Congratulations, folks – you have reached the end of the online blogging responses! 
Since we’ve talked so much about gender/sex in the past couple of weeks, I’m skipping to the last readings on the syllabus, which focus more on globalization and east/west issues of cyberculture. Please have the readings and the blog response done by next Monday, April 18th.
- Barwell, Graham and Kate Bowles. “Border Crossings: The Internet and the Dislocation of Citizenship” (CR 702-711).
- Stratton, Jon. “Cyberspace and the Globalization of Culture,” (CR 721-731).
- Sardar, Ziauddin. “Alt.Civilizations.Faq: Cyberspace as the Darker Side of the West,” (CR 732-752).
For this blog response, I want you to clearly and effectively EXPLAIN (not summarize) the MAIN THESIS or ARGUMENT of two of the articles above and how each of your two chosen authors either effectively or ineffectively support their arguments. So if it helps, think of this as an EXTENDED annotated bibliography that you are creating, in your own words, but with the added analysis of the effectiveness of each author’s main argument, supported by examples. You cannot merely pick a sentence early in the article (such as so and so argues that we are online more than ever before); you must identify the reason why this article was written – the THESIS of the article. Is it effectively argued? Why or why not?
Also – see your last wiki assignment.
Barwell and Bowles article “Border Crossings” was very interesting to me, and I found it to be very true. They argued that the world of the internet is limiting the geographically defined borders. Japan, Australia, and many other countries have attempted to limit Internet use because they are so concerned with this as a threat. While I am not exactly sure when this article was written, and these facts have probably changed since then, it is still true that governments should be concerned. This article highlights a particular murder case where media played a huge role. Karla Homolka was a Canadian woman charged with murder, and the judge who tried her case placed a publication ban on the details of the murder. He thought the details were too awful and did not want the public to read about them. He also wanted to have a fair trial, and thought the details would draw negative media attention. He also kept the trial very private and off limits. People did, however, begin posting rumors all over the internet in different discussion groups. By the time that the media became interested in these discussion, one of the groups formed an “FAQ” about the crime. There were awful details and very “grisly”. Soon, the US media was publishing things found on the FAQ, and even though these television programs were banned in Canada, the US was widely broadcasting the murder details.
Soon, Canadians began crossing the border to get these publications to hear about the murder. In one last attempt to ban the details, customs only allowed one copy per person to cross the border. They basically treated this like a drug legislation. There were many people who went to court in an attempt to appeal the ban, saying that it was completely unfeasible to keep the public from discovering these details. But they were completely disregarded. Wired’s publisher, Louis Rossetto was even quoted saying, “Banning of publications is behavior we normally associate with Third World dictatorships”. Well this stirred up even more controversy, and soon enough, Canadian reporters (who actually knew the details) began to talk. It was soon uncovered that 99 percent of these details were false and fabricated on the internet.
I found this example to be extremely compelling. It truly shows how Internet bridged that border between the US and Canada. If it wasn’t for the internet, no one would have been able to fabricate these stories, and no one in Canada would have even known about the rumors. It affected the trial because the media, both US and Canada, was all over the story. It was just very interesting to me to see how Internet really allows the border between countries to diminish. Communication is possible anywhere in the world with the Internet. But the article raises one last point about the contradiction that “acknowledging that borders, and thus nations, are in a transitional phase, both existing and not existing, and that the political significant of both conditions to the Internet and its citizens must be taken into account”. The geographical borders are still there, but the Internet is breaking down the rest of those borders. So technically, is there really any border anymore?
The second article I would like to address is Jon Stratton’s article “Cyberspace and the Globalization of Culture”. I found this article much more difficult to understand. The author kind of lost me multiple times when talking about all of the political jargon. Stratton says, “The opening up of cyberspace begins a new movement of hyper-deterritorialization , this time within the exchange system of capitalism”. Basically, I understood this point to mean that Internet and cyberspace begins to make the line between countries a bit more abstract.
While, as in the previous article, it is clear that the geographic boundaries remain, the other boundaries start to become a little more abstract and difficult to see. Stratton goes back as far as the invention of the telegraph, and uses this example to explain how the Internet has begun to globalize the world. He says that, “More and more it became the case that talking to someone ‘on the other side of the world’, most importantly for this argument in another nation-state, sounded just as if they were ‘just down the road’.”
He goes on to explain that because communication no longer required transportation, people idea of “nation-state” no longer was dependant on the geographic location. In my opinion, the authors main argument is how the Internet is bringing the countries together. Other countries are able to see how their neighboring countries (or even countries on the opposite side of the world) are functioning and what they are doing to be successful. Al Gore even argues that the Internet will promote freedom and democracy within other nation-states.
While I started to get lost in the remainder of the article, I do believe I understood his main point about the importance of the Internet and how it is bringing the world closer to one understanding. In my opinion, I think it would be wonderful for the world to come together and understand the same things, and if the Internet is the tool to do that, then awesome!
