First Extra Credit Opportunity:

The Level Up event (hosted by library-being held in JC Cinema) on Wednesday, April 22nd between 3-5 p.m (free food to follow). After you attend the event, you can just post a short response to any of the lectures/discussions here.

The featured topics for this event are:

Small group dynamics in an on-line gaming perspective, from a perspective of participant, by Chris Magee – Library Assistant, GMU Libraries

Mii, Myself, and I(dentities), by Kristin Scott – GMU Graduate Student, Cultural Studies

“Gameplay experience may change during online play” by Chris Wren – Assistant Professor, GMU College of Visual and Performing Arts
____________________________________________

Second Extra Credit Opportunity:

Write about the film, Lawnmower Man, that we just finished watching in class. You can take any approach, as long as you provide an analysis of the film (using whatever framework or theories we’ve discussed in class).

• 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.

• Branwyn, Gareth. “Compu-Sex: Erotica for Cybernauts” (CR 396-402).
• Alapack, Richard, Mathilde Flydal Blichfeldt, and Aake Elden. (2005). “Flirting on the Internet and the Hickey: AHermeneutic,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 52-61 (sent to you via email).
• “A Rape in Cyberspace” by Julian Dibbell

For this week’s blog response, I want you to adopt or confront one of the primary arguments from any one of the authors above and explore that argument with thoughtful analysis, examples (your own or found examples), and support your position with textual evidence found within at least one of the other articles or an outside source. So – you may begin by saying that you agree or disagree with this or that argument that so and so makes, but rather than simply inserting quotes by that author (as so and so says – quote), make YOUR OWN argument – in YOUR OWN WORDS. Use quotes to help support your position (rather than leaning on the quotes to speak for you). Why do you agree or disagree with the claim being made? What moments in your own experiences and passages in other readings helps to support your position? Since these articles are a few years old, one approach you could take is to update the argument (perhaps you do not agree with something because you think certain things have changed – if so, what? why? how?). Or perhaps you think that a certain argument is even more powerfully made now, with the update of internet text to more interactive environments (like Second Life, video chatting, and so forth).

• Bowler, Alexia L. “eXistenZ and the spectre of gender in the cyber-generation.” New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film 5, no. 2 (April 2007): 99-114. (Available on EBSCO – GMU library; also sent via email).

No blog response is due, though if you want extra credit, I will accept thoughtful, analytical responses to this article (and how you see these concepts playing out already in eXistenZ or other films you’ve seen in the past). I will expect substantial in-class conversation when we discuss the film and this article, so please be sure to read it thoroughly.

See the class wiki assignment on producing your group digital ethnographic research project proposals, due March 30th.

• Oehlert, Mark. “From Captain America to Wolverine: Cyborgs in Comic Books: Alternative Images of Cybernetic Heroes and Villains” (CR 112-123)
• Pyle, Forest. “Making Cyborgs, Making Humans: Of Terminators and Blade Runners” (CR 124-137).
• Landsberg, Alison. “Prosthetic Memory: Total Recall and Blade Runner” (CR 190-201)

For this week’s blog response, I want you to focus on how any of the concepts brought up within the readings reflect your own experiences (with film, television, advertising, comics or any other popular media). After your readings, do you see films in a different light? How so? Be sure to explain. Can you locate a connection between an issue or problem brought up in the readings and any particular television show or film you’ve seen?  Did you agree or disagree with any particular argument made? Why or why not? You don’t have to stick to any of these questions, these are just guides. I’m mostly interested in seeing how you think any of the articles’ arguments or discussions reflect your own experiences with popular culture.

However, you DO still have readings and a blog assignment, which is due by Monday, March 16th. We will discuss these readings when we return from Spring Break on March 16th.

THIS BLOG RESPONSE WILL COUNT AS TWO!

