This unit, we are reading a variety of scholars' opinions on the Internet's impact on knowledge and education. More so than any other unit, these essays and theories are immensely relevant to my own experience and future as a student in a very institutional education system.
At New York University, the effects of Internet technology have certainly changed the way of educational distribution and mechanism over the past few decades. The transition that is occurring today manifests itself in the many juxtapositions of hierarchal, lecture-style, faculty-centric learning on one hand, and online assignments, the opportunity for laptops in the classroom, and the overall importance of Internet technology for research, completing assignments, and acquiring basic information. While one system represents the authority of faculty, of print texts, and of a tradition of hierarchal knowledge, the other embraces a more inter-disciplinary, self-motivated approach to knowledge with flexibility and range.
Many of the readings seem to establish that the Internet facilitates essential skills of collaboration, flexibility, making connections, and an emphasis on process over facts. The ease to which we can access almost any information on the internet, almost devalues the importance and authority of the faculty, thus making education more about individual exploration and manipulation of information. However, the opposition would suggest that the Internet also may have inaccurate information, cause distraction and impatience, and a superficial understanding of a wide range of things rather than a deep and thorough study of a particular subject.
While both arguments have some resonance, I believe it would be more valuable to analyze this topic from the perspective of the students--who are impacted every day by the decisions and transitions of these institutions.
I find that the current stage of transition is very interesting and indicative of the widespread uncertainty with regards to the best approach to education. While I am expected to use the Internet to access readings, post my assignments, and communicate with classmates, the Internet is still placed in an inferior role to the authority of the teacher, and the importance of the in-class experience. Professors and faculty must still be seen as providing something unique and important to the classroom, or else why spend thousands of dollars on tuition? I believe that there is something irreplaceable in the system of higher education as providing classrooms, professor-student dynamics, and an on-campus social experience. And in order for these institutions to still exist in the face of this technological transition, the Internet must be seen as providing certain benefits and efficiencies to the education system, without becoming the sole medium and agent for the distribution of knowledge.
The Internet can still be valued as something to be incorporated in the classroom, as an administrative tool, as a way to communicate and collaborate with classmates, and with other students all over the world. For example, a friend at a different University told me that in his Spanish class they often engage in Skype video conferences with students at a partnered school in Mexico, in order to practice the language with native speakers, and exchange customs, ideas, and cultural practices.
This is a way in which the Internet enhances learning, and provides something to supplement the information provided by the professor in the classroom. Nevertheless, the faculty is still necessary, and must still be able to provide a service that can not be achieved via the Internet alone. This may include the importance of speech and conversation as a medium for learning, as some students are more receptive to speech than visuals, or excel in debate and discussion more than writing. Additionally, the personal connections established between professor and student can serve as a mentoring and long-term resource providing information, advice, and friendship.
Ultimately, as a student in a large, institutionalized University, I am constantly aware and critical of the value of the education I am receiving in exchange for this large financial investment. I have become aware of the fragile balance that many institutions have taken towards this transition of adaptability yet consistency. I encourage Universities to continue making decisions that juxtapose the importance of an on-campus, faculty-run, traditional education with the opportunities for more versatile, flexible, and collaborative learning, to provide an experiential, thorough, and yet, inter-disciplinary foundation for the students.
Foucault's Panopticism essay analyzes and explains the social, political, and economic implications of the Panopticon and its Disciplinary Mechanism. By comparing the mechanism to the Plague-stricken communities, Foucault presents the concept of a political utopia of complete informational and visible control. I find the political aspect of Panopticism as a utopian ideal very fascinating and controversial. While this disciplinary mechanism is supposed to manifest total democracy and internalized discipline rather than external force, I struggle with the inherent imbalance of power suggested by this ideal. Panopticism prides itself on the more democratic nature of discipline. As a contrast to previous systems of discipline as an esoteric, violent, and dark system of punishment, the visibility and transparency of Panopticism appears as an improvement. Similarly, it is established that since anyone can run the panoptic structure, unlike the King or Lord who would be on top of Medieval systems of punishment, there is a less heirearchal and classist distribution of control. Additionally, even the ones doing the watching or controlling in the Panopticon are subject to those who can come and observe their behavior, therefore, in essence, the ones with the most control are still subject to the approval and observation of the general public. Does this mean that the general public, however, are the ones with the most power? In theory, this system is a utopia-where power is not concentrated anywhere, and yet, everyone has the internalized incentive to act properly and improve their behavior, for fear of merely being discovered.