The main thesis/argument of Ziauddin Sardar’s article, “ATL.Civilzations.FAQ” is that Western civilizations have developed a new way to take over territories even more. The author did a very effective job at providing his point of Western civilizations v. non-Western civilizations. Sardar is trying to blame the Western world for making an all Western utopia, changing history and people. He proves his point by showing the West’s newest colonized conquest, cyberspace. Sardar states, “When the West ran out of physical landscapes to conquer, it moved into mental territories.” (733) This article shows that there are victims in cyberspace, especially brought out in their real lives. Eventually all other cultures except for the West will only be able to be found in the virtual and digital forms. Non-Western civilizations are seeing disrespectable people being protected, such as pedophiles. People are losing their kindness and on journeys to nowhere. Towards the end of the article, the author does mention how there can be a more positive side to the virtual world; it provides an escape from the real world.
In the article, “Border Crossings: The Internet and the Dislocation of Citizenship” by Graham Barwell and Kate Bowles, the main thesis/argument is that the Internet and digital communities is giving citizens the ability to resist nationalism efforts at censorship. The saying “here or there” is gone, with the internet, locations, class, and gender all disappear. “Digital communities without a single, fixed geographical location comprise the first settlements on an electronic frontier.” (703) The author blames the United States for the lack of libertarianism, because Canadians have a much more positive outlook toward public enterprise.
As I began to read the first article by Barwell and Bowles “Border Crossings”, I decided that I did not see any common thread for the article, so I changed over to the other two readings. These readings grabbed my attention right away and I could quickly see somewhat of a tie between what the author was trying to get at. To start I would like to sum up the argument in which Stratton was making. I feel that his main point that he was striving to get across was how the so called “Western” culture goes. I feel like he is trying to express with how modern technology has been advancing, our societies choices and freedoms of expression have changed.
Stratton opened up with explaining that pleasures and anxieties that are accessible with the new bodiless virtual identity of internet users. This to me shows that people tend to feel more comfortable with the openness that they can have on the internet. I can see that this thought has come up a lot through the readings that we have gone over through this semester. The thought of the freedom that the Western culture has grown to have through the use of the internet has shown that we can express ourselves much differently than we had ever done in the past in our society. Stratton states that “Cyberspace is the origins in the 19th century attempts to speed up circulation time and has taken on a new importance with the globalization of consumption- oriented capabilities”(Stratton 722). To me this shows that he feels that we are making huge strides in branching out through the use of cyberspace. As he stated through the article the way we use to reach the nation would be through Newspapers and radio broadcasting, we have ventured out to a new era that has given us the internet to reach any one at fast speeds. The internet is a way in which we can see a form of expressing yourself with a one on one interaction without even being face to face. This is something that has come up through all of the readings we see that this has been the key transition that has helped to see how much our culture has changed. We can go through almost everything of our everyday life, without even having a face to face discussion.
Western culture has been defined in a new way that has helped globalize us in a new order. Stratton makes a clear point that he backs up through evidence about how we have advance through the advancements in technology. To tie into this article, I would like to touch upon Sadar’s Article on “Alt. Civilization .FAQ”. I know the assignment was to discuss two articles main points, but I feel like they both tie into one form and have the same type of main argument in which they both express through their articles. In the first page of his reading, Sadar goes into how Western culture shows a man since the millennium as one whom since advances in technology ,is now how he is described. If not for the advances in technology, we would not know how to define a person today. This is much like what we see through the first reading. They both tend to sum up that Western Culture is now shaped around the advancements in technology, especially that of the cyberspace world. Sadar states that “ as the body of Western civilization gradually dissolves into digital technology, it is slowly being replaced just like those of Slash and Decoda”(Sadar 733). Wecan see here that technology is advancing so quickly that even things that are modernly coming into play are being classified as old and not technology advanced for the time any longer. I feel like Sadar does a good job at effectively summing up his argument, and I completely agree with both men in these articles and find a very strong connection between the two of them into what they are stating about the advancements that are being made in our Western culture.
Sadar goes into how even in the military sense technology is advancing. He states that virtual persons bleed virtual blood just like in so many computer games; it is much like the real thing. It is amazing to see that in such a time of economic despair and a ongoing battle not too far from home, that here we are still advancing and that through technology we can see almost everything as if it were realistically occurring for us in the human flesh. He states that “Cyberspace is an American dream writ large; it marks the dawn of a new American civilization” ( Sadar 735). This to me ties into what point of view that Stratton was making about that our civilization, the so called “Western” culture is advancing through the use of cyberspace. They both do a good job at stressing the point that cyber culture is taking over our culture that everything we do can now be face to face interactively and we can experience almost any experience in a virtual sense rather than in reality. These articles to me were a good way to sum up the semester. I believe they show the big picture about what we have been going over in this course. As we have seen through the films that we have watched such as Dejavoe and the other film eXistenZ, we can have a entire human out of body experience through the advancements that have been made in the cyber world that are so realistic that when you come out of them you do not realize that it was not true reality. I believe that both Sadar and Stratton are trying to stress that point in their arguments. They want to get the message across that with the fast growing globalization, and the changes in our civilization; we can see that it is all being done because of the advancements in the cyber world.
