Destroying Hierarchy?

Tags can be seen as a democratizing aspect of the web, because, as Mathes reveals, they require no training in the way that professionally-generated metadata does. Nor do they follow logic in the way that a semantic web built on syllogisms would effect (as described by Shirky.) Tags are clearly more simplified methods of categorizing, utilizing keywords to sort by association, not hierarchy. But the question must be asked: What are we losing in this simplification?

Ong discusses a related comparison between two versions of the Genesis story. One version is from 1610, when there was oral culture still lingered; it had nine introductory “ands” (37). The second version from 1970 has two introductory “ands,” as well as other words, like “when,” “then,” “thus,” and “while.” Ong says that this shows the additive nature of oral culture, as opposed to the subordinative (or hierarchical) structure of chirographic culture. Because chirographic culture seems to be progress, it seems that hierarchical thinking should also be considered progress. Yet, tags seem to be destroying that type of thinking by emphasizing keywords. Are we reverting back to a simpler thought process? Are we making ourselves stupid?

The answer is not so simple. It must be mentioned that there is order in tags. For example, the PageRank algorithm employed by Google follows an intellectually sophisticated mathematical formula. The user enters a keyword (the tag), and results pop up. However, it is not the user who does the tagging; it is the algorithm. This form of tagging requires the increased intelligence of a few programmers, for the increased ease (i.e., allowed/encouraged laziness) of many. Additionally, the elaborate associative webs and visualizations created by Manovich and certain websites to display associate relationships show the detail behind associative thinking; yet, like with Google’s algorithm, just because there is detail in association, it does not mean that users of associative searching have to do that thinking; the machine, the machine’s programmers, and the inquisitive media theorists who create visualizations do it for them. Tagging (such as that employed by Google) does allow for less thought-intensive information searches, which some may argue breeds laziness, while others may argue that it gives more time for people to pursue new thoughts.

That last point is consistent with the idea that technological determinism is not true. However, technology does influence. McLuhan’s famous adage—“the medium is the message”—eludes to this. The medium of search engines like Google that tag information, as well as tags that users explicitly create, do deter one from hierarchical, or structured thinking. This must be acknowledged to guard against it.

(For more thoughts on associative thinking, refer to my 10/9/05 post entitled “Hypertext: Digression or Progession?”. Hypertext is what enables tags.)

Amazon, E-mail Contacts, and CTRL + F: Tagging Predecessors

While reading about del.icio.us on Mathes’s “Folksonomies,” I kept thinking about similar programs. The main one was the “favorites” function on Internet Explorer (as well as many other browsers.) This function allows the user to add web pages and categorize them. It wasn’t until the sharing function of del.icio.us was described that I understood the full implication of this application. As a piece of social software, it connects users, in this case with the benefits of viewing websites that other users who connected to the site you are currently visiting, also visit. It is a sort of recommendation system based on actual viewing patterns, as opposed to advertising.

A useful comparison is with another predecessor, Amazon.com’s customer reviews; according to Mathes, these customer reviews are an “integral aspect of online commerce [that leverage] consumer created metadata to create sites that are far more informative than comparable commercial sites.” Honest, uncensored, consumer input is a significant alternative to advertisements; it oftentimes gives both good and bad outlooks, so potential buyers will really know what to expect. Del.icio.us is similarly beneficial, offering an option other than Google, with its limitations, for finding information that others found helpful.

Going back to even further predecessors of tags in general, I thought of e-mail contact functions, such as those found on Microsoft Outlook Web Access, Pomona’s e-mail center. To make this comparison, I find it necessary to first present a definition of what a tag is; Mathes describes tags as “keywords…[that] allow users to describe and organize content with any vocabulary they choose.” Essentially it is a label for grouping. Similarly, Outlook enables one to create contact groups, whereby independently existing contacts can be included in a list; when that list is entered under “to,” everyone in the group is sent the e-mail. The label is a tag that organizes content (e-mails), and it can be anything the user wants it to be, from the standard “PDAC mailing list” to the random “people who like junk mail.” Outlook’s contact features clearly fit the “tag” description.

