and irritating aspects of the panoptical technique of power may be disposed of…

Many bemoan the impoverishment of language. Is the capacity of thinking affected by this possibility? Reworded: If language is impoverished, is thinking likewise lessened?

As stressed by the commentaries in class last week, the debate appears to be whether language is indeed impoverished or simply in its natural state of change. IF language is impoverished then the capacity for thought is as well, [based on pure logical deduction of the question – following the idea that language is a tool of expression] IF language is evolving so must the thought process. Better or worse is again open for debate; is the “bemoaning” simply a nostalgic cry for traditional use of language?

The question above must be contextualized to be answered fairly. Who is the question addressing, the ‘general population’ of western society? Who determines whether language is in a state of impoverishment – the elite? If rhetoric and metaphor in the traditional sense is lost, what is replacing it?

I do not believe that such generalizations can be made, seeing as rhetoric and metaphor appear to be alive and kicking within many academic fields and contemporary writing. If there is disintegration of language structure and quality therefore potentially affecting the ability to think we have to ask ourselves to what extent], I cannot believe that technology is ‘impoverishing’ language but rather the lack of government support for basic education.

Reminder why i bother

In reply to my own post earlier today, i must say, that the reason i bother..

I got to spend the afternoon at school, working [intermittently] on the research im working on. Through all the people who think that they are in university to express their opinions, and not necessarily to learn, i am blessed with meeting people who understand critical theory and how it functions. I have been lucky to meet people who challenge what i understand of the things i am learning, and can only hope that these people will be around for some time to continue to challenge me. Again, Kathleen has helped direct my thought process on post modernism in contemporary educational systems etc. What does this mean to me, and how does my last commentaries fit into our conversation. She helped me work through the difference between lectures and seminars.

How you can learn, have opinions and still add food for thought to a conversation that furthers your knowledge. People who claim to know what they are talking about 100% are being equally ignorant to the process of learning. People who are unwillingly to hear out another party completely to see how another view fits into their own are denying themselves the intellectual benefit that is the university experience. I understand that my own negative attitudes towards what [in my opinion] was off topic opinionated commentaries by these girls may even undermine my own advice of listening to alternative views, and i promise i would have IF they had spoken on topic and in context of the course that i am paying the university to teach me about. I am not there to tell other people what i think, personal stories and off topic reflections are irrelevant.

Although i am learning the process to think critically and am developing my own opinions based on what i am learning, i dont think i have the right to impose my views on the class, especially when it takes up more then half of the class time.

Anyways - enough gripping from me! If anything, this will teach me to try to take what i can out of a class - regardless who or what tries to derail the topic at hand.

On to deeper thoughts... =)

Why Bother?

I find myself constantly asking myself this question in respect to those people who go to University who [think] they already know everything thing. Im sitting in my media/tech/poli class and the prof is talking about the loss of rhetoric and metaphor in our society. The question posed to the class was along the lines of this "Is the impoverishment of today;s language affected by technology?" The question was based around the idea that language has lost some of its effect and how does that affect things like mass media, and public understanding. Instead, there were several girls in the class who felt the need to attack the use of the word impoverished - stating that language changes - whether it is for the better of for the worse should be irrelevant... that from a linguistic persperspective, language use is contextual, therefore any historical debate is arbitrary (thats my interpretation of what they were saying) From them, it came out more like "You cant say that language is impoverished - I'm a well read linguist and therefore you cant really argue with me..."

I think to myself, well, the point of the original debate has been missed... AND these girls have the nerve to tell the professor that he is wrong, and that he shouldnt disagree with them??? I find myself asking why do these people bother attending university if they already know everything? Can't somebody just give them a piece of paper stating they're too freaking smart!?! At least it would get them out of my classes... Sadly, we didnt have much time to get to the actual [relevant] point of the topic at hand..
And so, i lost another 3 hours of education to people who think they know it all../sigh

Academic Entertainment

My Ethnolinguistics class can be dry at times - we are still looking at the historical debates in language development some 10,000 years ago...
My professor added this in our reader - made me smile!
http://www.icw-net.com/howto/funstuff/euroengl.htm

There's a Time and a Place for Everything...