In Graham Barwell and Kate Bowles’ “BORDER CROSSING: The Internet and the dislocation of citizenship” the main thesis I picked up on was that, at the time this article was written, the globalization of the internet is in a transitional phase, moving towards “a form of colonization, or at least a manifestation of America’s cultural expansionism.” The authors identify throughout the reading that this globalization has its disadvantages and advantages.
One the disadvantages of the globalization of the internet described was that nations risk losing the preservation of their cultures. Throughout the reading the authors identify several examples of this. One example was in reference to the French’s national network. The authors state “if the national network is updated and linked internationally, […] it runs the risk of importing into French Culture precisely the kinds of influence the Academie Française is supposed to resist.” Another example was in reference to the Japanese virtual community Beejima. The authors explain that Beejima was created to represent Japanese culture while also attempting to accommodate the foreign by providing an “international and multicultural outlook.” Another disadvantage is that some feel that American culture will erase other cultures as the internet’s globalization spread.
Although this reading identifies several disadvantages of globalization, it also identified its advantages. One of the advantages is that the internet “promotes democratic ideals and free trade.” The anonymity and outreach provided by the internet weakens the barrier of social discrimination because “[a] student can exchange ideals with a leading authority as a peer.” Another advantage is that “individualism is honoured and fostered.” In the example given by The Homolka Case, the Canadian government prevented certain information from being disclosed from the case in print form, and excluded US reporters to prevent such information from being reported over the border. Although this occurred, “the Internet [gave] its citizens both the means and the inclination to resists nationalist efforts at censorship.” Not only that, the internet allowed the citizens of two nations to unite for a cause they felt they felt strongly about, and proved that the citizens speak for themselves and that “the state [cannot] act on behalf of society as a whole.”
The next reading I chose to analyze was Jon Stratton’s “CYBERSPACE AND THE GLOBALIZATION OF CULTURE.” The main thesis I picked up on was that “cyberspace begins a new movement of hyper-deterritorialization” with respect to capitalism and that American capitalist dominate this capitalistic globalization.
One of the claims Stratton makes to support that cyberspace deterritorializes is that the accessibility of cyberspace allows those with the means to access a virtual marketplace. Because the internet provides hyper-fast communication outlets, international borders cease to exist in cyberspace. This point is supported by James Carey stating that “the increase in the speed of communication over distance to a point where the time taken for a messages to transverse that distance reduces to a period experienced by the receiver, and sender, is negligible.” Carey continues to compare the introduction of the internet to the introduction of the telegraph by saying that “it evens out markets in space. The telegraph puts everyone in the same place for the purposes of trade; it makes geography irrelevant.” Another interesting example of cyberspace deterritorialization is the analysis of exchange rates. Stanton claims that because exchange values of commodities allow for comparison, capitalism in cyberspace “dissolves all markets into one hypermarket, because information in all local markets can be communicated to all other local markets.” The idea was confusing to me because I’m not familiar with the global economy, but it seems that the cyber market creates a platform where it is easier to navigate and utilize universal exchange rates.
Because the US has dominated the internet since its creation, other nations have been hesitant to immerse themselves into the cyber economy because” nation-states seek to homogenize and define themselves as different from other nation-states.” An example of US’s dominance “in the direction of the global flow in the Internet” is the construction of the global information infrastructure (GII), which is defined as the “developing communications framework intended to eventually connect all telecommunications and computer networks world-wide.” Stratton interestingly points out that Gore groups the mission of the GII to include the promotion of “health, education, environmental protection and democracy.” However, it is apparent that the US “is promoting and underwriting the GII for its own economic – and ideological – advantage.”
In my opinion, I believe that capabilities provided by cyberspaces are extremely beneficial to the global economy because it provides an efficient way for markets to communicate and conduct business. However, I do believe that because the US dominates the market and pretty much dictated its creation, it creates disadvantages for other nations who strive to contend. In addition, many nations are technologically underdeveloped, so it makes it impossible to create a democratic free trade environment. While reading this article, I kept in mind that it was written in 1997 and I’m sure that a lot has happened in the past 12 years with regards to the cyber economy’s development. Because I’m unfamiliar with developments of the cyber economy, I am interested to learn which areas still face disadvantages and which areas have leveled out.
In Graham Barwell and KateBowles “Border Crossings” I believe the main argument is that “borders” are starting to fade in between different areas such as countries, continents etc due to the accessibility of the internet. I have never thought about this concept until after this reading and I believe the authors gives good reasons to back up this argument. One of the arguments that the authors points out and is the story he told about the Canadian/American border. They showed this argument by how a story on the internet about a court case (blog from Americans) was accessed by Canadians and ended up effecting the court case itself. I found this interesting but again it should have been common sense to me due to the accessibility and borderlessness of the internet. I believe and these authors show that the internet really has no borders. You could be in an open chat room and be talking to people in many different countries without knowing. Second life shows this how on one world wide site that your avatar is walking and communicating amongst people from all over the world. This article, though it talks about much more then just this, I believe is mainly trying to portray to the audience the internets accessibility in many different areas of the world and the lack of borders it has. There is no “block” at the time that is prohibiting communications between me and someone in any other country. I believe that the internet is one thing that the world has in common that is actually uniting the world. The author Jon Stratton in “Cyber culture and Globalization of Culture” spoke on the same topic and I believe the argument in this article was similar. Though this reading was a lot harder to understand and comprehended I believe this article was pointing out the geographic boundaries and not only talked about the internet being open but also about it putting borders up. This article did confuse me a great amount but the examples Joe Stratton adds into the argument such as the history of communications, telegrams, world wide phone calls, etc, it really portrays how much world wide communication is growing.
