Course Readings

McLuhan

My first experience with the name Marshall McLuhan comes from an old Genesis tune:

"... Marshall McLuhan casual viewing, head buried in the sand..."

Chapter 1

I really enjoyed his basic premise of any extension of the human body affects everything. And even though he wrote this book in 1964, his proclamation that the "world is imploding" is frighteningly accurate. Most recently, conversations about global climate change have underscored this heightened human awareness and responsibility.

After doing some research on open source software for this class, I found his views on education well ahead of his time. "We are entering the new age of education that is programmed ha! for discovery rather than instruction." He approached this as a problem of human nature. Students want a say in what and how they learn. And in 1964, he couldn't have known how much technology would come to control our lives.

The discussion in the first class, reinforced with the readings, have made me consider technology in ways I never have before. Even though it's not McLuhan's line, he quotes David Sarnoff in his book. "The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value." This brilliant insight can be applied to everything from nuclear energy to cell phones. When manufacturers first started producing cell phones, they probably couldn't have predicted the increase in traffic accidents as a result of people talking while driving. Einstein realized the potential good and bad to come out of nuclear technology. While it helped end a war, the threat of nuclear annihilation will be with us forever more.

Chapter 2:

“Specialist technologies detribalize. The non-specialist electric technology retribalizes.”

So TV detribalizes while the internet retribalizes. TV allows us all to live in a world separately, yet get the same images and ideas pumped into our homes. The internet actively seeks participation in the form of instant messaging, email. chat rooms, social networking sites, etc. Connections between people seems to be the point.

Chapter 3:

The best line of this chapter goes to W.B. Yeats describing the world today. “The visible world is no longer a reality and the unseen world is no longer a dream.” While we don't have flying cars, there are a number of things that we have today that seem way futuristic. Your refrigerator can tell when you are low on certain items and order them for you. Cool and freaky at the same time.

Chapter 4:

The discussion of Narcissus was fascinating. I had no idea that it was same Greek root for narcotic which means numb. Men are fascinated by an extension of themselves, but cannot recognize it as themselves. Women, too. There’s a whole lot of ego going around here, too. Like someone choosing a car to represent their personality. So what does buying that Hummer or BMW really say about you? That's mostly for the men who externalize themselves. But really that's no different than the women who internalize - breast implants, for example.

Chapter 5:

McLuhan talks of the power of a medium to transform structures of time and space using the electric light as an example. I have to say, I am always amazed to think that less than 100 years ago almost none of the technology that we depend on every day of our lives even existed. Most people today couldn't imagine a world without the internet let alone electricity.

Chapter 6:

Speaking of the mind’s ability to translate different experiences, McLuhan states: “this image of a unified ratio among the senses was long held to the mark of our rationality.” What a fascinating way to look at it. “Keeping things in perspective” helps keep us sane. Again with the Greek roots providing insight.

Chapter 7:

Mc Luhan reiterates one of his main themes: technology not only changes habits, but “thought and valuation.” This has many applications for all of our technologies. What if we didn’t have cars or electricity? What about no TV or movies? Imagine losing your cell phone or if the internet didn’t exist. People wouldn’t know what to do with themselves. Technology absolutely influences our thought and our valuation.

Chapter 8:

“Each mother tongue teaches its users a way of seeing and feeling the world, and of acting in the world, that is quite unique.”

Chapter 9:

“The alphabet meant power and authority and control of military structures at a distance.”

Chapter 10:

“A speedup in communications always enables a central authority to extend its operations to more distant margins.”

Chapter 11:

“Our mechanical technologies for extending and separating the functions of our physical beings have brought us near to a state of disintegration by putting us out of touch with ourselves.”

Chapter 12:

“Most ‘four-letter words’ are heavy with tactile-involving stress. For this reason they seem earthy and vigorous to visual man. So it is with nudity.”

Chapter 13:

“Literate man, civilized man, tends to restrict and enclose speace and to separate functions, whereas tribal man had freely extended the form of his body to include the universe.”

Chapter 14:

“The depreciation of the citizen went along with that of the German mark. There was a loss of face and of worth in which the personal and monetary units became confused.”

Chapter 15:

“Time is separated from the rhythms of human experience. The mechanical clock, in short, helps to create the image of a numerically quantified and mechanically powered universe.”