One final predecessor is the “find” function (control + F) of a typical computer. It utilizes the user-specified keyword to organize all relevant sections of the document in which that word or phrase is found. (Actually, it just hilights the word where it appears in the text, which still serves the purpose of organizing. A similar function can also be found on Amazon.com where the customer can search inside the given book to find all sections which include a given keyword.) The find function makes the actual content the label, the tag. Its limitations are that it is limited to the document it is in, and the keywords are not completely at the user’s discretion; only keywords that are found in the text will yield any relevant sections.

Quit Playing Around!

Wow! There is so much talk, especially at Pomona, about institutional inequality, yet I never really thought that applied to the Internet. Like so many other users, I saw the Internet as a very open and democratic forum, perhaps with the exception to those who do not have access to a computer. Nakamura explains the demographics of the Internet, that most users are “white, male, highly educated, and middle class” (2). For this reason, many sites are ethnocentrically structured, and “in the absence of racial description, all [users] are assumed to be white” (Nakamura 2). All three of the authors discuss this whitewashing, pointing out that it is the result of an ironically PC attempt to create harmony through avoiding divisive issues, supposedly granting equal freedom to every user. This inevitably strengthens the idea of a norm, which supports the dominance of the majority: white middle class males.

Other clues of the ethnocentric nature of the Internet exist. The designation of English as the prime language of the Internet (Gómez-Peña 5) clearly gives easier access to those who speak English. Additionally, “the theoretical vocabulary utilized by critics was hyper-specialized…and de-politicized (post colonial theory and the border paradigm were conveniently overlooked)” (Gómez-Peña 5). Favoritism is shown toward the technologically adept (which typically means those who are highly educated, usually meaning financially stable and most likely white and male), and progressive theory about diversity is notably absent, just as is the discussion of race.

I think it is a common problem to not see the realities of injustice because we are so enmeshed in that reality; it is difficult to view it as an outsider would. But this outside perspective is crucial if we are to make the Internet the democratic forum that it has the potential to be. Gómez-Peña calls for increased political discussion in Internet discourse and a social justice application, bringing Internet technology to expand the world of disadvantaged children. Nakamura seconds the idea for continued race discourse in the face of opposition. McPherson ponders the ramifications of viewing the Internet as a form of political expression and development, as opposed to a playground, countering the American tendency to place more value (at least monetarily) on entertainment than as intellectual progress and societal equity. The Internet (including artistic forums, Dixie-Net, and LambdaMoo) is a tool. How do we want to use it?

** side note: I found this instructional on how to start up with LambdaMOO. It also gives a brief summary of what MUD’s and MOO’s are, which I found helpful. However, I don’t know if it would be worth it to join this demonsratedly racist/sexist group. Maybe just for exploration and experimentation.
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2001/cs6470_fall/lambda.html

Quick Thought: Media Redefining Success

I was struck by Bell’s discussion of how we are defined by the medium through which we are viewed. This at first shocked me, because I do not feel I have the technical prowess to express myself and who I feel I am on-line. I then thought about where I can adeptly express myself, such as in writing and talking. This relates back to Ong and the parallels between the changes computers are effecting with the changes that the introduction of other technologies have effected. I realize that maybe some people do not feel as comfortable as I do with speaking and writing, and they are better with computers or art, photography, etc. This is a decentralizing thought for me, because I have always thought that I was mastering the skills of life because I was succeeding in school. When you realize that what you learned in school isn’t all that you need for life, that’s confusing. The introduction of “new” media as integral to success in today’s world may give more power to those who are not naturally talented in traditional forms of expression. In this way, media is democratizing, because it allows for the increased value of various abilities, incorporating more types of people into the categorization of successful. Whose talents are valued? Whose esteem is affected? Media changes these fundamental perceptions of individuals in society.

Internet: The Realm of the Mind

Anderson suggests that nations are “imagined communities.” Weeks proposes the need ton see identities as “necessary fictions.” And Bell argues that current modes of thinking cause “a progressive eroding of this stable, unified, essential view of the self.” All of these seem to suggest that identity is a social construction, which was created by humans and thus can be destroyed and refigured by humans. Though this is destabilizing, it is also empowering. I think it permits for broader interpretations of community and personal identity, which should theoretically lead to a greater milieu of tolerance in society. However, the majority of people do not wholly espouse (or even know about) these new postmodern, constructionist views.