These two articles were really interesting I believe, even though one was a lot harder to understand then the other. Even past not completely understanding I did get the point out of both readings. Both were talking about the borders of countries and how the Internet has made those borders almost fade away. The accessibility now to talk to someone in a different area let alone country is incredible and I am sure that many people do not even realize they are talking to people in open chat rooms so far away from themselves. The internet has opened these borders and this is the only example I can think of, that has caused the line between countries to fade.
It was interesting to read Graham Barwell and Kate Bowles’ “Border Crossings” and realize how different things have become in the past ten to fifteen years. Their main argument is that even though there are borders between countries, those borders can be broken down and a detailed understanding of the other country can be made by using the internet. I have also thought of the internet as a way to learn about anything. Oh I don’t know the answer to something? Well I can just google it. I have also thought of it as something that diminishes privacy. What I have not considered is what the main argument of this article is about. It really opened my eyes to a new way of looking at the internet and what it does. I think that is article clearly backed up their argument. For example when they discussed the Homolka case which described “Karla Homolka, a young Canadian women who had been arrested and charged, along with her husband Paul Bernardo, in connection with the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of two local school girls” (p. 705). In this particular case, Canada did not want media attention on the trial because they felt that it could have affect on the outcome. However, Canada could not control the amount of media attention the United States was giving the case. The internet allowed the case to be known more so than Canada wanted. Canadians actually crossed the border to gain more insight on the case. This example thoroughly supports the argument that is made in the article. It is a perfect example of the internet not having any limitations and decreasing rules and regulations that can be placed on a country. I think that the internet does allow for certain things to be known that may not need to be. This caused more commotion for the case than was needed. More energy had to be put on the media attention through the internet instead of the actual case which was a waste of time.
In Jon Stratton’s “Cyberspace and the Globalization of Culture”, I think his main argument is that internet has made a huge impact on society, however, the advancements in the technology has made the impact larger and more important on American culture. Stratton supports this by first talking about the invention of the telegraph. “James Carey has noted that, ‘the simplest and most important point about the telegraph is that it marked the decisive separation of transportation and communication” (p.722). This supports the fact that the advancements past this have caused the internet to have more of an effect past just the transportation and communication. It started out as communication and has now grown more and more into something that is more accepting and necessary. Stratton argued that it has become adapted by the American culture and that a lot of people are becoming accustomed to what it has to offer. I think that this is true. I think that people depend on the internet to find answers to their questions simply and quickly. It makes these easier and I think that is appealing for people to use. The advancements have caused things to be easier and I think the people of the United States feel an attachment and are thankful for that.
The two articles I chose to break down are Graham Barwell and Kate Bowles’ “Border Crossings: The Internet and the Dislocation of Citizenship” and Jon Stratton’s “Cyberspace and the Globalization of Culture.” Both of these articles had their own way of explaining how the internet is more or less changing culture around the world or even ridding the world of cultures all together whether it’s through improved communication or whether it is a direct impact caused by the spread of “American Internet”.
In the Border Crossings article, the authors explain how the internet is very American and influences everyone who uses it despite where they are. They claim that it may be a kind of imperialism or cultural take over, because people around the world who use the internet have no choice but to be exposed or interact with heavily American influence. One example given was the establishing of a conferencing system in Japan called “TWICS” which became a part of the internet in 1986. Apparently the co-founders of this system were, “an American English teacher and a ‘Japanese with the sensibilities of an American teenager’, and the language used was English” (p. 704). This shows that even though this conferencing system may technically be Japanese, the truth behind the matter is there is a great deal of American influence. The article also talked about how the internet gives people the ability to send and receive pornographic and violent material quickly and easily. This posed a problem for people in Australia because of the nature of the laws there. However, if Australians want to participate and make use of an American dominated internet, they are forced to deal with what comes with it. American law does not necessarily coincide directly with Australian law and therefore may allow users of the internet to get away with more things than they might if it were Australian regulated. In a way, this invades of Australian norms and culture and is a representation of how the internet has the capability to alter, change, or even destroy certain aspects of culture.
