My Mother Was a Computer - Katherine Hayles

This article opens with a great snippet from a novel by Neal Stephenson called Cryptonomicon that illustrates Hayles’ very point that the title of her article, My Mother Was a Computer, has many different meanings.  In the quote, one character refers to a machine that does basic mathematic calculations as a ‘computer’, where the other character answers in saying that computers are humans, as back in the 1930s and 1940s, people with the occupation to do calculations were referred to as computers.  I found this a very clever way to acknowledge the complexity of the title.  Hayles explains how in fact, the majority of people employed to do basic computing were women, and so in a very literal sense, one might actually have a mother who was a Computer, by trade.  From here, she fast forwards into today’s digital age where we can see there has been a “shift from a society in which the intelligence required for calculations was primarily associated with humans to the increasing delegation of these labors to computational machines” (Hayles 1).  Our society today is moving beyond the idea of embodiment of the self within a human ‘container’, which Hayles points out as being a characteristic of our species that has always limited us, into an idea of materiality she defines as marking “a junction between physical reality and human intention” (Hayles 3).  So rather than simply existing in embodiment, we are constructed of material things, or matter, that are of significance to the human race and its development.  As a whole, society runs in the same fashion.  It is not an autonomous human society, but rather one that is made up of necessary materialistic things that work together to make it function smoothly.

Hayles also describes what she terms the Computational Universe such that “the universe is generated through computational processes running on a vast computational mechanism underlying all of physical reality” (Hayles 3). By this she means that reality is always being produced, in such a way that can be compared to that of machine.  This theory can be extended to encompass social and cultural systems as well.  In this argument, one can see the shift from using Mother Nature to explain our reality, to that of a Motherboard within a Universal Computer.  This change in analogy really caught my attention and I feel was well executed in this article.  As children are brought up more and more dependent upon technology, their understanding of the world around them will inevitably change.  Where upbringings of generations passed have focused on using the biological physical reality to explain one’s place in society and the planet as a whole, newer generations have a new view of what is “natural” and so do not have the concept of Mother Nature as their underlying social or cultural behaviors.  My grandfather finds using a compass as being “second nature” in that very little thought has to go in to it.  He watches me type on my laptop or surf the Internet, finding information in seconds, and is boggled by it all.  He grew up in a world completely different than the world I grew up in 60 years later.  The Internet and computer technologies come as “second nature” to me as a direct relation to the world in which I grew up.  And generations younger than myself are even more technically savvy at an even earlier age than I was.

This leads into Hayles’ next point in that the title of her article could refer to the change in what is associated with oral and written text.  With the advancement of instant messaging technologies, video games, and the Internet as a whole, “the mother’s voice that haunted reading has been supplanted by another set of stimuli: the visual, audio, kinesthetic, and haptic cues emanating from the computer” (Hayles 4).  Ultimately, she is pointing out that we have shifted from associating the mother’s voice with writing to a mentality where “the computer’s beeps, clicks, and tones are the links connecting contemporary subjectivities to electronic environments” (Hayles 4), reinforcing her idea of the Computational Universe.  So in this sense, our “mother” – or mothering voice – has become a computer.

When first reading the title of this article, my mind went straight to artificial intelligence, where a robot or computer program may envision its mother to be a computer.  Hayles talks about this and how the anthropomorphic projection that is being created gives false ideas of computers functioning as human beings. It “brings into question the extent to which human beings can be understood as computer programs” (Hayles 5).  How we view of ourselves; how we think and feel about the world and its inhabitants, both human and non-human, has changed.  There has been a shift from humans as being the centre of all knowledge, in such that we now share that crown with the non-human.

I find it relatively easy to connect with Hayles in her thoughts on technology.  I can see where she is coming from and agree with her different interpretations of the phrase “my mother was a computer”.  On page 6 she contrasts narrative and simulations, and I can see the tension between the two in today’s society. Simulations are so closely associated with posthumanistic ideologies and narratives associated with social and cultural systems. The tension builds a divide between the calculations required in the processes that make up the material world of today, and the ‘human lifeworld’ that seems more natural to human behavior.  My question to fellow classmates is...

Do you agree with Hayles’ shift in thought over the 5 years between her two articles we studied in this course?  Is she just in saying that “the interplay between the liberal humanist subject and the posthuman that [Hayles] used to launch [her] analysis in How We Became Posthuman has already begun to fade into the history of the twentieth century”(Hayles 2)?

Check out the links below for some supplemental information on Katherine Hayles as well as the idea of posthumanism.  I found them to be quite interesting.  Wikipedia gives a good briefing of Hayles, outlining her many literary accomplishments.

Bosttom, Nick. “Technological Revolutions: Ethics and Policy in the Dark” Nanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century (2007): 129-52. Print.  2006 online. 28 March 2011. <www.nickbostrom.com/revolutions.pdf>

Hayles, N. Katherine. “Prologue: Computing Kin.” My Mother was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2005. 1-7 and 245. (CanCopy Course Kit).

“Our Future as Posthumans” . YouTube.com. 20 May 2008. 28 March 2011. <www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYDs5SCSZDU>

Wikipedia. “N. Katherine Hayles.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 4 Dec. 2010. Web. 29 March 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Katherine_Hayles#Books>.

The Companion Species Manifesto – Donna Haraway

In Donna Haraway’s The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness, the main point Haraway is making is that as humans we rely on relationships with both humans and non-humans in order to identify ourselves, and in turn co-evolve with the other party within that relationship.  Specifically, Haraway uses dogs as a non-human companion species to support her argument.