Nevertheless, this utopia, in my opinion, cannot function in realistic terms of human nature and conduct. The observers have the advantage of information control and anonymity. The fact that they can see everyone, and have information on everyone, is what keeps Panopticism in effect, as the observed do not know who is watching them or when and everything they do is recorded efficiently, so they want to maximize their positive potential. Nevertheless, the fact that, while they could be anyone, the observers have extreme control and an intimidating affect on the rest of the population, is an inherent imbalance of power, which could have highly un-democratic consequences. In more practical terms, the is the disciplinary mechanism described truly for the benefit of an overall society, or for the idealized political system of total control, as described by the Plague-struck communities. Furthermore, when in a position of this control, is the average person likely to abuse the imbalance and take advantage of the system, or will they uphold the purely productive means promoted? Additionally, it is difficult to ignore these imbalances as a hinderance to individual liberties and freedoms--why is it necessary for people to be observed, to be disciplined, to be molded into a certain norm, and does this truly benefit a society or stifle diversity and creativity?
To present a radical extreme of the possible abuses of such a system, the totalitarian structure created by Orwell in 1984 of the Oceania government depicts a system where surveillance, and the control if information, allow for the complete manipulation of an entire society. "Big Brother" is, similarly, an unknown figure who could be anyone, similar to the observer in the Panopticon tower, who has the power to watch the population at all times, and the individuals never really know at what moment they are being watched. Nevertheless, the fear of being observed keeps most people away from acting illicitly in any way. Additionally, Oceania's ability to secure complete control and access to all information--eliminating records of the past, and allowing people access to only what they produce--allows them to control what truth really is. While this is certainly an extreme representation of certain characteristics apparent in the Panopticon structure, and would need a centralized version of the structure rather than the various decentralized ones presented, it offers an opportunity to view the possible consequences of such an imbalance. The people in the "towers" can easily expand the norming process of the system to make obedient subjects, of whom they can take complete advantage and incorporate physical force. While the idealized utopia does not call for this being necessary, the inevitabilities of the human desire for power and control could always evolve into a disciplinary mechanism which incorporates the most lethal aspects of surveillance and information hoarding with the violent physical punishment of the past.
While Panopticism, in its essence, especially if functioning in smaller-scale, decentralized manners, does represent a democratic way of enforcing discipline and maximizing productivity. However, the imbalance of power and control that is unavoidable in such a system, if used on a larger, more political scale, could not only have un-democratic results, but prove to be a truly frightening system of oppression.
Bolter's essays raised multiple important questions on the manifestation of culture in the digital world. First of all, is the digital world changing our understanding of culture? Is it changing our approach to writing and the way we interact with each other? Or, on the other hand, was it a change in our culture as it is what incited the development of a network community and a digital "culture"? In order to address this question, it is important to try and understand what a digital culture really is. People, including Bolter, often describe digital media as having more flexible, interdisciplinary, equal, and uninhibited qualities. Something about the free dispersion, and the utter amount of available information, creates a sense of freedom and liberation that contributes to the culture and communities online. People can create communities related to certain topics or ideologies online, so is there really only one culture?