Stattons’ article was more focused on how machines have changed the way we communicate. The article says that the invention of the telegraph was the the true first step into this world we call cyberspace. “It marked the decisive separation of transportation and communication.” Stattons says that the telegraph is what truly began fast and efficient communication, not computers. Computers have brought it to an entirely new level with the ability to utilize the internet and communicate instantaneously with people around the world. The article uses some weird metaphor towards the beginning talking about those who “jack into the network or matrix” are male and “the matrix itself is female.” “It is simultaneously mother and lover. In the image, womb and vagina are conflated and the male who disappears into the matrix, leaving his body behind, succeeds in fulfilling the desire that makes the woman’s genitals uncanny: he returns home” (p. 721). This just seems like a silly bunch of random thoughts that someone came up with to sound intelligent and clever (again, excuse my skepticism). I really have no idea what the person whose quote that is is trying to say. Other than that one particularly quote that stood out to me as silly, this article was pretty interesting and informative like the first one was.
I personally think the first article was a better read, because I was able to better understand where the author was coming from and though I think the second article made sense with explaining about the creation of the telegraph and how it changed communication, the first article to me was the one I could most apply to real life. In conclusion, I believe both authors did a pretty good job of getting their points across with good examples and decent explanations.
The first reading I was really amazed by was Barwell and Bowles “Border Crossing”. I feel like at the time the article was written this made perfect sense of how the internet was perceived. Touching up on what Lauren was saying, I must say that I also agree that the internet is limiting geographical borders and how at that time, the internet wasn’t being controlled the way that it is now. I feel as though regardless of the time it was written, the government should always regulate the means of the internet because regardless of the state or country, you always have the fear of privacy been attacked and violated. The internet still till this day has its leaks but its getting better as time goes by. I also agree on how the Canadian media tries to keep the internet out of the court system in order to have a fair trial and keep the rumors from escalating. In reality, everyone is going to state their opinion about the way they feel about situations and make up blogs and FAQs.
The next article I explored was “Alt.Civilizations.Faq”. I feel as though this bounces of the article entitled “Border Crossing” in regards to everything advancing from the past. I agree with Lainie when she states that western civilizations taking over territories. I also feel as though author is exploring the ideas of how the internet and violence have effected the west since they existed. I do believe that what happens in the past has a big effect in what happens now which allowed us to globalize differently so we advance to the best of the technology. The bottom line of the article states that people are victims of cyberspace but in the end the cyber world can be turned into a good escape.
The internet is a window to rediscover the past issues that our current generations did not have to endure: regulating the open-vast unknown and making it civilized. Graham Barwell and Kate Bowles article “Border Crossings: The Internet and the Dislocation of Citizenship” along with Jon Stratton’s article “Cyberspace and the Globalization of Culture,” discuss how the internet was created, original use, the distribution of, and the territorial issues the internet creates. When the internet was created, each government had its own system, each country had its own rules and regulations to be obeys by the users and citizens of said country; however, as the internet has developed and expanded people have begun to realize it has no physical boundaries. A lack of physical boundaries creates a space in which information can be dispersed among people of different countries, even if the information is not suppose to be released/available in said country.
Barwell and Bowles article discusses a court case in Canada where Justice Kovacs “consented to the imposition of a publication ban on the details of the manslaughter trail,” (pg. 705). The information was to be held within the court, and only the charges and verdicts were suppose to be released to the public (of Canada). By creating a ban the Justice stirred up more media than he had hoped to because of people wanting to know the details, while he was trying to maintain the dignity of the trial and respect for the two young ladies who had been killed. This case was leaked onto through the US internet and to the US press, creating a frenzy. What does this all mean? It represents the lack of boundaries created by the internet and shows how due to the lack of boundaries by the internet, physical borders are crossed and people are able to finagle around laws of their own countries. This open-ended market of information is dangerous because order cannot be maintained.
Stratton’s article also touches the topic of information, and capitalism, discussing how “the most fruitful place to look for a beginning to cyberspace is with the invention of the telegraph,” (p.722) because people were looking for a quicker way to communicate messages. This has grown into the internet, and texting, and so forth as a means of distributing information quicker. By doing this, the financial realm of superiority is anyone’s game and is no longer specifically in America’s hands.
Both articles deal with America’s use of the internet, not in the best light. The first article is effectively arguing the lack of boundaries created by the internet may have been seen as positive at first, but through the court case represents how the lack of boundaries are dangerous. If people do not have to obey the laws of their government because they can simply go through the internet, then what is the point of laws? How can the government protect itself and therefore protect its people? While the second article shows how the lack of boundaries opens grounds for quick access to information and communication which can allow other countries to open their markets in new ways and possibly improve their country’s as well as their country’s ranking in financial power.
I believe both articles focus on boundaries; one article represents the negative while the other represents a positive. Both articles efficiently prove their point by focusing in on a certain instance. These articles feed right into our class discussions since day one about the concept of boundaries, or lack of due to the internet. The internet, best described by Barwell and Bowles in regards to location is this: “there will be no more there. We will all only be here,” (p.703) because the internet is available everywhere and through the internet we are not bound to talking about there, the unknown, because we can discover it, and through that discover we are here. The internet location is like trying to describe what a point is in geometry.