Chapter 16:

“The alphabet left the visual component as supreme in the word, reducing all other sensuous facts of the spoken word to this form.”

Chapter 17:

Chapter 18:

Chapter 19:

Technicolor

Intro / Chapter 1:

Statistics are always an interesting place to start. While they can be manipulated to suit a variety of needs, they are still telling. Phrases like "half as likely to own a computer" and "three times less likely to have internet access" certainly get your attention. I do not want to minimize these statistics and would like to drill down further and discuss what that means. But look at it from the other side for a second. Are the people who have computers and the internet really that much better off than those who do not? I'm looking forward to discussing the value of access to this information, but most people don't use it for that reason. Just because someone can shop for a car online or download porn, does this make them that much more advantaged than someone who does not have that option? We'll discuss in class, I'm sure.

My favorite part of chapter one comes from Steve Jobs. Determined to get schools connected and computers into students hands, he realized that the issue is larger than that. "I've come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve." Many of us taking this class are teachers. Access is only one part of a much larger issue. Knowledge is another part, but that still doesn't cover it all. Americans have never had as much access to healthy food in the history of the planet. These same people have the knowledge of centuries of understanding about different types of food and know what is healthy and what is not. The reality is Americans have never been more obese.

Chapter 2:

Chapter 3:

Chapter 4:

Chapter 5:

Chapter 6:

Chapter 7:

Chapter 8:

Chapter 9:

Chapter 10:

Chapter 11:

Lessing

Amy Goodman covers the National Conference for Media Reform. While some of this clip talks about the news (or lack of news) that you get, it also talks about the fight for the future of the internet.

Chapter 1:

I had no idea such a battle was raging about “what rules should govern the freedom to innovate.” We all stories about how we can get things for “free” on the internet. I’ve joked with friends that as soon as “they” figure out how to control it, “they” will. “They” being the existing power structure that doesn’t benefit from all this “free” stuff you’re getting. In fact, this “free” stuff is a direct challenge to “their” authority. Look at China. People are restricted from accessing certain webpages. Information can be dangerous.

Chapter 2:

The Commons discussion is very interesting. He uses a number of examples of commons that are “free,” yet “regulated.” Roads are great example. Yes, your car must be registered, have insurance, pass inspection, etc., but no one tells you what kind of car you should drive or where you should go with this car. Parks and beaches are good examples, too. You must be legally parked and have enough time on the meter to be able to stroll on the beach. And what you do on the beach is also controlled. Nakedness will not be permitted, unless you find a beach that permits that kind of thing.

Chapter 3:

I never heard of the “Hush-a-phone” before, but it’s a great way to understand the history of AT&T especially when framing it as an example of stifling innovation. The electrical grid analogy perfectly defined end to end systems. “As long as my equipment complies with the rules for the grid, I get to plug it in.”

Chapter 4:

This chapter deals with the stuff you were discussing on the first day about open source. I had no idea what you were saying. After reading this, I have a clue and understand the advantages of Linux from the user / innovator standpoint. I also see the reasons “they” (existing power structure) wants to fight this. There’s a ton of money and influence on the table that people are not simply going to walk away from.

Chapter 5:

Chapter 6:

Chapter 7:

Chapter 8:

Chapter 9:

Chapter 10:

Chapter 11:

Chapter 12:

Chapter 13:

Chapter 14:

Chapter 15:

Banks

Even though I will diss Banks for being too divisive, I do like his musical metaphors. Even though the title of his book is "Higher Ground," a reference to a Stevie Wonder song, I will include another Stevie Wonder song "Superstition." If we can't agree on who's in power and who's subject to it, we can at least agree on music. Besides, this was recorded on Sesame Street. What can be better than that?

Preface/Prologue:

Banks comes out swinging in his preface. Given the title and the picture on the book, no one should be under illusion as to the topics he will address. He aggressively approaches the topic with strong rhetoric.

“Technologies... are still deeply implicated in the stubbornness of American racism and the legacies of exclusion in that racism.” (p.xi)

At this point I am skeptical, but looking forward to seeing how he will prove his point. I am not doubting racism exists in America, I am curious how he will prove technology gets dragged into it.