The digital media facilitates interactions between people from different countries, different backgrounds and situations, but who may have a similar interest to explore on a blog or forum. While the internet can create an array of different communities and cultures, there are a few general characteristics that seem common everywhere. The fragmented writing system of hypertext, the diversity of information and ideas, and the often provocative and innovative nature of the medium seem to characterize a certain culture. This culture is either in line with a cultural shift, or in some sense, has caused it. I believe, that on one hand, our culture is becoming much more global, and therefore a medium to provide intercultural communication was certainly warranted. Additionally, people are becoming more inclined to want free and more democratic dispersion of information. I believe that this dispersion of information is making our population more extreme in a lot of ways. The availability of extremist views and ideas can influence people in even a different country to share in those views, thus spreading these views. Additionally, people often feel more comfortable uninhibitedly exploring a different identity online. On social media sites it is easier to criticize or attack someone than in real life, or explore a different identity (in terms of race, gender, etc.), thus blurring our conventional understanding of identity. Something about the way the internet functions can spur more radical and extreme views, allowing for people with certain ideas to unite and increase their ideas in a communal environment that defies place, and also cause a different idea of self--one free from conventions and physical world restrictions (both demographically and moral). Our culture was ready for this shift, which is why technology has been so successful, but have some unexpected consequences resulted? The accessibility of this extremism, and the deception of identity can have some dangerous effects.
Another issue that the Bolter reading brought up in terms of the network culture, is the loss of a distinction between high culture and more common one, or talent and amateurism. Online, it is just as easy to find a Beethoven symphony as it is a youtube video of someone singing a Justin Bieber song. Classical literature and pornography are all on the same medium, so is our generation losing its reverence and appreciation for high culture? Or is the concept of what should be valued being challenged? While I appreciate the accessibility and convenience of everything, I do hope that digital media only allows for more people to appreciate high culture, and does not diminish the value we place on great cultural accomplishments. Ultimately, I believe that the network culture, while the product of a more globalized and liberated culture, has affected our culture just as much as we have affected the functions of the internet, allowing for more extreme views and uninhibited interactions, and a less conventional sense of self. Is it possible to blame the extreme views, and the huge disparity between politics parties in American politics today on radicalization qualities of a digital media? I believe that the modern day blog and other social media sites have certainly allowed for people with these extreme ideas to spread influence on entire communities, thus even affecting our political sphere, and even violent behavior. Nevertheless, can we condemn such free communication just because it may have potentially divisive and violent consequences? The internet has pushed such negative developments in our society, but has also promoted positive challenges of authority and institutions as well, so it is each individual's responsibility to decide if this new network culture is improving or hindering our every day life.
While I am part of the generation of "digital natives", I find myself conflicted between supporting a transition into a digital medium and finding comfort with the consistency and history of print texts. On one hand, I acknowledge the flexibility and innovative nature of a digital medium. It allows for a more interdisciplinary and broad absorption of information. On the other, however, many critics say this can cause attention disorders, and I do certainly notice the fact that dependence on technology is making my generation lose focus and depth on individual texts. But this controversy on mediums ultimately brings up fundamental questions on education, and the nature of learning, that I grapple with as a University student seeking to make the most of my educational experience. Is it more valuable to learn broad interdisciplinary material, that leaves us more well rounded but less informed on a particular subject or to be an expert on a specific field?
The first option actually reminds me of the mission of GLS, giving its students an inter-connected education, that may sometimes appear broad, but provides a basis for future exploration. This is similar to the concept of the Internet, when reading one thing can lead to another, and gives the reader the chance to take initiative and a more active role in attaining further knowledge. This brings me to my next focus on this issue. Digital texts do not just change our relationship with knowledge, pushing us to question how it is we wish to learn, but it challenges our relationship with the text and, consequently, our relationship with the author. When we read, are we supposed to fully immerse ourselves into the words of the author? We chose to read a certain book, often based on the author, so is it natural to be submissive to the intentions of the author? Or should the reader participate more in their reading experience, making their own decisions about where they want the reading to take them? While both options have their validity, it is hard to deny that digital mediums give the author less authority, therefore diminishing the permanent, sacred nature of a text. This is a shame in many ways, how can we admire and esteem talented authors if their works are no longer seen as unchangeable? Is being a talented author still esteemed if, due to the digital text, more people can be authors? While I like the idea of being able to actively participate and control my own interpretation and experience in reading something, and being able to see easily become an author myself on the internet, as the daughter of a writer, I worry that something very special would be lost without the unique respect of an author and the permanent and timeless nature of print texts. I am particularly excited to explore the similarity between the change in reading and writing experiences and the change in our educations, in terms of what knowledge is and how we value it.