I admit, I was truly partial to the Barwell and Bowles article and was more persuaded by it for the need of boundaries and laws, and a respect for another country’s laws. All countries are different, each with their own rules, and sometimes for safety these things need to be obeyed. Their article was stronger because of the court case, it helped to give a point of reference and was also a situation that plays on the emotions, unlike Stratton’s article.
Boundaries, oh boundaries, where art thou and what art thou?
Barwell and Bowles article, “Border Crossings” illustrates that there is a separation between the American and the Canadian borders of what is shown in the internet. This article notes that there is a fine line between what may be chosen to be published or restricted depending on the American or the Canadian view. An example from the reading is when Canadians were ordered not to convey the “Buffalo TV News” from across the border and “monitoring its ten US channels” just in case the details of the banning were noted was not ok. Thus, this example shows producers blocking out the story that was put on air as it was a threat to an American provider. This distinguishes that there are two defined lines or “borders”. The main thesis of this article is to state that postmodernism or post colonialism is in need of development. Thus, the publication of banning to prohibit people to get the full story in light of other perspectives is what is considered a “dual” identity that should be stopped. Instead of having two separate sides, the authors note that we must not ignore the differences illustrated in the internet, but to accept opposition, especially the political standpoint of what is shown on the internet and the citizens. If we can come to accept oppositions, then we can therefore have a simultaneous identity and a postmodernism growth. The authors take into account detailed examples to prove this lack of depth between the borders such as the Homolka case. Since the murders in this case were in the Canadian/American border, the decision to ban foreign reporters from the trial since the Canadian court has no control of the media displayed in the US. This questions the fear of America’s cultural expansionism as exploitation is a problem.
Jon Stratton’s thesis in his article “Cyberspace and the Globalization of Culture” is that democracy falsely indicates that there is freedom. Stratton is encouraging that people should speak their views while also acknowledging and comprehending the idea of community. An example given in this article that clearly defines this idea is public versus private life. The public world is agreeably the discussion of common experiences or “shared knowledge” and politics. Stratton is trying to emphasis the fact that what is presented by the mass media doesn’t give people an opportunity or the “freedom” as previously indicated for discussion beyond a certain point. In his opinion, “beyond letters to the editor and talk radio”. We had more freedom to speak freely and publically before there was development of mass media. This argument may be scary to consider, but is unfortunately true. Stratton uses effective examples to make his thesis clear by using examples I can identify with. Personally, I listen most to late night talk shows like Jay Leno or a radio station, and I believe these is the most popular outreach for people today. There is a lot of humor while still paying significant attention to politics, example being the presidential campaign. I can remember all the heated discussions on the TV programs and radio shows. However, after reading this article I questioned if there is something beyond these topics of discussion. Mass media, in my opinion, chooses a topic and an area of interest which limits people to voice and limits space.
Barwell and Bowles’s argument pokes several holes into the common idealistic view on the internet. For years people have seen the internet as a sort of equalizer that is capable of crossing geographic and social boundaries. Barwell and Bowles point out that the internet is in fact a form of neo colonialism. Having originated in the US, the internet takes on a form that perpetrates American culture. Barwell and Bowles use an example of early Japanese internet users, and describes on as “having the sensibility of an American teenager” (704), and goes on to discuss cultural clashes between the US and Japan on the internet. Stratton takes this a step further and says it is not only a vehicle for American culture, but more of a vehicle for capitalization. He takes his argument as far back as the telegraph. “communication and transportation” technologies, although serving their basic self explanatory purposes, also serve economic and imperial purposes. Whoever controls these communication lines has an economic advantage. This reading reminded me of a reading I did in my cultural studies class, which made a similar argument; the author pointed out that these technologies originated for trade and militaristic purposes, and uses examples such as Great Britain’s early monopoly over telegraph lines, leading to its economic and militaristic monopolies. If you apply that logic to the Barwell and Bowles reading and the Stratton reading, it is perfectly logical. Barwell and Bowles even point out how early internet use was restricted to US and Japanese political and militaristic uses. They also discuss how 80% of internet users are white and male. This is clearly resonation from the colonial era. Even now, with the internet as wide spread as it currently is, the economic north still has a clear monopoly on the internet, with most users coming from western nations and Japan. Maybe over time, as the political climate shifts, the internet will become more equal in nature and become more like its idealized form, but that would require multiple paradigm shifts, and economic and cultural changes in many nations, and even with these changes, it will still have a western bias, even if it is slight, simply because of its origins.
“Border Crossing, the Internet and the dislocation of citizenship” by Grah Barwell and Kate Bowls main thesis focus on:
“The internet is non-hierarchical and not controlled by any one organization.” (Barwell and Bowles pg 702) Originally the access to the internet was somewhat regulated but now a days it is subject to regulation. The initial purpose of the internet was for military reasons only which than later expanded. Other agencies were introduced to the internet and corporations were also able to join. The only thing that was happening due to time was that computers were becoming personal to many individuals and becoming even more available to just anyone with the proper equipment and phone number for internet access. What did this do? It definitely made the US secret Service aware and awake and made them become somewhat fearful that they were spreading illegal information to people who hacked computers. There is monitoring of certain channels of communication to be able to apply restrictions on electronic trading. There are self regulation on censorship which has become an concern too.