Scholar bell hooks says that just because something is a lie does not mean it isn’t real, and I think that is true for all social constructions. We make them real and define our own reality. These constructions in RL are influenced by the physical context in which they exist. For example, the constructions of oppressive stereotypes are both less likely and more likely to result in offensive action. In RL, aggressors can physically harm a counter-normative person, although they cannot do so in many places due to policing and criminal law. On-line structural abuse, portrayal, and discrimination through such procedures as flaming are much easier to effect than RL discrimination, because of the paucity of Internet rules, as well as because of the anonymity that disinhibits users from the respect they are taught to show (or at least feign) toward others in public; however, it is significant that physical violence is not possible. Regardless of the type of discrimination, prejudice is still a part of the Internet culture.

Another problematic aspect of culture is the excessive stereotyping of women and queers. Disembodiment does not erase stereotypes, but instead leaves the mind free to envision stereotypes as an actuality for lack of a real picture. This stereotype becomes sort of real to the person holding it.

What I am driving at in this response is simply to say that the Internet is the realm of the mind. There aren’t the physical limitations of the body. Stereotypes can run rampant if the user lets them. Thoughts are often rude due to anonymity. The Internet is the uncensored mind, with all its potential for good and bad.

(** Side reference: In the movie/book Sphere, by Michael Crichton, I believe, this issue is addressed. If people had the power to make anything they thought a reality, is it worth it? It gives one so much power, but as humans, we may not be able to responsibly handle that power, making it deadly. On a lesser level, the Internet gives more weight to the mind to create the kind of world with the kind of social codes and forms of identity that it wants, regardless of what the social reality or their personal identity is. This increased power requires increased responsibility, and unfortunately, there will always be people in society ready to exploit any opportunity given to them. The mind can be dark, and in giving it a freer forum, we do run the risk of more abusive action, as opposed to less harmless prejudiced thoughts.)

Cyberculture: For best results, use as directed.

Bell’s chapter, “Community and Cyberculture” seems to perpetuate the dichotomous thinking that cyberculture either fosters or harms RL community. He identifies Wellman and Gulia’s concern with the “Manichean” nature of this debate, but then he discusses it in terms of the two opposing camps. He seemed to reason that he would be going deeper to the fundamental question of what is a community, and he finds that the inclusive concept of Bund (which is basically community) describes cyberculture. This seems to be avoiding the question of establishing a middle ground on the bigger question of whether or not cyberspace is good for RL society. I think certain time-tested principles are relevant here. The first is “All things in moderation.” This shows that cyberculture does have its importance in what it can contribute to society, but too much of it will lead to problems, including withdrawal from RL society. Not having cyberspace limits our society’s ability to expand our types of relations with each other. The second principle, or aphorism, is “Wherever you go, there you are.” This alludes to the organic and natural condition of cyberculture, as suggested by Rheingold. Again returning to McLuhan’s description as media as “extensions of man,” we can see that cyberculture is an extension of RL culture. As in natural evolution, it is the result of environmental conditions—here the importance of and reliance upon technology in society, as well as the need for efficiency. This is the culture that is the most appropriate for the life we as a society have come to value. I think that people who are against cyberculture should focus their energies on improving RL culture to have it have a higher appreciation for the community values they see lacking in on-line communities. For example, why do we have HMO’s who are so driven by efficiency and profit interest that they do not allow for a doctor to spend much time with a patient? That is impersonal, and face-to-face interaction means nothing (or something bad). Or why don’t we emphasize the importance of music, art, and sports programs as integral to education? These are interactive forms of RL communities, but they are being devalued for information, which is easily obtainable from the “information super highway.” Cyberculture is just a reflection of the societal need for efficiency over the development of relationships and personal well-being. To blame technology for these problems is technological determinism.

To unite these two aphorisms, “Wherever you go, there you are” seems to suggest that yes, cyberculture is as valid a culture as any other because we go there and we are still ourselves. “Everything in moderation” validates the designation of cyberculture as a community, while adding the caveat that, although it is a part of us, it shouldn’t be all that we are as people. It is not inherently bad, but it is how it is used. Yes, it fosters certain values, but those values are important to us. By creating programs that foster other values, we are balancing the overimportance the Internet places on information.

