As will become obvious, a Rant

Blog/tute method:

While the blog had potential, ultimately, I think it failed in this case. Logging on to look at the posts was unappealing; I’ve an aversion to looking at huge blocks of Arial, which blogs (compared to paper handouts) seem to produce. The lack of comments for most of the posts meant that discussion rarely extended beyond the tutorials. In general, I think that paper handouts could have done a better job. Most presenters read from a printed sheet containing what they had said in the blog post. Distributing copies of this would have been useful in creating discussion, as people could have something to look at; the information being right there in front of them, rather than lurking outside on people’s computers.

Blogs are not a good place for mandatory assignments. The huge influx of posts in weeks 3, 7, and 10 clogged up the blog, making it hard to find particular posts.

I suppose that it encouraged the posting of summaries, which would be useful for people who didn’t do the readings. It could be useful for people who feel awkward contributing to tutorials, but evidence would be needed for that.

The tutorials were a lot of fun, though they sometimes risked skipping over major issues. This was probably due to there being no set questions, but rather, presenters created their own. It is easier and, often more conducive to discussion, to respond to a bold assertion, even in disagreement, whereas open questions are easy to be ignored. When this happens, discussion can be lost in favour of anecdote-trading. A more directed tutorial might also increase the number of comments made on the blog.

Another thing I thought was an issue for the tutorial was the choice of readings each week. Quite often they were not closely related to one another. This meant that it was hard to get a sense of what was at stake in the different areas such as virtual communities, online activism, etc. Also, this made it difficult to grasp the interrelations between different thinkers; inter alia, this had the effect of making essay research more troublesome than it needed to be.

The Unit:

I think the unit skipped over too much. This was due, I feel, to the fact that very little theory was employed in explaining what was happening in different areas of interest. There would be a hint of Lacan here, or a nod to Baudrillard there, but never in depth, never comparing different theories, and never enough to explain the phenomena. Too often it was just a snippet from Haraway, and then an avalanche of examples. This was particularly noticeable in the lecture on video games, as theories were mentioned yet not discussed, and many examples were contentious, if not outright incorrect. On the other hand, the week three lecture on race was interesting and informative.

This skimming was a shame, because the subject matter itself was very interesting and relevant.

Do I regard myself as a cyborg?

According to Stelarc, we have always been cyborgs – from the moment our pre-historic ancestors decided to pull a burnt stick from the fire pit and scribble on the rock, thus inventing mediated communication. Actually, I suppose it would have been earlier, when someone got bored of eating roots and scavenging animal carcasses, and decided to throw a stick at an antelope.

In any case, if we are to take Stelarc at his word, we have been cyborgs for quite some time now. Certainly a long time before the advent of computers. All this makes the question above kind of moot. ‘Being a cyborg’ has very little to do with extensive use of computer technology. Cyborgs are, if anything, a useful conceptual tool. I doubt Haraway would overly care how often you use facebook. Rather, the cyborg concept should point us to things like competitive friending, the connections formed by ‘liking’ a page, and how these things give information to businesses who data-mine the site in order to target the appropriate products and services to individuals, who are now defined by their data.

If the question above is rearticulated to “Do I think that the cyborg is a useful concept?”, I would probably answer in the negative. It is interesting, perhaps, but isn’t powerful enough to replace all other theories, concepts, and metaphors that we could use to look at identity, society, and technology.