Technical Values of Reality
*this post may appear somewhat disjointed, but is a combination of ideas that - in my head - float around the same central idea of reality and technology.
After a rambling conversation with a friend of mine last night, I have been thinking about the value that is placed on the 'real' and how technology has altered that definition, which is in the process of shifting that traditional definition of (real in a Baudrillardian/semiotic sense). What I find interesting is the struggle to maintain the value traditionally attached to 'tangible' reality.
For many, and perhaps Baudrillard included, the concept of hyperreality and simulacra (in its later stages) carry a relative sense of loss. Loss of the real, murder of the real as Baudrillard has penned himself. But after reading an article sent to me by a professor recently, the idea that my adult perception of reality from a technologically enhanced perspective is different than that of my children's as well as from that of other adult's who are not as technologically immersed. Much ado has been made about children's inability to 'learn', 'sit still' or 'concentrate' all because of their saturation/heavy exposure to multiple technological sensory inputs (music, video, chat etc.). What I like about the article is that instead of looking at my children's generation as dysfunct, or incapable of 'sitting still' or doing their homework in silence as a bad thing, it puts it into a perspective of an altered reality, with equal opportunities to learn (among other things) just with a different skill set really...
Without getting into any debateable cognitive material, this generation has learned to multi-task from a very early age, therefore, logically, making them capable of 'working' in such an environment. Which shouldn't be a surprise to me, since I cannot work in silence either. I need multiple things on at once even to write my deepest of papers. Most of my friends cannot work in my environment, but my academic career started when I was a single mother of a 2 year old girl - I had no choice but to multi-task if I ever thought of getting my work done, parenting and sleeping some time in the last century! Point is, for a long time, I thought I wasn't being a "real" or good academic because I was not shutting myself off to immerse myself in my work. Thanks to a very helpful academic counsellor, I came to realize that I can think just as 'deeply' as my solitude-immersed counter-parts.
So if it works for me - why not my girls?
Coming back to Baudrillard, hyperreality. My understanding of simulacra is when there is no longer a binary relationship between signifier and signified. That this binary merges to become both what it is and what it means. This merging of binaries should be seen as an accomplishment I think instead of a loss. Logically speaking, it simplifies reality doesn't it? What you see is what something is ? I know that this is an elementary view of simulacra, but it makes me wonder about the idea of the 'real' being worth more than 'hyperreal'. Is this value simply a nostalgic move on the part of the 'older' generation who had to 'learn the language of technology' seeing 'natives' of technology [Prensky, 2001] emerging with a different perspective of reality?
And lastly, isn't this whole merging of binary the goal of (was it Foucault? I cannot remember at the moment - will look for the answer later - but for now, on with the idea). It was stated sometime during this past semester, that the last binary yet to be truly deconstructed or merged was that of being "human" and not being human. This being a tad off base from the rest of the post, but isn't the merging of signified and signifier via technology a step towards this deconstruction of humaness? Cyborg theory, increase in medical implants and the redefinition of time, space and what real is through technology - aren't all of these things part of that project?
All this to say that as the definition of what is "real" shifts with each 'native' generation, the concept of hyperreal just is what it is - without the sense of loss or value traditionally attached to the 'old' ways of 'real'. Will this not even be a question for my children?
After a rambling conversation with a friend of mine last night, I have been thinking about the value that is placed on the 'real' and how technology has altered that definition, which is in the process of shifting that traditional definition of (real in a Baudrillardian/semiotic sense). What I find interesting is the struggle to maintain the value traditionally attached to 'tangible' reality.
For many, and perhaps Baudrillard included, the concept of hyperreality and simulacra (in its later stages) carry a relative sense of loss. Loss of the real, murder of the real as Baudrillard has penned himself. But after reading an article sent to me by a professor recently, the idea that my adult perception of reality from a technologically enhanced perspective is different than that of my children's as well as from that of other adult's who are not as technologically immersed. Much ado has been made about children's inability to 'learn', 'sit still' or 'concentrate' all because of their saturation/heavy exposure to multiple technological sensory inputs (music, video, chat etc.). What I like about the article is that instead of looking at my children's generation as dysfunct, or incapable of 'sitting still' or doing their homework in silence as a bad thing, it puts it into a perspective of an altered reality, with equal opportunities to learn (among other things) just with a different skill set really...
Without getting into any debateable cognitive material, this generation has learned to multi-task from a very early age, therefore, logically, making them capable of 'working' in such an environment. Which shouldn't be a surprise to me, since I cannot work in silence either. I need multiple things on at once even to write my deepest of papers. Most of my friends cannot work in my environment, but my academic career started when I was a single mother of a 2 year old girl - I had no choice but to multi-task if I ever thought of getting my work done, parenting and sleeping some time in the last century! Point is, for a long time, I thought I wasn't being a "real" or good academic because I was not shutting myself off to immerse myself in my work. Thanks to a very helpful academic counsellor, I came to realize that I can think just as 'deeply' as my solitude-immersed counter-parts.
So if it works for me - why not my girls?
Coming back to Baudrillard, hyperreality. My understanding of simulacra is when there is no longer a binary relationship between signifier and signified. That this binary merges to become both what it is and what it means. This merging of binaries should be seen as an accomplishment I think instead of a loss. Logically speaking, it simplifies reality doesn't it? What you see is what something is ? I know that this is an elementary view of simulacra, but it makes me wonder about the idea of the 'real' being worth more than 'hyperreal'. Is this value simply a nostalgic move on the part of the 'older' generation who had to 'learn the language of technology' seeing 'natives' of technology [Prensky, 2001] emerging with a different perspective of reality?
And lastly, isn't this whole merging of binary the goal of (was it Foucault? I cannot remember at the moment - will look for the answer later - but for now, on with the idea). It was stated sometime during this past semester, that the last binary yet to be truly deconstructed or merged was that of being "human" and not being human. This being a tad off base from the rest of the post, but isn't the merging of signified and signifier via technology a step towards this deconstruction of humaness? Cyborg theory, increase in medical implants and the redefinition of time, space and what real is through technology - aren't all of these things part of that project?
All this to say that as the definition of what is "real" shifts with each 'native' generation, the concept of hyperreal just is what it is - without the sense of loss or value traditionally attached to the 'old' ways of 'real'. Will this not even be a question for my children?
posted by Kelly at
11:06
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home