Andy Carvin: "The Digital Divide"

My belief is that justice is unobtainable without mass-literacy. In addition ,mass-literacy cannot come to fruition without a radically public system of education.

Learning is technological; from classes requiring blogs and live journals, to the simple fact, that, it is impossible to write a research paper without the internet. Even if you use print sources, where and how are these sources cataloged? Databases.

Like all access to information and in this case, access to technologies that contain information, we find that there is no new trend in the way that these technologies are distributed. Presumably, they would be distributed democratically. One might argue that distribution would never function democratically under an economic system such as capitalism. I am finding that argument particularly insufficient lately.

Andy Carvin is National Public Radio's senior product manager for online communities. He was the founding editor and former coordinator of the Digital Divide Network, an online community of more than 10,000 Internet activists in over 140 countries working to bridge the digital divide.

His work is on the “digital divide,” which he defines as “...the ever-growing gap between those people and communities who have access to information technology and those who do not.” Carvin continues to tell us the the “digital divide” is one of the most pressing civil rights issues of our time. I agree. Primarily because he walks us through the multilayered condition of the divide; most advocated for democratic technology do not. Most call for an increase in access without taking into consideration the many issues that come with unregulated access. Carvin instructs us of the following intersections: The digital divide is about:

*Access
*Content
*Literacy
*Pedagogy

Carvin explains that in order to democratize the world of the internet we must be aware of content, most of our time on-line is spent on foolishness (Facebook, online shopping) Functional adult illiteracy is at an all time high, many adults don’t read -- so what is the ‘use’ of limitless access. In terms of pedagogy, we must realize that we need people who are prepared to use technology properly, and more important, productively. The problem is not necessarily in the functionality of the internet and how people can learn the basics of tech-navigation (many people have that problem) but rather, how can the internet improve our lives and the community.

I agree that the "digital divide" is a civil rights issue that we must begin to unpack and try to fix, but we must be aware of the downfalls of populous politics.

Alexis Gumbs & Cybering Activism

Most times, I use my blog to criticize the institution that has provided me with an eduction to do so -- The University of New Hampshire; I, myself, get overwhelmed with my sociopolitical pessimism at times. We must also be conscious of the great progressive work being done at the university. A perfect example of this is the community of scholars in the Discovery program, who are facilitating great discussion among students and faculty alike.

Black Feminist, and Cyber-Activist, Alexis Gumbs recently came to UNH to talk about technology. She spoke of her diverse experience with technology and activism. Currently pursuing her Ph.d. at Duke University, Gumbs is involved in a tremendous amount of activism, including the “School of Our Lorde,” which is an institution committed to the learning and studying of the works of Audre Lorde, who was a “ Black-lesbian-feminist-sociliast-mother-of-two,” to quote Lorde in her electrifying essay, “Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference.” Gumbs, like Lorde, identifies as a poet, not a political theorist. Both of them however, are examples of the interdiciplinarity of Feminism, and that “ poetry is not a luxury”

Gumbs made one point that spoke to me in particular, as it intersected with my current research. Although I was familiar with the idea of internalized capitalism, I had never linked it to my critique of pornography. In a nutshell, “internalized capitalism” refers to the subconscious practice of always “developing” something new to further productivity. Gumbs challenged us:  “just because something could be done, doesn’t mean that it should.” We know that the super-plastifided, multi-billion dollar industry of pornography is one of the star-studded results of capitalism, but we must in fact accept, that an out-of-control system of corporatism that defines our bodies through capital will eventually destroy us.

Alexis Gumbs is a phenomenal Feminist and activist. It was a pleasure to have her share her knowledge with our campus; we are in need.

Visit her website.

Cyber-Feminist Spaces

Maria Bakardijeva reports in her article “Virtual Togetherness: An Everyday-Life Perspective” on her view of virtual spaces, as “public spheres,” having the potential to be spaces for intellectual discourse and the democratic sharing of ideas.

As a Cyber-Activist, and a Feminist who has embraced the technological as a medium to produce and share intellectualism, I am compelled to agree with Bakardijeva. That is not say that these spaces don’t also have the potential to be destructive. I am thinking particularly of the amount of bigotry and hate that goes on in America’s top site for video and music sharing -- youtube. Of-course, as I have often mentioned in my work, there is no need to theorize foolishness and bigotry. Someone who comments on a video of violinist Isaac Perlman, and writes, “stupid jew” is just a waste of intelligence, nevertheless, these “wastes” divide into two polarizing groups: one in which the person is forced to react to their ignorance by means of their profound boredom and self-loathing mentality; and, one in which the person is a radical ideologue, who is an anti-semite, white-supremacist etc.

