Tuesday, November 24, 2009

My Thoughts on Facebook

During the commercial break of a football game I was watching this past weekend, the segment where the top or "interesting" headlines of the upcoming news broadcast are announced in an attempt to get viewers to tune in, there was a headline dealing with Facebook. I didn't tune in to the full news story but the headline dealt with a woman who lost her health benefits because of her Facebook account that had pictures posted on it of her living it up and partying in what seemed to be in a bar setting. I hate reporting half truths or incomplete stories but in this case I feel the gist of the story is sufficient enough to make a point. Basically, this woman's indiscretions and bad judgment caused her to loose health benefits because her habits and essentially her life are on the net for all to see. How is that for coming back to bite her in the ass?

I don't have a Facebook, never had a Myspace, nor Twitter. I don't feel the need to place my life or activities for all to see. I too am a very private person and this has nothing to do with being ashamed or a fear of being transparent, its simply none of anyone's business what I do on my own private time. If I feel the need to see someone, I will call them and meet up for a cup of coffee. As far as meeting new people with similar interests, I feel there is so much to be said about meeting someone in person and having that initial handshake or establishing eye contact. I can’t help but feel that is such a great indicator of the type of person they are. Sometimes people hide behind computer screens and lead others to believe they are someone they really are not. We live in a world where anyone can keep tabs on anyone they choose to. God forbid someone get their hands on information they shouldn’t have or worst yet, manipulate the information for their own gain. I don’t have to tell you guys about cyber crime. And now you are telling me Facebook owns your information! I know I'm not the only one who has a huge problem with that.

Corporations have transformed yet they are still up to the dirty, low down, no good, self interest, profit only motivated same crab they have always been up to before. Having said that I will also say “To each his own” and “Proceed with caution.” I’m really not knocking anyone who may choose to be a part of these social networks and I’m aware of all the positive aspects. As a business owner, I’m aware of all the marketing possibilities that can be utilized by joining such networks. Luckily, I haven’t had to join yet in order to compete with other businesses. But I know the day is coming when I’m going to have to because my livelihood and survival might depend on it. But until that day, I think I will hold off.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

"Stupid is as Stupid Does"

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is an article that asks a relevant question particularly when relating it to the ever-changing technologies of our time. At its basic findings, the article insinuates that the human brain functions according to the technology that is being utilized at the time. For example, Friedrich Nietzche's typewriter allowed him to communicate through typing because his failing vision curtailed his ability to write using pen and paper. According to a composer friend of his, this inevitably changed his style of prose to which Nietzche agreed, "You are right, our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." The findings of the German media scholar Friedrich A. Kittler reaffirmed that Nietzche's prose, "changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style."

Another relevant example that is presented in the article is the mechanical clock, which came into use in the 14th century. The historian and cultural critic Lewis Mumford explains that the clock "disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences." The frame work that divided time became "the point of reference for both action and thought." Basically, the clock's methodical ticking allowed for the scientific mind to flourish but it took away the ability to listen to one's senses. That is, the clock decides when it’s "appropriate" to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, or even to think. In order to escape from my sometimes overwhelming and constraining everyday reality, when on a vacation I don't wear a watch or carry a cell phone. I find myself for the first day or so still glancing at my bare wrist and I swear that I hear my cell phone ring tone when the cell phone is no where in the vicinity. This confirms two things for me. One, we have become slaves to the technology we have grown accustomed to. After reading this article the second thing that was confirmed which I have always suspected to be true but never encountered evidence to support is that our brains function according to the "intellectual technologies" that we surround our selves with.

Fredrick Winslow Taylor's studies of the choreographed mechanization of workers to produce maximum speed, efficiency, and output was adopted by the Industrial Revolution and still is in existence today in all aspects of manual labor and remains the ethic of industrial manufacturing today. At is basics, Winslow's system has restructured not only industry but society as a whole declaring that, "In the past the man has been first, in the future the system must be first." With the growing power of computers in our lives today, Taylor's system has begun to encompass the realm of the human mind as well. The Internet is constantly being changed and in the process changing the way information is collected and transmitted to become as efficient as possible. Our minds too are being transformed to work in a way that is in line with this changing technology.