Obviously, not everyone knows that! I couldnt agree with you more!! I think Sashay may have a few words on it as well heh! We went to go see the last samurai (i liked it alot despite tom cruise!) and the chatting .. not even whispering was insane! It got to the point that a shouting match ensued, telling these yappers to shut the f*ck up!

And then the use of cell phones...
in the theaters... in the classrooms.... in meetings... unless your a surgeon being called in for an emergency i cannot understand what the hell is SO important to these people that they cant put their phones on silent - hell my phone is on silent by default!!

With the risk of sounding older then i am (in age maybe not in spirit heh) I cant help but think it is a generational thing.. a generation raised with flash images and instant gratification, seems ADD is rampant these days... I was sitting in my media class, the desks are basically one long line of desks stuck together, so there is no space between each desk, the girl beside me (in her early twenties i assume) was sitting there text messaging the entire class... clickety clack click click click... frantic clicking with stiffled giggles.. worse thing is, she was sitting in the front row, right in front of the prof.! Nonetheless, that coupled with the two people who sit behind me in that very same class, who feel the need to whisper non-stop during the entire 3 hours of class - makes my blood boil... i cannot understand why these people were never taught that there is a time and a place for everything, who knows, they were probably chatting through that life lesson as well!

Now for a change of pace...
I've been reading with interest all of your thoughts and ideas, Kelly. Thought-provoking and amusing, but really not addressing the KEY issue of our time (which I, of course, shall introduce to the Blog):
PEOPLE WHO TALK IN MOVIES (or people who shake popcorn bags, crinkle plastic and other petty annoyances).
This is something that I just have to rant about because it's gotten so far out of hand.
What is up with people talking in movies? This is definitely a recent social phenomenon that must be addressed before CINEMA RAGE is unleashed. Living in the utterly boring metropolis of Moncton, NB, I see a lot of movies. In fact, I've seen practically every movie that was released this year (excluding the shite like 'Stuck on You' and 'Cat in the Hat'). Without fail, my movie-going experience has been ruined on almost every single occasion due to the rudeness of others. It seems that for some people, when the lights go down, a neuro-mechanism is triggered that leads them to talk incessantly throughout the film. What are they talking about?? Why can't it wait? And I don't mean wait until the most critical, pivotal moment of the film when the action cuts to dead silence.
So, what to do? Well, yesterday I went to see Monster (amazing, btw) and I was determined to not have it destroyed by ignoramuses. So, we got great side seats with no one in front of or behind us...Until the lights went down. A woman comes and sits behind us...Ok...I'm starting to worry...She proceeds to unwrap about 50 plastic bags...Don't ask me what she was doing, but if I had to guess, I'd say she had individually wrapped raisins...The crinkling was beyond reason. Fine, ok, I could cope with that...Then about 10 minutes into the film, 2 young women come in and plunk down behind us as well. Totally disruptive, taking off coats, whispering, etc. I did the old "swift head turn and glare" a couple of times, silently vowing to give them only 3 chances to shut the fuck up. At the 3rd whisper session, I turned around to see one chick pouring her chemical flavouring onto her humongous popcorn and then shaking it up, not once, not twice, but 3 times!! WHY????
So I had to say something, I couldn't contain myself..."Please be quiet," I growled. Well, the look of astonishment that crossed this girl's face was priceless. It was as though no one had ever asked her to be quiet in her life, that this movie theatre was her private vestige to behave in as she pleased, and how dare I even glance in her direction? Of course, this spurned another frantic whispering conference, so I got up and stomped 2 rows ahead to finish watching the film in peace. As I stood up, the word "BITCH" was hissed in my ear.
So, finished the film, loved it, made a vow in future to wait until movie starts before picking a seat, and have been pondering what to do ever since. I'm thinking of writing a letter to the editor of our local paper, a plea for silence. Also, thinking of proposing "Talker Times" at the theatres so all the idiots can go at the same time.
I just can't understand how one can be so oblivious to their surroundings, so completely self-absorbed that this behaviour not only persists but seems to be spreading by leaps and bounds...What's happening??
Any thoughts, comments, suggestions, would be greatly appreciated.
Spread the word:
SHUT THE FUCK UP - I'M TRYING TO WATCH A MOVIE!!