He speaks convincingly of what is at stake for African Americans in this digital divide discussion. “Imagine... where an entire group of people have been systematically denied the tools, the literacies, the experiences, the codes and the assumptions behind the design choices...” (xxi) If you don’t have the tools or don’t know how to use the tools, the tools are worthless to you. I got that, and I agree. I believe he goes a bit too far though in his claim that this digital divide is the equivalent of slavery and Jim Crow laws.

Chapter 1:

This chapter certainly uncovered my ignorance of the subject matter. I had no idea that Wired magazine was a white-controlled, white-read publication. Probably no more so that the Wall Street Journal is, but I don’t necessarily look at the world through that lens. I have a healthy skepticism for most media and view it through the “power” lens, but not the “race” lens. If that is the case, then yes, I have to agree with Banks and say that most things are white-owned and percentage-wise, white-read.

I look forward to engaging some people in this discussion whether it’s during class or after, but I disagree with some of his statements. I realize he has a perspective and a heritage that I do not, but some of his arguments are inflammatory. I also realize that being white forces me to walk a fine line during this discourse. My comments are not meant to provoke or offend, but I think he goes too far. Yes, a power structure exists. At this point, it is still predominantly white. It’s also predominately male. And it’s certainly predominately rich. But what makes him assume that whites are not also subject to this power structure?

Early in the chapter he talks about “providing excluded members of society access to systems of power.” (p. 2) What benefit does any power structure get by giving power away? That’s not the way the government and most businesses work. They have power and will leverage that power against you. These institutions of power will even lie to get you to agree with a political candidate or policy when in truth, it goes against your best interest.

Later in the chapter he talks about a “system of exclusion connected to race.” I would argue it’s socio-economic. How socio-economics and race overlap and correlate is a separate conversation. Mathematically speaking, if A = B, but B only highly correlates to C, then A does not equal C. We can discuss Jim Crow and Brown vs. Board of Education and any other reason for that high correlation between poverty and minority. At some point though, you have to separate the two. Can I agree that poor schools continually get shafted in terms of resources thus continuing the cycle of poverty? Absolutely. Can I simply say those poor schools are black schools? No, I can’t. Maybe if he widened his argument to include Latino students, his argument would be more persuasive.

Chapter 2:

My problem with Banks and his constructed arguments continues. Early in the chapter he talks about how he was upset schools focused on Ebonics instead of a thoughtful discussion on race. I don’t mean to call Mr. Banks naive, but in a country when political discourse is reduced to a 30-second television ad, what does he expect?

Later when talks about blacks being reduced to passive consumers, is he not paying attention? A majority of the world - whites, blacks and everyone in-between - has been reduced to passive consumers. When the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, the president told the American people something along the lines of “don’t worry about all this we’ll take care of it. You just do your duty and go shopping.”

I understand he is approaching these topics from the stance of race, but many of these problems are not limited to the black community. He mentions one of the effects of exclusion is inadequate health care. Over 40 million people in the United States do not have health insurance. Defining terms, I realize that inadequate health care is not health insurance, but the problem is larger than just the black community. He talks about the black students are dumbed down. Again, it’s everyone, Mr. Banks! As a high school teacher, I can tell you story after story about how this must be planned. There is no way this “dumbing down” is an accident.

I did like one of his points in this chapter. When he is discussing Clinton’s campaign promise of putting computers in schools, no one talked about how the computers would be used. It shows that just having the tools (or the technology) doesn’t address the problem.

Chapter 3:

A fascinating chapter highlighting the differences between Martin Luther King and Malcom X. King is portrayed a more ideal and more naive at the same time. Malcolm X is more practical and to many more radical. This can be seen in the title of their speeches. King gave his “Give Us the Ballot - We Will Transform the South,” while Malcolm X gave his “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech.

King talking about the ballot being able to transform the south assumes that voting will bring about the change required. Malcolm realizes that voting doesn’t cut it. “Sitting at the table doesn’t make you a dinner, unless you eat some of what’s on the plate.” King knew all of the changes were not going to happen overnight which is why he was willing to accept smaller gains now. But even King realized that the bootstrap philosophy doesn’t work for a bootless man.