Google's mission is to "systemize everything", to organize information and make it accessible and useful for widespread consumption. Furthermore, research is being done to create artificial intelligence to supplement or even replace our brains. I am reminded of a question my uncle, who coincidentally is named after the man who discovered algebra, used to ask me when I was a kid. He used to ask which is smarter the human brain or the calculator? I would look at him puzzled before he would answer by saying that the human mind created the calculator. A light bulb would go off in my head and I would think, "of course!" Somehow, I don't believe that neither his question nor his answer is as simple when applying it to computers and the Internet. Are we capable or creating technology that is smarter than us or is the technology we are creating shaping our minds to adapt to a new world order of consuming and producing knowledge? I think this is the question the article should be asking? Time will tell I suppose. But to humor Nicholas Carr and attempt to answer his question, "Is Google making us stupid?" I don't know if it is making us stupider or smarter because I don't believe those concepts are easily measured. One thing I believe it is doing is exposing us to an enormous amount of knowledge at a pace unrivaled in history, whether useless or useful I will leave for you to decide.

Monday, November 16, 2009

The Politics Behind the Digital Technology in Films

Not wanting to simply regurgitate for you guys what was being presented when I attended the 2009 Dennis Turner Memorial Lecture given by Professor Garrett Stewart, I was afraid I might have to because I couldn't think of anything to link it to something dealing with our class discussion. That is, until the very end when the question and answer session came about.

Just to give you a brief summary, the lecture was entitled “Cinema’s Digital Turn” and it dealt with the history of film and how in it's early days it stemmed from still photographs. The process of photography has been and continues to be included in the filming process today. He went on to describe the various ways of representing images and filming techniques from celluloid to computer generated animation to digital methods showing examples of each as he went along while reminding the listeners that such representations are symbolic. That is, cinema is a symbolic representation of images. Stewart went on to explain that the power of the viewer is incorporated into the filming process. This basically means that the viewer has the power to rewind, fast forward, and create a still frame. This process, he explained, is psychic as well as mechanical. This lead him to his over all point of how portable digital media, particularly hand held digital cameras, have changed the way films are produced as well as viewed. This refers to the fact that the audiences as well as the characters become viewers when examining films within films.

The concept of filming inside films allows the audience to see the film through the eyes of those characters doing the filming. This creates anachronisms within narratives, which refers to the discrepancy between the order of events in a story and the order in which they are presented in the plot. Anachronisms are basically flashbacks and flash forwards. He goes on to mention that this has been a cinematic trend of the last decade and a half citing movies like "The Valley of Elah" and "Jarhead" as examples of such methods. In both movies digital devices were used within the movies altering how we view films. This trend, as Stewart pointed out, has been more prevalent in films dealing with war and particularly terrorism. Real life soldiers have this technology available to them and this is depicted in these films giving the films elements similar to those of documentaries making them seem more real. Filming inside films also creates paranoia of surveillance as well as adding the element of a shapeless narrative or a purposelessness of the footage within the film. There isn't a plot in the films inside films, only a circle of violence and terrorism. This is a perfect example of using technology to make a political statement.

So what does all this mean when it comes to our purposes?

Someone asked the question if the technology in which films are made (celluloid or digital) makes a difference in how we view or interpret films? He mentioned that there are various ways we can express the written word listing some of the ways ranging from a pen, pencil, quilt pen, typewriter, to movable print. Does this change how we encounter or understand the written word? Recollecting our online discussion of last week's reading dealing with the studies of the National Endowment of the Arts, does the medium in which we encounter books make a difference when it comes to our reading of the text?

In her summary to our online discussion, Dr. Maruca stated:

How is this different? How do we know this it is different? Very little research has been done (some is just starting) on how screen reading might be different from paper reading. Is it a physical difference in cognitive processes, a behavioral one (linking and scanning), are we just talking about different genres of writing (posts vs. chapters, for example)—or are all of the above interconnected in convoluted and complex ways? The NEA, in its quest for simplicity and measurable outcomes, ignores this still nebulous area of screen reading, but with their assumption that what one does on the Internet is not reading, they basically exclude a large and growing category of literacy.
For films, as for the written word, there is no difference in the narrative or perhaps the meaning of the narrative, however there is a difference in how we experience the narrative. That in itself makes it different.