For Monday, March 16th, please read the following:

• Haraway, Donna. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century,” (CR 291-324).
• Lupton, Deborah. “The Embodied Computer/User” (CR 477-488).
• Kenyon, Samuel. “Would You Still Love Me if I was a Robot?” Journal of Evolution and Technology – Vol. 19 Issue 1 – September 2008 – pgs 17-27 (sent to you last week via email).
• Dvorsky, George. “Better Living Through Transhumanism,” Journal of Evolution and Technology – Vol. 19 Issue 1 – September 2008 – pgs 62-66 (sent to you last week via email).
• González, Jennifer. “Envisioning Cyborg Bodies” (CR 540-551).
• Stelarc. “From Psycho-Body to Cyber-Systems: Images as Post-human Entities” (CR 560-576).
• Llewelyn, Gwenyth. “Immersionism and Augmentationism Revisited” – Thanks to Iggy O. for the article suggestion! (EXTRA CREDIT - if you post a thoughtful response to this article on Llewelyn’s blog (please put your first name and last initial, so I’ll recognize you when I go back to check on her blog).

For this blog response, you must address at least four of the six authors’ works. You can either consider some of the following questions, as you attempt to integrate the different perspectives offered of the cybernetic/cyborg body in this week’s readings OR you can find a common theme, concern, problem, or argument that you would like to address (on your own, not guided by the questions below). Your blog response must provide an analysis of the texts, not merely a summary of your understanding of what the authors are saying. The following questions are meant to be guides – from which you are encouraged to diverge and upon which you should expand:

1. What challenges do these (and other previously read) scholars pose to the postmodern notion that cyberspace enables flight from all of the physical limits and boundaries of the body? Be sure to offer several examples and provide an analysis of the materials and how they agree/disagree with one another.
2. After considering your readings, do you believe that it is possible to leave one’s body behind when entering cyberspace? Why or why not? What effective arguments do the authors make to support your conclusion? Be sure to offer several examples, quotes, and provide an analysis of the materials.
3. How do the authors describe our relationship to our bodies in the postmodern era? What are some of the possibilities? What are some of the concerns? How do your own thoughts/experiences coincide or contradict with the authors you are discussing?
4. In these (and many other) readings, the words “identity,” “embodiment,” “subjectivity,” and “gender” are frequently utilized. Discuss your understanding of each of these terms as they relate to issues of the cybernetic/cyborg body and support your understanding of each term by engaging three or more of our assigned texts with analysis. Be sure to offer several examples and quotes.
5. According to the authors, how does genders and/or race inform our online identities? How might gender or race reflect our cyberspace identity role choices? And most significantly, how do our real life bodies either reflect or inform our cyberspace identities? Be sure to offer several examples, quotes, and provide an analysis of the authors you choose to discuss.
6. According to the authors, does the postmodern subject have an essential core (gendered) identity? Why or why not? In what way might the subject (with or without an essential core gendered identity) inform or reflect our internet personae? And in what ways might our real life bodies and/or subjectivities be complicated by our online bodies and/or subjectivities (or lack thereof)? Be sure to offer several examples, quotes, and provide an analysis of the materials.

• Kroker, Arthur and Marilouise Kroker. “Code Warriors: Bunkering in and Dumbing Down” (CR 96-103)
• Kroker, Arthur and Michael A. Weinstein. “The Political Economy of Virtual Reality: Pan Capitalism”
• Watch: Introducing Your YouTube Ethnography Project (to help frame discussion of upcoming projects)

This week, I want you to do something different for the blog response. Rather than responding to a set of questions, I want you to pick out one particular issue or concept from each article that you found to be interesting or compelling and discuss how this issue/concept relates to your own experiences in Second Life and/or other virtual environments or with gaming, if applicable. Be careful, however, not to focus so much on your own experiences that you lose sight of the text. You MUST consistently refer back to the readings, either to help support an argument or point you are trying to make or explaining how a particular argument/issue is NOT adequately addressing your own experiences. Be sure to also address BOTH articles.

EXTRA CREDIT: If you want/need extra credit, discuss your thoughts on the film we saw in class and how you think the plot, the issues it raises, the ethical/moral dilemas it presents, or the aesthetic treatment of virtual reality technologies parallels or challenges any of the readings or discussions we’ve had thus far.

• Steve Jones, “Reality© and Virtual Reality©: When Virtual and Real Worlds Collide” (handout).
• McRae, Shannon. “Coming Apart at the Seams: Sex, Text, and the Virtual Body”
• Choe Sang-Hun, “Hooked on the virtual world: A reality in South Korea”

Your blog response is due online by class start time on Monday, February 16th.