The second reading i would like to discuss Stratton, Jon. “Cyberspace and the Globalization of Culture,” main thesis is that “cyberspace is a fundamental transformation in the human machine relations mediate by massive interlinking web of computer networks.” (stratton pg 721) Gibson’s descriptions are saturated through a concern over gender relations and the loss of the body as a place of the building of identity. Cyberculture’s fulfillment is having loss of the body, the ability to suppress this image as acknowledgment of enjoyment or new bodiless virtual identities as internet users. The increase of capitalist economic order to new geographical places for our ability to locate raw materials, and cheap sources of work or businesses. Cyberspace has taken a huge importance to this generation and globalization. Not only are cyberspaces becoming more developed but they are increasing the computers requirements in space or speed. New commodities are able to transport through hyperspace where distance really does not exist. The internet is a place where people are able to find other people and the ability for an individual to find their voice. The internet has given individuals a way to speak their mind in a public way.
Envisioning a postmodern future and imagining the prospect of humans technologically evolving into cyborgs marks a familiar approach often utilized in contemplating the consequences of virtual reality. Equally important to such envisaging, however, is studying the origins of virtual reality’s existence, an approach that both Graham Barwell and Ziauddin Sardar assume in their discussions of the life and afterlife of the virtual reality phenomenon.
Barwell’s argument is deeply rooted in fundamental American history and democratic ideals and is framed by evident notions of nationalism and individualism. In a distinctively patriotic tone that echoes throughout the article, Barwell resists the notion of technological globalization by first crediting America with the invention and expansion of the Internet, and proceeding to characterize non-Americans merely as “foreign users” (Bell 703). Despite this early distinction embedded in the American roots of Internet technology, it is argued that the eventual spread of the Internet inevitably blurred American and international boundaries in terms of customs and legalities alike, resulting in a metaphorical (and potentially actual) displacement of citizenship.
In an effort to demonstrate this argument, the example of Canada’s supposed disembodiment of national identity from its citizens after the 1993 Homolka case is utilized. While the case does prove international legal terms of Internet use to be ambiguous, it does not prove the displacement of Canadian citizenship because nationalistic sentiment is in fact reinforced by the conclusion of this international bout of politics and power struggles. Canadian journalists eventually broke their silence to defend the case against the “unsubstantiated material” in the “detailed info pack” from the American based Citizens Coalition for Responsible Government, indicating an uprising of nationalistic zeal. In opposition and in absolutely trademark American fashion, the Coalition tried to further exploit the trial through a profit-mongering scheme. As an unequivocal staple of America’s foreign antics, in a sense this scheme just as well reflects a sense of nationalism in that individualism and self-interest are what defined the role that the United States played in this all-too-cliché game of money and power (Bell 709).
Interestingly, while nationalism is evidently reinforced in this scenario, the sentiment occurs only as an extension of governmental and media institutions, and not citizens. The case is not nearly as concerned with citizens as it is with international media and its governing bureaucracy. To diagnose the disembodiment of citizenry based upon a case in which the citizens are not predominantly represented nor concerned is therefore erroneous and hyperbolic. Seeing this notion through would in reality be akin to challenging whether the notion of citizenship is actually manifested in citizens themselves. How can citizenship be displaced if it lacks an identity (or placement) to begin with?
It is further upon this discrepancy that Barwell tries to force the case into the context of the Internet, though he ultimately fails to articulate the problems of identity and citizenship beyond technological parameters accurately. Delving into this would potentially expose the heart of the conflict as being a matter more of government, media, and like institutions rather than individuals.It is these governing bodies—and not the people’s— through which notions of citizenship artificially exist. The illusion of citizenship that is orchestrated by these bodies is thus hardly real enough to disembody to begin with.
Though barely acknowledged by Barwell, these deeply embedded issues of politics and power encompass many of the concerns that Ziauddin Sardar both recognizes and critiques. As one of the most refreshingly accurate depictions of the ill intentions and corrupt practices of the west, Sardar uses similar notions to Barwell of American history and democratic ideals as his framework. However, rather than glamorizing these notions in the name of having and spreading democracy (as it is no doubt most commonly presented, as in the Barwell article), Sardar describes the forced spread of imperialism as an elitist plot that citizens blindly and inescapably follow (a clear and evident consequence of the illusion of citizenship).
Convincingly portraying the west as such occurs through a well-rounded discussion about the manipulation of virtual reality in the context of the spread of individualism and the loss of community; the evolution of gender roles and the effect of perversity; the breakdown of communication and the loss of humanity. At the heart of each of these notions lies the classic metaphorical frontier that projects the image of development and wealth, yet reflects the image of corruption and fraud.