The following were handouts that were passed at the lecture.






Adult Literacy

Our group examined the document dealing with adult literacy designed for adult reading tutors. It is titled "Litstart" and it was published in 1990 here in Michigan as a product of Michigan Literacy, Inc. The document contains various writing strategies designed for adults of various levels of writing capabilities. In a section which seems to be aimed towards beginner adult writers, the document's purpose states, "In order to function in today's society, it is necessary to be able to communicate in a written form" and it goes on to list various means of written communication which included a note to a child's teacher, a job application, a check, or a grocery list. The document emphasizes that adults should be able to write in both manuscript as well as cursive forms depending on the situation as it concentrated on introducing penmanship to the students. It claims that the goal of adult penmanship is legibility regardless of personal style. This section contained in it various exercises and tips that are similar to those given to beginner grade school students developing writing skills for the first time such as tracing large examples of letters in order to visualize the form. It recommended that a pencil is used at first then later exercises can be copied in ink for the obvious reason of allowing for mistakes to be erased. The document also stated that exercises should be limited to ten minutes because beginning writers may experience fatigue and hand cramps. This section recommends that students are shown various writing samples from real life and encouraged to select a model to follow encouraging them to practice often.

In later sections designed for more advanced writers, strategy 32 entails of keeping a journal in order for a record of the progress of the student to exist. The mission of this exercise is to show that writing has the purpose of communicating thoughts and ideas. This exercise is interactive in that it allows both student and tutor to discuss and agree upon a question that they both write about in a journal for their next meeting at which point the journals are exchanged and read by the other party. Exposing the students to their tutor's style of writing can be beneficial in allowing for the development of a writing style through the sampling and adopting of another's. One thing that struck me as peculiar is that spelling errors are to be ignored unless the student is interested in working on specific words.

As proclaimed in the document, the mission of these exercises is to be able to function in a society by developing a writing style that allows for communication through the written form. Spelling words correctly is vital in this process. In the document, a job application is listed as an example of written communication. In my line of work, I review many job applications. There are many qualities that can be inferred about the applicant from simply reviewing their job application. Writing style, neatness, and spelling are among the things I take into consideration when reviewing an application. The way an applicant communicates through writing often expresses their ability to communicate to the clients. Neatness of the writing often speaks volumes about the applicant's organizational skills as well as their ability to keep a clean and presentable work environment. Spelling words correctly is indicative of the applicant's attention to detail. If I reviewed two applications where the applicants had similar credentials and an equal amount of experience but one applicant incorrectly spells some words, I am more likely to call the other applicant for an interview first.

It is difficult for me to imagine that an adult is unable to function in a society because of their lack of writing skills. I feel that adults naturally develops certain skills that may or may not be as advanced as the skills of other adults that have superior writing skills that allow the former to function in their lives. A mother lacking in writing skills who goes grocery shopping may not have a grocery list that can be understood by anyone else except for her because of her inferior writing skills, however she is still able to make sense of the list and is able to complete the task. Perhaps, her inability to communicate through writing has allowed her to develop a superior ability to remember things. My point here is as human beings we learn to adapt and develop other skills that compensate for the skills we lack. The document's claim that one needs to be able to communicate in a written form in order to function in today's society can possibly alienate and discourage those who have been functional in their lives making them feel inadequate. Instead, the tutorial should emphasize that developing writing skills allows adult students to excel as apposed to simply function in a culture. This takes away the notion that any sort of value judgment is being passed on adults attempting to reach a certain level of literacy and marginalize less of those adult students who may have feelings of inadequacy.

There exist literacies that are emphasized in the document that are in line with C.H. Knoblaugh's definitions of the various literacies. The functionalist perspective is one that can be attributed to the document dealing with adult literacy. The functionalist argument emphasizes preparing people for the necessities of life through the transmission of ideas by developing certain basic skills. Cultural literacy may not automatically be developed through simply developing superior writing skills. However, it allows for adult students to become a step closer to achieving cultural literacy. This perspective entails more than a technical proficiency such as processing a writing skill. Instead, that literacy ought to include a cultural awareness of heritage and a capacity for a higher order of thinking that can be achieved through reading critically and other language practices. The literacy for personal growth perspective is definitely one that is echoed through the document dealing with adult literacy. This argument promotes the progress of society through the advancement or empowerment of the individual. The critical literacy perspective which emphasizes a high level of critical consciousness is not one that is emphasized in the adult literacy document.