At this stage in blogging, you should be starting to connect previous readings with current readings and begin responding to some of your student colleagues comments, as well. If you find that any of your readings are relevant to virtual class time/assignments, be sure to integrate your experiences with your readings. Also make sure that you point to passages or quotes to help support your point/s. Your blog responses should be AN ANALYSIS of the concepts discussed (or the one/s you choose to focus on), NOT merely a rehashing of who said what. What I don’t want is a summary of the arguments with quotes thrown in – but a thoughtful and analytical response to the issues raised, integrating your own observations and experiences.

Questions:

1. Do you believe it is necessary to determine “what is real, and what is a copy,” before we are able to answer practical and legal questions around intellectual property within virtual reality? Or, do you believe that our practices within virtual reality will more likely determine our perceptions and beliefs about what is “real”? Explain.

2. In an attempt to answer the question of whether intellectual property can exist within virtual reality (as well as what, if any, intellectual property rights should be included), Jones begins his essay by telling us all the things that virtual reality is NOT:

Unlike its literary and filmic counterparts, the type of virtual reality (VR) discussed in this essay is not a figurative one or a fictitious one, nor is it one constructed from or with the aid of the imagination. [. . . ] It is not a ‘consensual hallucination’. It is not a textual reality produced by the exchange of text messages.

Do you believe that Jones successfully supports (within his overall discussion) his claims that virtual reality (for his analytical purposes) is not any of the above? Why or why not?

3. Does Jones convincingly and effectively explore the practical and legal concerns of intellectual property without discussing the figurative, ficticious, or the role of the imagination? Explain.

4. Jones seems to want to avoid certain approaches when talking about intellectual rights within virtual reality (i.e. philosophical, psychological); do you believe one can avoid such discussions when considering the legal and/or practical questions and consequences of the virtual world? Explain your reasoning.

5. Jones argues that because virtual reality is naturally “immersive . . . VR is, like reality, unframed by anyone or anything but the viewer.” What does Jones mean by this? And do you agree or disagree? Explain.

6. In your reading, “Coming Apart at the Seams: Sex, Text and the Virtual Body,” Shannon McRae argues that erotic interactions in cyberspace create an opportunity to explore different experiences of our bodies and pleasure, but that in doing so, we must also reconceptualize the ways in which we experience our own “embodied subjectivity.” What exactly does she mean by this? What examples does she give?

7. McRae also read Heim’s “Erotic Ontology of Cyberspace,” but disagreed with many of his conclusions. What is McRae’s primary dispute with Heim? Why?

8. Although McRae doesn’t make specific comparisons to any visually-based virtual environment, she argues that text-based virtual environments can often provide emotionally intense and highly meaningful human interactions. Reflecting on McRae’s essay, in what ways might text-based virtual environments provide even more emotional intensity than visually-based virtual environments, and why?

9. According to McRae, in what ways is gender (and our social concept of gender) as a “primary marker of our identity” seriously subverted?

10. Considering Weaver’s explanation of schemas (p. 5), if we are in fact calling upon gender schemas, not reinventing “our social constructions [of gender],” but rather using “our defaults” to help us negotiate ourselves and others, then how are we able to so freely experiment with gender roles and gender perceptions in virtual reality? In other words, do we not carry our gender schemas with us into the virtual world? Or do we?

11. In what ways does McRae connect the erotic pleasures of bodies and minds with the erotic pleasures of narrative and text?

• Jean Baudrillard, “Simulacra and Simulations” from Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings, ed. Mark Poster (Stanford; Stanford University Press, 1988), pp.166-184 (online: http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-simulacra-and-simulations.html) – read most closely the introduction, “Hyperreal and imaginary,” and “Strategy of the Real” (the rest you can skim).
• Kevin Robins, “Cyberspace and the World We Live In” (CR 77)
• Excerpt from “Erotic Ontology of Cyberspace” by Michael Heim.
• Wahlstrom-Backe, Maria. “Freedom for Just One Night:” The Promise and Threat of Information and Communication Technologies

Your response to the above readings will be due before class starts on Monday, February 9th.