This leads me into my discussion for this entry -- comment culture in Feminist virtual spaces. What I mean by “comment culture,” is that, within virtual communities, like all communities, cultures develop on how to produce and interpret material. Youtube, for example, is a mixed bag, but often is a space with a poor comment culture, demonstrating efficiently involved commenting grounded in mindless-thinking.

Cyber-Feminist spaces such as Feministing, and Ms.blog have shown remarkable poise: monitoring comments, inviting people to participate in the discourse, and understanding the limitations of “free speech.” These type of marketing choices, I guess, let’s call them that, are necessary to foster a comment culture that can facilitate the production of knowledge, and not hinder thinking by embracing foolishness and empty-minded comments, usually motivated by bigotry.

Some of the Cyber-Feminist spaces I would recommend are:

Feministing
Ms.Blog
Latina Magazine Blog
Bitch Ph.d.

Unpacking the Rutgers Tragedy: One Step at a Time

The Tyler Clementi story has brought to light once again the sick world we live in, and the media coverage has reenforced the marketability of gay death. It’s sickening to watch newscasters and main stream conservatives like “Dr.” Phil go on Larry King and say, “ it doesn’t matter that he was gay, someone is dead.” Yes, someone is dead, but it’s not a coincidence -- it’s homophobia.

This passive language dismisses how many of us feel -- vulnerable and frightened.

When will we start a comprehensive discussion? When will we realize that issues of gender and race, at all levels, are crucial components in American politics. Today, in my political column for The New Hampshire, my colleagues suggested that I would “cast the Tea Party as racist, sexist, and homophobic” because it had a good “ring to it.” News-flash: If you are holding a “Lynch Obama” sign, you are a fucking racist and a white supremacist. There is no excuse. And suggesting that I make everything about race? -- well, I do. Because it is about race. I don’t know why I am so surprised that privileged whites don’t want to talk about race. They don’t have a race. They just are.

This same type of hegemonic rhetoric is being used for the Rutgers suicide. “It's about human life, it could have happen to anyone. Stop making everything about being gay”

Well, I am.

It is crucial that Tyler Clementi was having an intimate encounter with a man. Whether he was gay or not we don’t know. But why are we surprised? Isn’t suicide the climax to the tragic Queer narrative? Not to mention that the people responsible for filming Tyler’s encounter are not the only ones at fault. How about the rest of bigots that have driven every Queer person to a breaking point? How many times we have heard the word “faggot?” And even if it was not directed at us, we know we are the faggots? What causes a 13 year-old to shoot himself in the head?

We do.

Our refusal to talk, our refusal to act, and our refusal to acknowledge the privileges we hold. It’s easy for Dan Savage to come out with his “It Gets Better” campaign while many of us watch the disposability of Queer death in horror. Yes, Dan, for you it does get better: your money, your whiteness, your status, and your obsession with assimilation will help you achieve the “better.” Never-mind, your biphobia, transphobia, classism and racism. It does get better, Dan -- for you.

Many of my dear friends and social justice warriors like Joelle Ruby Ryan have started a conversation to unify, and come away from these Gay Inc. mentalities. Join the conversation, and understand that it won’t get better if you don’t get involved.

Justice is not inevitable.

We all must realize that the solution is in education. They have been asking us all week if there are enough resources for us to turn to in crisis. Yes, there are. Trust me, every Queer knows where the counseling center is; it's part of the tragic narrative. My question: Where is the mandatory Multicultural Theory course for every freshman? Where are the pro-active administrations that will commit at an institutional level to teach diversity? Not just for us, we know it, we live it.

It is time for radical change in education. Sustainability will only be possible with a commitment to diversity, not a commitment to “tolerance” and “acceptance.” Many of us have to tolerate ignorance, and we are tired .

We are tired as a community. If all of us would come together as allies, we would see change, but so many of us are saturated with apathy and cynicism.

Ask yourself: who will be next? Try to find an answer, you won’t -- because it might just be one of us.