According to Knoblaugh, the concept of literacy is embedded in the ideological disposition of those who attempt to enforce it as a social requirement. As adults, these students make the decision to enroll in these courses. That is, no one can force them to participate in the process to achieve a certain level of adult literacy. Regardless, this can be a sensitive process because the cultural politics assume that the ones with the power are those who possess this literacy. In order for this process to be a successful one, it needs to be culturally, sociologically, economically, as well as educationally sensitive so it does not marginalize any one person or group. If the goal of adult literacy is to promote civic responsibility as well as personal growth to improve social and political change, making every attempt to insure that active participation is encouraged and that every adult lacking in literacy skills on one level or another actively seeks to achieve it. A literacy movement that excludes or marginalizes a certain group is one that is doomed to fail. This is like having a feminist movement that excludes women of color or a movement to eliminate racism but excluded certain minority groups.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Dr. Seuss is Political? The Cat is a Communist??

On my nieces' second birthday, my gift to her was a series of Dr. Seuss books. She received the first eight all at once and the rest would arrive once a month for the next six months or so. I had them mailed to my home and when they arrived I would take them with me to my parents’ house for Sunday dinner where the whole family gets together. After dinner, I would read to her in an attempt to spend some quality time and form a bond with my only niece. She would get so excited and that brought me all the joy and satisfaction in the world. I didn't get why she would get so excited and dismissed it as one of those things kids get excited about because they are kids. You see, that was my first full exposure to Dr. Seuss because I was already ten years old when my family migrated to the United States and I never had that first hand experience your typical child growing up in American culture would have. Nevertheless, I was still aware of Dr. Seuss's place in American culture or at least I thought I did until reading Cat People: What Dr. Seuss Really Taught Us.

To be completely honest, even reading Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel) as an adult to my little niece I figured someone would interpret in it some sort of subliminal messages or at least the potential of some sort of hidden sexual or Freudian agenda that psychoanalysts can take and run away with, but not to the scope introduced by Louis Menand's article. To place Dr. Seuss along side Noam Chomsky and Claude Levi-Strauss is an interesting concept for me. I didn't know when Dr. Seuss first appeared on the scene (1957) and even if I had, I would have never made the connection to the Cold War and the book's political agenda. In his article, Menand mentions the social conditions that existed post World War II that created a need for the baby boomers to develop at a rate that can compete educationally with that of European children, particularly Russian children. Thus, we have the National Defense Education Act of 1958 which pumped some of the military spending dollars into the educational system that would revive interests among young people who were perceived as being made "vicious and stupid" by the commercial culture as well as by televisions that made their way to 72% of American homes by 1956. Dr. Seuss books as a phonics tool used to introduce children to word sounds would inevitably play a part in teaching them reading faster than they were accustomed to.

In the Dana Nelson Salvino chapter, The Word in Black and White: Ideologies of Race and Literacy in Antebellum America, it is mentioned that there exists a reciprocal relationship between literacy and culture. She mentions, "...along with learning how to read, students also learned what to read" (142). She goes on to discuss literacy in terms of the democratization process as well as listing it as a tool for differentiation. That is, literacy created a subordination or a hierarchal social order of sorts. She also mentions the relationship between education and the citizenry of those being educated and the social ideals that were created during the educational process. Somehow, knowing that the historical context of which Salvino was examining is different than that of Menand, the message is the same. Both view literacy, regardless of the time period they are attempting to examine, as a politically charged concept. Evidently, this concept is deeply rooted in the psyche of the minds of those living in the various eras. For the baby boomers, Dr. Seuss may have been an invention of their social conditions in a response to some political agenda. For my niece it is just another colorful book that her uncle read to her and that is just fine with me.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Generations of Literacy