As before, you can respond to any set of questions or mix up the questions you respond to. Be sure that no matter which set of questions you answer (or whatever you choose to focus on) that you make reference to at least three out of the four assigned readings.

QUESTIONS:

1. William Gibson, who coined the term “cyberspace,” writes in Neuromancer that cyberspace is: “A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators . . .” (my italics, 69). After reading the assigned reading, do you agree with Gibson’s assessment that cyberspace is, in fact, a “consensual hallucination”? Explain why or why not. Utilize either Baudrillard, Heim, Robins or Wahlstrom-Backe to help you support your assessment/s.

2. In “The Erotic Ontology of Cyberspace,” Michael Heim suggests that cyberspace is a “tool for examining our very sense of reality.” In what ways does cyberspace challenge our sense of “the real” and/or blur the lines between reality and fantasy (or non-reality)? How would Baudrillard, Robins or Wahlstrom-Backe support or challenge your conclusion/s?

3. Is our sense of “reality” (or what is “real”) changing as a result of cyberspace? Why or why not? In what ways might cyberspace (and our experience of it) inform our sense of reality? In what ways might cyberspace reflect our understanding and/or experience of “the real”? Utilize two of the other three authors (Baudrillard, Heim, Robins, or Wahlstrom-Backe) to help support your conclusion/s.

4. Baudrillard suggests that “Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.” What exactly does Baudrillard mean by “hyperreal”? and how does this idea apply to our experiences of cyberspace? In what ways does either Robins or Heim echo or challenge Baudrillard’s concept of “hyperreal”?

5. Baudrillard also argues that “Illusion is no longer possible, because the real is no longer possible.” What does he mean by this? Explain. Would Heim, Robins, or Wahlstrom-Backe agree or disagree? Why or why not?

6. Robins’ article, “Cyberspace and the World We Live In,” discusses issues around the concept of “identity.” In what ways does Robins suggest that cyberspace either informs or reflects one’s identity? And does cyberspace offer a sort of freedom or liberation from real life or pose a threat, and if so, how so? How might Baudrillard, Heims, or Wahlstrom-Backe agree or disagree with your assessment?

• Wilber, Shawn. “An Archaeology of Cyberspaces” (CR 45-55)
• Escobar, Arturo. “Welcome to Cyberia” (CR 56-76)
• Watch: The Machine is Us/ing Us
• Watch: A Vision of Students Today

Also, don’t forget to go to the class wiki site and respond to the virtual assignment (in that comment section).

Your blog response is due online by class start time on Monday, February 2nd.

In order to get you started, below are several sets of questions. You may respond to any one set, a couple of questions from different sets, or write about anything else that takes your attention within the readings/viewing, as long as you make reference to each of the two readings. My primary concern is not that you are able to answer my specific questions, but rather demonstrate a level of understanding and critical inquiry around the primary topics being discussed within the assigned readings. As always, I’m more concerned with quality over quantity. Feel free to write in “blog form,” but make sure that your writing is intelligible and flows in a way that makes sense. Also, be sure to provide examples and/or quotes to exemplify and support any points you make.

1. How does Wilber perform an archaeological survey of cyberspace? What is his understanding of virtual communities and identities? How do his ideas compare or contrast to Escobar’s ideas about the anthropology of cyberspace? In what ways do Wilber and Escobar’s discussion of virtual communities agree and/or conflict with your own (be sure to explain)?

2. After reading/viewing all assignments, what is your understanding of a virtual identity? Be sure to explain your understanding of virtual identities in relation to the readings (provide examples, quotes). How does one’s virtual identity possibly inform or reflect one’s participation in a virtual community? What specific issues or concerns does each author suggest we pay more attention to in relation to virtual identities and/or communities?

3. How does each author suggest that we approach the study of virtual communities? How does each suggest they can be studied ethnographically? How might either of the two videos be indicative of an ethnographic approach? Explain.

4. According to the authors, how might notions of community, fieldwork, the body, nature, visuality, the subject, identity, and communication change as a result of new technologies? In what way do either of the two videos represent these changes? Explain.