Avatar: A Sci-Fi-Imperial Thriller

I find it hard to believe that so many of us still refuse to accept that mass media, and movies in particular are the main pedagogical agents of culture. The “magic” of Hollywood continues to approach representation in a motivated way. Racial, gender, and SES stereotypes are constantly reenforced as a result of “effective marketing.” Some Hollywood choices manifest into “funny black people” or the “gay fashionista.” The type of representation that provides either whites or heterosexuals with “humor,” the type of dehumanization that encourages the tokenism and entertainment quality of queerness or blackness.

Through technological advances, and the Hollywood strive towards the ultimate spectacle, movies in the Sci-Fi world want to remove us from our social condition, and have us arrive in the “distant world,” where our social condition is no longer relevant. Ironically enough, this distant world is very close to home.

In Lisa Nakamura’s Digitizing Race, she reports this observation: "However, as the popular Matrix sequels and other millennial science fiction films demonstrate, the massification of the Internet has not damaged the market for traditionally racialized representations of people of color as primitive and sexual if black, and machinic and inherently technological if Asian.  White people are still depicted as the users that matter in these narratives that are so influential among popular audiences, especially young audiences"  (208).

No where can this claim play out more accurately then in the poorly executed, white messiah glorifier, imperial celebrating, nature romantizizer 2010 Sci-Fi thriller -- Avatar. This dirty little film might have cool special effects, but the representation remains very problematic.

To start: The undertones of colonization are disturbing. It is no accident that the plot is the “civilized” person’s interest in the “barbarians’” resources. This organic capital that they posses is the new diamonds the British where so interested in in Africa. Although the Na’ve people were at times portrayed in a good light, they were still portrayed as being noble in terms of nature, not humanity, they are there for the gaze of neo-thoreauians objectifying them as exotic artifacts.

Jake is one of the most problematic characters in this Sci-Fi-Imperial thriller. After he decides to be a covert agent and trick the Na’vi into letting him into their society, he decides that he likes them and does not want anything to do with the corporate fascists that had first encouraged him. David Brooks starts of his stellar Op-ed on Avatar by saying that “every age produces its own sort of fables, and our age seems to have produced The White Messiah fable.” He then continues in his fabulous David Brooks way to highlight how after Jake redeems himself, his messiah status is celebrated: “The white guy notices that the peace-loving natives are much cooler than the greedy corporate tools and the bloodthirsty U.S. military types he came over with. He goes to live with the natives, and, in short order, he’s the most awesome member of their tribe. He has sex with their hottest babe. He learns to jump through the jungle and ride horses. It turns out that he’s even got more guts and athletic prowess than they do. He flies the big red bird that no one in generations has been able to master”

Another popular critique to attack this horrid film was Federick Meade. He brilliantly encapsulates the destructive nature of these films, and calls for a radical defining of a movement to oppose this type of film making. “If such a phenomenon fails to emerge, those transmissions designed to maintain and reinforce existing inequitable social arrangements and attending precepts will continue to flourish. Such is the net effect of the movie industries’ latest instrument--Avatar.”

Free Speech v/s Fair Speech

I could not be more pleased that the pornography debate is happening at the University of New Hampshire. Although, I must clarify: I am pleased that Radical Feminists are making the debate happen, as the pseudo “pro-”pornography advocates just want to screen that we are anti-sex and proclaim freedom of speech as the solidifier of a profoundly violent, anti-woman, anti-queer, and anti-environmental industry. The “pro-pornography” scholarship, if that even exists, remains fundamentally uncritical.

A discussion of whether we should explore policy to regulate porn-access in the library is one current debate. The catalyst that led to the emergence of this conversation was the arrest of a fifty-seven year old man from Exeter, NH, who was caught viewing child pornography in the Dimond library this summer. My class became interested in people's reactions to this event and how they felt about regulating or completely denying access to pornography in the library.

As good-old-fashioned-Feminists, we hit the streets. (my class that is) We went around and asked the following questions: Did you hear about the summer incident in the library? What do you think about implementing policy to avoid this?

My group found answers within a diverse community -- an elected official, a philosophy professor, a leader of a multicultural movement on campus, and a business student. I was disappointed that all but one provides us with the same constitutional flattery, patriarchally commodified, essentialist and absolutist argument regarding free speech, “....if we start to mess with free speech, it is a slippery slope”

On the contrary, not messing with “free” speech has created an avalanche of oppression. Freedom of speech is not absolute, just like private property isn’t, there is law allowing for eminent domain, and just like liberty is not guaranteed if you provoke the law. Here is a kicker, how about fair speech. The man, yes, man editing “the money shot” on his Adobe is entitled to free speech and uses woman as the objects of his hypocritical application of freedom, not to mention that the children in the pornography that this man was consuming don’t have freedom of speech.