Just like my definition of "the book" has been complicated or enhanced by this course so has my definition of "literacy" as a result of this weeks readings. For me, and perhaps for most, literacy can be summed up as the ability to read and write. The readings this week introduced among other things new ways to look at literacy. In Literacy and the Politics of Education, C.H. Knoblauch says it best when he makes the claim, "Literary means many things to many people" (122). Different disciplines contribute different ways of looking at literacy. Furthermore, literacy is not simply a condition or a state of being literate or illiterate. According to Patricia Crain it is a "galvanizing cultural concept" that is expressive of many factors ranging from nativism, sexism, racial, social, economic, political, and so on. Literacy is also affected by languages, dialects, different forms of communication media, locations of cultural production, and other social, cultural, and technological tools as well as restraints.

According to Crain, literacy came into currency in the late 19th century in or around 1883 and it originated as an antithesis to illiteracy. From a historical perspective, this was somewhat surprising to me when we think of the history of texts and the written word. I would have imagined that the 16th century and the introduction of the printing press would have brought into light advancements in the study of literacy at least in terms of a sociological study. For different societies in history, literacy had different meanings which were restricted by class and racial hierarchies. For fifth century BC Athenian gentry, the possession of literacy was assumed and it meant being cultured. For medieval European clergy it meant being educated in Latin. At its' basic definition, in modern times literacy encompasses all things associated with reading and writing of a standard language of the culture one lives in. For us, although not limited to this definition, it means being able to read, write, and communicate in the English language.

With advances in digital and hypermedia technology, the concept of literacy will expand to include or exclude those who may or may not be proficient in this new technology. As an intricate part of achieving literacy, one must have access to literacy. Being a student at Wayne State University on and off since 1995, I have been witness to the changes and shifts from traditional methods of education that included books, paper, pen, chalkboard, chalk, and over head projectors to e-books, laptops, and media stations. These changes have began to shape our access to knowledge and will undoubtedly continue to do so changing with it how we view, understand, and achieve literacy. John Buschman says it best when he claims,
"It is widely argued, however, that the electronic-and now digital-world has disrupted any unitary notion of literacy per se because these advanced technologies have 'simultaneously broadened and splintered [it] into many literacies." (96)
These advances of course will create a gap between those who can access this technology and those whose socioeconomic conditions will not allow them to gain access to this new form of achieving literacy. This gap would become larger not only within first world nations but also between the technologically superior nations and the rest of the world.

While doing the reading this week, particularly the Knoblauch reading, I couldn't help but think of the different degrees of literacy that exist within my own family. My sister, my mother, and my grandmother represent three generations of various degrees of literacy. My grandmother does not read or write not even in her native Arabic language. She is of a primary oral culture. She can recite verses from the Quran which she has committed to memory, she can tell stories and sing folk songs, some of her children went on to graduate college, and in her day she was the norm among women within that culture. My mother is a high school graduate who can read and write in both the Arabic and English languages although her formal education was only in Arabic. She learned the English language mainly through picking it up from her children, conversations with the English speaking public, and through television, mainly through soap operas out of all things where proper English is spoken and done so in a slow fashion allowing for comprehension. She is now taking courses to prepare her for the TOEFL exam that would allow her to take college courses. My sister on the other hand is able to read and write in both Arabic and English and she just graduated with a doctorate degree.

I bring this example up with Knoblauch's Literacy and the Politics of Education in mind. According to the definitions of literacy we have encountered in this week's readings, for all practical purposes, grandma is illiterate. My mother can fall under the functionalist perspective, cultural literacy model, and is currently in the process of achieving the literacy-for-personal growth perspective. My sister falls under all those arguments and with a little stretching of the definition of the critical literacy perspective, she can be included in that argument as well as she is able to understand and have a critical consciousness of the dominant structures that exist within the language of our culture.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Misquoting God!