Malcolm X certainly said many incendiary things during his life, and Banks reprints one of those inaccuracies here. Malcolm X talks about European immigrants already being American. “Polacks are already Americans; the Italian refugees are already Americans. Everything that came out of Europe, every blue-eyed thing, is already an American.” Italians don’t have blue eyes, and not everyone arrived in America to welcoming arms. Every immigrant group was discriminated against until the next wave of immigrants showed up. Even in Europe today, certain ethnicities seen as poor are discriminated against. I realize he has a perspective he’s sharing, but African Americans are not the only ones who were not welcome to sit at the table.

Chapter 4:

Banks revisits an idea in this chapter that he introduced in chapter 1. I’m referring to his comment that written English is white English. Following on the heels of the last chapter where we were talking about immigrants, why is English white English?

I certainly agree with his comment on black English. “African American English is just as valid an organ for expressing the thoughts, ideas, passions, joys, pains, aspirations and struggles of a people as any other.” He says it preserves heritage. You’d be foolish to argue otherwise. But until colleges and businesses start accepting African American English for papers, letters, correspondence and business proposals, I think high school English teachers should teach what Banks refers to as “white” English.

He talks about the Black oral traditions as “irrelevant to the study of written English, and therefore writing instruction should be strictly and only about the mastery of standardized English.” It doesn’t have to be that way, but students should know there is a difference. One of my students would always says, “Where he is?” After correcting her a number of times, I asked her why she continued to speak that way when she knew it was incorrect. She said, “I speak street.” I replied, “I speak job, and I hope you know the difference.” Now this could spin off to be how people speak one way at home and another at work. Guess what, almost everyone does. Whether it’s a lexicon specific to your profession, a filter that a teacher puts on when talking to students or a more formal tone when talking to clients, there is a difference. And this doesn’t even address the people who speak English outside the home, and another language inside the home.

Chapter 5:

Here we find some common ground. How can anyone look at the criminal justice system and claim that it’s fair? He uses the example of Rush Limbaugh not getting punished at all for his involvement with drugs, while someone else (read “minority”) would get 10 years for the same offense. Someone robs a 7-11, gets $100 and spends their life in a maximum security prison. Someone else robs their company to the tune of a few million dollars and they get off with a suspended sentence or maybe spend a few months in a minimum security prison. The discrepancies are appalling.

Banks analyzes how racism is encoded within the legal system. To the layperson, it must be. Either that or there are some racist judges, juries, prosecutors and defendants. In essence, the whole system is racist while the law is not? I don’t buy it. He talks about the coding going all the way back to the founding fathers and the reduction of humans to property. I’m pretty sure the Dread Scott case used the exact argument to “flip the script” on slavery.

Something else he mentions in passing in this chapter is that the space that writing occurs are each technologies in and of themselves. Papyrus, printing and now computers were technological advances at the time. Most were not available to the public. In reality, only a small portion of the population was even literate. Apparently, that is a trend that continues to this day.

Chapter 6:

Banks gets stronger in these last few chapters because he starts to focus on fixing the problems instead of just pointing out the problems. In his own words: “Those of us who care about the ending systematic oppressions must design new spaces, even as we point out problems in our current ones.” I understand where he is coming from, but I still don’t understand his perspective on these new spaces. He says he wants these spaces to be dynamic, participatory and inclusive, but not really.

At one point he is discussing architecture. Again, I will admit my ignorance. I had no idea that 98% of architects are white. It just never popped up on my radar as being important. Okay, so blacks are underrepresented in the field. But he laments that there is no distinctively black approach to architecture. He may be right, but he is only referring to the United States. I guarantee (and with a little research we could all verify this) that there are plenty of black architects in Africa. And their aesthetic would be specific to their world.

Chapter 7:

In the last chapter, Banks finally talks about how this should affect the instruction of writing. Teachers roles should be to “help students see technologies as equipment and processes they want to learn how to use.” With that, teachers and students need to be involved in the “messy arguments around technologies as much as in the tools themselves.”

I was trying to withhold judgement to see if his argument came together. It did come together, but not as forcibly as he separated it. He finally says that he is seeking “equal participation for Black people and all people.” I realize that he is focused on his story and his perspective, but for all his talk of unity and higher ground, he does spend a majority of this book focused only on black issues.

(Trey, I know he’s your friend, and I love all the musical references, but I think he’s more divisive that anything else. As always, I’m open to learn. I look forward to engaging in conversations and observations about the book.)

Link back to Rich's World