How this university can remain blind to these issues is beyond me. We need to understand that you can not act or say what ever you want. In addition, let’s not play “political theorist” and say that we don’t find a profound tension and oppressive nature to pornography; it is there. And then to say that people consuming pornography in a public library could be exercising scholarship or research -- bullshit

If this university is truly devoted to sustainability, as they market themselves, they would know that banning this toxic detriment from our public spaces is essential to sustain our community, what you do in your bedroom with your computer is your problem, but keep this filth out of our public spaces. I view a lot of pornography for my research, and I certainly don’t do it in the library. There is no argument here. And when you can’t defend your weak arguments, cite the “founders” and romanticize the discourse with some bizarre claim to freedom.

Give me a break.

Technology and Health: How the Media Romanticizes Illness

Eve Shapiro is a sociologist and social critic, her book Gender Circuits: Bodies and Identities in a Technological Age is a critical analysis that tries to answer why technology has affected our perception of reality and has redefined our bodies and identity. Although her argument is up for debate, I find her persuasion very compelling. I also find it impossible to not see the tech dependency we have developed, if we think about our daily lives, we can conclude that outside of sleep, we are constantly engaged with technology, particularly computers and cell phones. Through this technology we further engage with one of our favorite pleasures -- mass media.

In chapter one, Shapiro theorizes on medical technology in a section she calls,“ Biomedical Technology as Mediator between Physical and Mental Health” (p 30) Shapiro reports that we depend on medical technology to legitimize the status of our illness; she views this relationship as unfavorable. We may be inclined to dismiss her claim quickly. As products of a very flawed modernity, our connection to medical science has made us “better” people. I would have to argue that medical science has encouraged us to give up much of our agency when it comes to personal health. That is not say that we have not all benefited from medical science, but for our purposes in this blog, I want us to focus on the fundamental relationship between self and technology in the medical world, and I also wish to add the subject of mass media to Shapiro’s argument.

I am in agreement with Shapiro when she asks, do we acknowledge that we’re sick “.....because we feel sick or because technology tells us?”( p 31)

We have grown attached and dependent to medical verification, we have also institutionalized their validity, Shapiro discusses this when she explains that bureaucratic entities such as schools and employers demand doctor’s notes instead of trusting our own reporting of our illness, of-course this is putting a lot of faith in people, and we all know how irresponsible that can sometimes be. That being said, someone having to write a note to assure us of our illness is the easiest way to loose agency of our body and rely on outside sources to verify our internal conditions.

Now that we have identified the fundamental disconnection between bodily agency, mental perception and medical science, let’s add capitalism and mass media.

After people are properly detached from their agency, we can now rely on pharmaceutical corporations, medical lobbyists, and mass media campaigns to supply us with the solutions to our many illnesses. Capitalism begins to formulate a medical myth that is as American as the house on the hill: everyone has ADHD, everyone needs iron, everyone needs to loose weight, everyone is depressed, everyone has chronic-anxiety. And, guess what? We have a pill for everyone of those things, available to you for a ludicrous price.

We slowly become slaves to the promise of health.

But how can consumerism sell us this myth? This now brings me to the marketing apparatus that is all to common in selling us bullshit -- romantics. The Celebrex commercial of people running in fields, the memoirs of overcoming depression, the Oprah shows about how great it is to be thin, the multi-million dollar publications on how to help your child concentrate. I am in no way denying that depression and other illness are real and they affect many, but I refuse to acknowledge that we are all participants in the field.

Of-course, when capitalism romanticizes its product we need to expect the tokenism of minority groups, after all, white supremacy is an essential component of successful capitalism. Mass media then becomes an efficient way to market the product. This further problematizes an already loaded issue, as it promotes capital gains through the romanticizing of people’s realities, here -- illness. An appropriate example of this is a music-video clip put out by Human Music & Sound Design, they are a company that creates original commercials on pressing issues such as AIDS to build awareness. The one-minute clip shows a black woman with AIDS being filmed for ninety days in her bed, they show the women loosing weight and become more and more ill in fast-motion. It is very disturbing. At the end we find out that what we think was the 90th day, when she was the most ill, is actually the first. They then tell us that AIDS is treatable and that WE can help be getting involved and donating.