I wasn't sure what to expect when I attended the talk given by Vanessa Jill DeGifis titled Scripture and Pious Rhetoric in Abbasid Politics. Like most, I have my preconceived notions before entering any situation. Being of Arab descent and also having what I consider to be a reasonably good understanding of the Islamic faith as well as an understanding of both the history of the region and its politics, I was definitely interested and at the same time curious. To be completely honest, my initial reaction was that the person giving the talk does not have a name that sounds Arabic or Islamic. Naturally, I next wondered about the credentials of the speaker and under what authority other than that of an academic one (as if that wasn't enough) was she speaking. In the past, when hearing talks dealing with religion, they were normally given by members of the clergy of that particular religion or guest speakers who were either of that particular faith, other faiths, or people that converted religions. I have even heard debates between members of different faiths as well as atheists and agnostics. Needless to say, the speakers were not always very objective when presenting their views so I was really looking forward to hearing a fresh perspective from an academic stance and I wasn't disappointed.

Having said that, I would like to add a few points about historical perspectives. Those reporting about history, particularly the history of the other, have a Western notion of thinking about that history. There exists a cultural difference between the two societies where common practices as well as ways of thinking about those practices are inherently different. This undoubtedly contributes to the legitimacy of the argument as well as the authenticity of the historical perspective. This doesn't necessarily make the argument right or wrong, it just makes it different. Having the privilege of being familiar with both cultures and in turn both ways of thought, I feel my life is evidence enough that there exists a difference between how information is processed and interpreted between the two cultures.

DeGifis's premise for her argument was the use of scripture by political figures for the purposes of political gain. She discussed the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun use of quranic rhetoric in a letter (833 CE) to his governor. In this letter, al-Ma'mun seems to be drawing parallels between himself and the prophets. As suggested by DeGifis, he uses the Quran as a demonstrative method to justify his authority and his political stance, ostracize his opponents, and implement the mihna (which means occupation as in "work" but she uses a different definition of the word that I'm not aware of and that is "inquisition"). His prose does not appear in the Quran but it gives the impression that it does. By adopting or borrowing quranic prose, he is able to bolster the potency of his voice and blur the lines between his words and the Quran. Invoking the Quran in his letter enables him to demonstrate his competency of deciphering the text and gives the impression that the Quran is steering his policies. This is a classic example of politics using accepted rhetoric to establish its' authority. We see this being done by extremists and fanatical groups today as justification for their policies.

What needs to be understood here is that for Muslims Islam is not simply a religion, it is a way of life. The Quran is widely accepted as the true and final word of God. In the Quran, one can find examples of ethical and moral values, scientific knowledge, historical accounts, and common everyday practices like physical hygiene. There is even a whole chapter devoted to the rights of women. However, like any other text this information is interpreted differently by scholars and individuals alike. There exists textual evidence that clearly states one is not permitted to interpret and use the Quran for personal gain or convenience. But like I stated before, Islam is a way of life for Muslims and the religion intersects and intertwines with every aspect of society and culture, even politics.

Invoking religious rhetoric or the "God is on our side" argument is a common practice even in our political arena here in the West. From a personal perspective, I have come to an understanding that religion is a personal relationship between a person and the object of their worship, whoever or whatever that may be or even if such an object exists. There is very minimal room for religion in politics and vice versa. However, the political spheres of the world can learn and adopt some ethical and moral values from all the religions in the world. It is my belief that there exists a common ground we as a human race can stand on when it comes to personal beliefs no matter how different we think we are. We only seem to highlight minor and at times insignificant differences to justify our beliefs and objectives. Our values may differ from culture to culture but we should be able to find common beliefs as a human race. Arab and Islamic politicians are no different than any other politician in the world. They are just as susceptible to abusing the privilege of their positions as any one else in the same situation no matter how "democratic" their political process may be.

Aside...

I also wanted to add that I took notice of a sermon like tone of voice demonstrated by the speaker at certain points during her speech. Her body language and hand gestures were reminiscent of a religious figure standing at a pulpit delivering a sermon. I was wondering if anyone who attended caught that as well. I don't know what to make of that. It could be because she felt it was appropriate considering the subject matter or maybe that it gave a certain authority to her argument. Or it could be simply her style of speech making.

These are supplemental handouts that were passed out illustrating examples from the al-Ma'mun's letter and how closely it resembled actual text from the Quran.










The following is somewhat related. It is an example of politics trying to impose on the religious beliefs of the people.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091102/lf_nm_life/us_egypt_niqab