Because Sardar’s discussion is multifaceted whereas Barwell’s argument is more focused, in the spirit of fairness it would be unreasonable to compare them where they do not coincide. Where they do coincide is in discussing the metaphorical frontier as well as communication. Barwell’s patriotic portrayal of the frontier suggests that government control of Internet technology is ethically biased “towards self-regulation rather than censorship” (Bell 703). (On a sidenote, Barwell does not give Canada the same benefit of the doubt, as he believes can only “resort to an unsustainable and outdated model…in order to manage the new medium” (Bell 710).).
Sardar, however, obliterates this notion by taking a far more cynical approach in evaluating both the western human condition and presiding political agenda characterized by material gain and control. The frontier “was merely a trick of the light to make people perceive similarity and continuity as development and change, the delusion that they had indeed a new identity” (Bell 750). As such, “the frontier was a merchant venture, just like the opening of the new world, and now cyberspace” (Bell 750). However, “because this venture cannot be envisioned withought the context of an ideology and mechanism of control,” the political intentions behind the frontier—both historical and virtual—are clearly contingent upon the illusion of “self-regulation rather than censorship” in order to attain this control. The scheme moreover relies on the illusions of citizenship and identity in order to maintain this control.
Overall, while Sardar logically conveys his argument in a dark yet realistic and historically accurate sense, it seems as though Barwell (blinded by his patriotism), not only “fosters the delusion of the frontier,” but is in fact imprisoned by the very containers, vats, and barrels that Sardar believes the west and its followers have been captivated and confined by throughout the history of the frontier, both historical and virtual.
The first article “border crossings” actually reminds me of another class I took on globalization. What I found to be the thesis of this article was simply, because of the ease of access to the internet global cultures are losing their value. The article gives an example of a Japanese virtual community that is trying to promote their culture. I actually do agree with this view point but think that one more thing can be added, while these cultures feel they are being unjustly influenced by “western” culture they must note also that the “western” culture seems to be using the knowledge of this culture to its own advantage now with the growing popularity of anime and also now british programming.
The article doesn’t only talk about the bad points, it also talks about the better points of “western” culture that can be translated to other cultures. Citing freedom of press as an example with regard to the Canadian court case.
In Graham Barwell and KateBowles “Border Crossings” I think the main point is that borders are starting to fade in between different areas such as countries and continents because of the accessibility of the internet. I never really thought about this until I read this article. I think the authors did a good job at backing up their arguments throughout the article. All the different governments had different thought of the internet. Throughout the article there were many advantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages i realized was they thought that culture would be lost because of the globalization of the internet. One of the advantages i realized was there is a lot social discrimination which is helped by the internet. While using the internet, there is really no regulations on communicating with other people in different countries, religions, or people with different views. In a way the internet is really helping to bring the world together, because everyone uses it now no matter where they are located. I thought this article was really interesting because it makes you realize how far we’ve come in the past years.
“Cyberspace and the Globalization of Culture” by Jon Stratton has a main argument that our sophisticated systems were developed of increasingly complex computers and telecommunication systems which link points all over the world. I thought this article was a little more confusing then the first one that I read. From the article i picked up that the internet provides such good reliability for its users and is so fast for communication that borders don’t really exist in the cyber world. “The opening of cyberspace begins a new movement of hyper deterritorialization, this time with in the exchange system of capitalism”. This statement is an expression of cyberspace and that the acceleration of the cyber world is jointly sponsored by the military and corporate interests. Even thou this article confused me the examples he used help make his point a little clearer. When he talks about telegraph’s and the history of communication it really shows how far technology has come to be where we are today.
I thought “border crossings” was a better article, because it was easier for me to understand. The second article was harder for me to understand than the first, but i feel that i still grasped the main points from both articles. I think both authors got their main points across with the help of great examples.
In Graham Barwell and Katie Bowles piece of Border Crossing I really enjoyed this one , becuase i found it interesting. In the first part they said communication have great numbers of discursive speculations rather than an encounter into the networks. In communication you use social and geographical in every day laugh. The part that the internet is not control by any one race or orginzation but everyone uses it. This is an interesting point. The internet started to expand in the United States by the help of the Federal Funds with the help of National Science Foundation. Another key factor of the was the modifications of the internet. I believe that I do agree with the secret service on controlling what is going on in the internet. I believe that by watching what people search for is a good way to prevent crime and distruction to the population. The american aspects for the internet is used to promote of democratic ideals and free trade.I read the case of Homolka that the imposition of publication ban on the details of manslaughter trial of Karla Homolka she was arrested and charge for a crime. I believe we should be able to post everything about people did a crime.They wanted to make sure all of it was not posted online. But this is the only way that we can prevent the same crime from happening by educating ourselfs. The next one that i read was jON sTRATTON in the cyberspace and the globalization of culture. He said that cyberspace is a fundamental transformation in human machine relations of interlinking web of computer networks. This was sort of consfusing topic that th computer was actually a female. Yes i agree that the computer world is like a mother figure it teaches you everything that you need to know. There are barriers but these prevent you from getting hurt or in trouble.The invention of the telegraph was the best thing that have ever happen to us it helps us in the economic world. This helped us in the global market world where everyone could communicate all over the world