Comments on Tracing the Decay of Fiction

I just wanted to put out a few thoughts on this database narrative. I did enjoy it, because it was like I was exploring—going through an old hotel and seeing bits of its history, as if from various people I met. The thing is, though, it is not literature to me. It does not seem to have a plot. It is just a simulation of real life when you do not have access to a real old hotel to explore or real people or videos to reveal what the hotel life was like in the past. I feel like, in some ways, this type of simulation simply encourages the sedentary lifestyle that is characteristic of the U.S. Perhaps I am too critical. Perhaps I am condemning this media for doing what all media do, which is replacing the real. I suppose I am just confused at how different this is from traditional homework and how there is no real goal. It is so lifelike. To me, this might mean that this type of homework is meant to give one a new perspective on the multidimensionality of real life, enhancing real experience, opening up one to think sociologically (or in a historical context). This could translate into understanding changing structures of society, which might lead to social justice. Interesting. With Soft Cinema, we might be encouraged to pay more attention to our senses and to really question how the format of what we are shown or told really does affect our overall conception of that story. This might make us more critical of politics and even the psychology behind human interactions. This could lead to our ability to see a situation for what it is, and not just how it is presented, which can be useful in establishing a grounded sense of reality. Not to mention it develops our sense of aesthetics. I guess there are some useful applications of this type of homework. It is almost like philosophy.

Remodeling the Old

We have discussed how new media tends to recreate the old media from which it came. This holds true in the case of database narrative. Kinder and Anderson have helped us to see how recent movies, including Kill Bill, Memento, and Pulp Fiction, have adopted some aspects of the database narrative by rejecting linear plots. Other movies incorporate split screens to show various images, whose juxtaposition creates a new feeling within the viewer (such as is done in Manovich’s Soft Cinema).

I would like to show that this remodeling of the old also holds true for a more distant ancestor of the database narrative: print. Newspapers, in particular, very much embody many aspects of new media’s organization, including the hyperlink-like connections to each of the story’s on the front page. Its layout can also be influenced by database narratives. The random generation of new formats (such as in Manovich’s Soft Cinema) can offer new ideas for the aesthetic and emotion-provoking abilities of layouts.

Additionally, traditional forms of summarizing information (mind maps, concept trees, outlines) have also taken on new meaning and new form. I am here thinking about the visualization aspect of Soft Cinema, where there are constantly circling images from three different countries that intersect at various points to show what is on the screen. This is the closest thing to an outline that we get, and its ever-changing quality seems necessary to describe ever-changing literature. It is almost surreal how literature can be so alive.

In addition to movies, print’s aesthetic presentation and organizational structures have also been influenced by database narratives, perpetuating the constant interaction between old and new. You can teach an old dog (past media) new tricks.

Nothing New? From Dreams to Artificial Intelligence

We have dreams where various elements of our lives and thoughts are selected subconsciously and recombined, sometimes with an overall meaning, sometimes not, and sometimes just because we create one based on what we are thinking at the time. A TV editor looks at multiple screens, all showing the same event from different angles. He picks ones that work well together as a whole to capture the spirit of an event. Finally, there is a writer who has been thinking up certain characters that she would love to write about, characters based on a combination of traits from people she has known. She has a similar collection of pieced-together places and plots she would also like to portray, and she will combine all of these elements to make a cohesive story.

Each of these situations—the dream (Anderson 5), the TV editing, the story writing—all involve selection and combination, which is exactly what a database narrative is: “Database narrative refers to narratives whose structure exposes or thematizes the dual processes of selection and combination that lie at the heart of all stories” (Anderson 2, quoting Kinder). New media is taking over this concept to generate programs that do this same work of selection and combination, traditionally done by humans, whether consciously or subconsciously. This relates to Marshall McLuhan’s description of technology as “extensions of man.” It seems that the ultimate goal of the database narrative would be to create valid stories without an author. It is true that the author sets the parameters of selection for the database narrative, and it is true that no story has passed the Turnin test for being undistinguishable from a human story. However, it seems that with enough parameters programmed into a database, it might one day be able to pass that test. These parameters might be based on human instinct or even on cultural values. Artificial intelligence is not unconceivable.

To summarize, although database narrative seems to be accomplishing nothing new, it is a new approach. It seems a step back in some ways, because the computer-generated material is currently not up to par with human-written material. However, when completely developed and even now, it offers new possibilities, including artificial intelligence. Every form of machine man has ever created really does nothing a human could not once do; it is just a new, usually more efficient or helpful approach. Database narrative is similar. However, I would ask about the end result: “What do we plan on doing when we have essentially recreated ourselves?”