This motif of bleeding-heart liberal romantics is very common. I am interest in the internal politics of these “awareness commercials.”

The poor black women continues to be the token-poster child of what is wrong with the world, and we can make a trendy video on how to “fix” the problem, without first asking the question: why, in the year 2010, this woman is where she is. If the exploitation of this women wasn’t bad enough, we continue to have the audacity to considers our-selves the chosen ones to help.

White-Messiah Complex

Our political discourse is filled with it, and we refuse to acknowledge it. Should we help those in need? Yes. But we should not, as we do, commercialize people’s pain and illness, and sell a hollow product of “help.” Our ten dollars a month are not going to help, if we don’t first realize that this destructive consumer-based system allows us to think we are helping when we are in fact destroying. Our owners need to stop representing illness through black women and queers.

Most importantly, we must reclaim agency and sterilize the status of illness from capitalism.

Mark Bauerlein: "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future"

Mark Bauerlein is a professor of English at Emory University and the author of "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future" In this book, Bauerlein argues that we are in fact the dumbest generation. We don't read, we can't spell, we are easily distracted. And then, he outrageously claims that we are "young" and get ridiculed for original thought. Firstly, I wish to apologize to Bauerlein for critiquing his work, as I am nothing more than an ignorant incompetent. And, yes, I just took advantage of spell-check to spell "critiquing."

Although lucrative, we must first navigate away from Bauerlein's narcissism and overly essentialist attitude, and arrive to one of the fundamental flaws in his argument -- classism. I can only echo the words of bell hooks when she tells us that topics of justice cannot be discussed unless we deal with a literate community. Within the racially divisive arena of American public policy, people of color have systematically been disenfranchised from the world of academia, creating an elite class of academics. This class is subject to the same intersectionality of most oppressive systems, it is predominately racist, sexist, and sympathetic to learners of high-profile political affiliation and elite socioeconomic status.

While I can partially agree that our generation can be more focused, I refuse to admit that we are somehow dumb. Here is an example: The internet bomb in the early 90's allowed computers and the internet to enter the classroom setting. Information is now available to students who had been materially lacking. This especially had an affect on me as a Latino. My mother, like many first generation immigrants did not speak the language and was not at all familiar with American Culture. The internet allowed me to explore my curiosity, and help my family move forward. With no help from anyone, I was able, as a high school student, to apply to college. It is weak scholarship for Bauerlein not to realize the profound affect that technology has had on poor people, who use it, even at the public library for ten cents an hour, to access information that our immigrant parents can't give us, like the logistically knowledge of applying to college.

Another flaw in Bauerlein argument is that he assumes that all people need to assimilate to his archaic perception of academia. I have never read Hamlet, and I don't care to. More and more students and teachers find that articles and journals can be more effective in teaching because of the length. Not to mention that classroom practices are changing. I am sure he would think this blog entry is invalid because I have checked me email twice. Students today are involved in many things and sitting in a room for six hours and reading is not one them.

Bauerlein also makes a huge claim when he says we all don't read. I read a lot and, I value academics. He claims that we are ridiculed for original thought, I don't know if anyone in the class feels this way, but my thinking has been celebrated and embraced by friends and academics. We cannot allow this type of negativism in our academic discourse. We are already dealing with capitalist demands for people not to go to school, and now, we choose to claim that everyone is dumb anyway.

Bauerlein might be angry that I am able to criticize him after reading the summary of his book on bostom.com, but here we see the beuaty of summary, as now I am spared from reading his apocalyptic revaluation of our dumb future. We are finally moving as a community, here at UNH, to expand and diversify our education, to educate the people who value education. I don't believe that education is given, especially to people of color and queers. We must claim it, and not allow for anyone to take our knowledge, no matter how "unfocused and ignorant." I am claiming my education and telling this individual to buzz off. Allowing this conservative, simply angry rhetoric to affect our perception of ourselves as thinkers would make us stupid. I hope he doesn't call his students dumb, because if he does, he might find out he has a lot to learn from us. After all, we gave him the material to write his book, which has sold a lot of copies. And, which I am sure students use for firewood and don't read. Students also pay his salary at Emory University. I guess we really are useless.