In this article, Haraway states that “dogs are not surrogate for theory; they are not here just to think with.  They are here to live with.  Partners in crime of human evolution…” [4]. Her notion of co-evolution between humans and dogs is evident in this statement, in that ultimately in this relationship, one would not evolve without the other, and vice versa. I agree with Haraway in her description of these co-evolutional relationships, and find it easy to relate to her arguments, on both a personal and global scale.  I have developed certain character traits; morals; ethics; based on the influence of those around me growing up.  Having cats and dogs in the household, though living with their own set of rules, developed within me a certain respect for these companion animals.  They shared a home with me; slept in the same bed as I did; watched TV on the couch with me.  They ate breakfast and dinner, and my mother was always worried about them when we were planning trips away to see family. Haraway describes how dogs have been used as companions rather than just as working dogs for centuries; that despite their many jobs – hunter, herder, tracker – dogs have been regarded as more or less equals by humans with regards to their living conditions or burial and death rituals. On a broader scale, the human race in general has forever been adopting new ways to incorporate these companion animals into every day life. Dogs lead our blind through the streets and shopping malls.  Cats are used as therapy tools in hospitals or prisons.  In the following blog, Jennifer Copley describes how “in 2007, the Associated Press reported that a Columbian police unit has been using cat-and-rat teams to find and remove landmines” [Copley].  Not only are these animals working with humans, but cats and rats are working together, despite their historical feud.

Beyond the idea of humans and dogs living as one, this issue is of importance to us in this course because we can relate what Haraway is saying in terms of our co-evolution with communication technologies, specifically, the Internet. To take a step back and look at how technology has developed over the past century, it is apparent that without human involvement, the Internet would not be what it is today.  On the flip side, this networking technology has in turn changed how humans behave, interact, and think, as a species. Jose Luis Cordeiro describes Part II of a book written by William E. Halal called Technology’s Promise, in saying that “Social Impacts of the Technology Revolution builds on the previous chapters [of Halal’s book] in order to visualize possible futures and the direct impact of science and technology on social institutions during this current Knowledge Age, which seems to be giving birth to an Age of Consciousness. The author argues that these changes are fundamental to the very survival of humanity.” [Cordeiro].  This book, though I have only read reviews, appears to build on this idea of technology evolving alongside the human race, and in turn the necessity of this technology in human evolution.

My question for my fellow students is, where is the breaking point between how you identify yourself based on relationships with family, friends, work, sports, and so on, versus your relationship with the technological companion, the Internet?

When wrapping my head around the concepts in this article, I found Wikipedia’s explanation of coevolution particularly useful.  Please refer to this site, as well as the sites listed below for further reading.  Also, if you’re interested, I have also included a link to a website that has available for download, a 20 minute “video” (you’ll see why I put that in quotations if you check it out) called Co-Evolution of Technology, Media, and Collective Action where Howard Rheingold talks about human evolution through writing, colonization, and the advancement of networks and network technologies.  It is an interesting piece, though it doesn’t touch on the technologies aspect until the last couple of minutes.

In closing I’d like to end with my favourite quote from Haraway’s article:

“Generally speaking, one does not eat one’s companion animals (not get eaten by them); and one has a hard time shaking colonialist, ethnocentric, ahistorical attitudes toward those who do (eat or get eaten).” [14]

In thinking about co-evolving alongside the Internet, I like to hope that, as time goes on, we do not eat, or get eaten, by this technology.

Thank you for reading!

Copley, Jennifer. "Suite 101." Cats with Jobs. 29 May 2008. 17 February 2011. <http://www.suite101.com/blog/shaya_weaver/cats_with_jobs>.

Cordeiro, Jose Luis. "Kurzweil." Technology’s Promise: Expert Knowledge on the Transformation of Business and Society. 4 July 2010. 17 February 2011. <http://www.kurzweilai.net/technology’s-promise-expert-knowledge-on-the-transformation-of-business-and-society>.

Rheingold, Howard. “Co-Evolution of Technology, Media, and Collective Action”. NMC Symposium on Evolution of Communication. 5 December 2007.

Wikipedia. "Coevolution." October 2010.  Wikipedia Foundation Inc. 17 February 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution>.

The Ambiguous Panopticon: Foucault and the Codes of Cyberspace - Mark Winokur

In this article, Mark Winokur is illustrating, through the aid of Michael Foucault’s arguments on panopticism, his ideas on the ambiguity of the Internet, in specific, the distribution of power within the Internet and it’s relation to panopticism. He opens with a statement ultimately saying that the effects of the Internet are unclear in whether they are positive or negative, but using the arguments of the French philosopher to dissect the Internet down to power, surveillance and totality.  This is a great article to look at, as it ties into previous discussions on Biopower, and it’s effectiveness within a society, versus Sovereign power, which is an important issue when discussing the Internet and it’s effect on our now ‘Network Society’.  Winokur argues his panoptic view versus a utopic view of the Internet, by categorizing his thoughts in four subsections: The Gaze, Space, Authority, and Totality. 

Winokur argues that the Internet instills a notion within its users of being watched all the time, and that this “gaze” is stronger and more prevalent than other forms of media, such as films and television. He describes this gaze as having bi-directionality, in that “the computer monitor observes us as we observe it” and “the monitor seems genuinely reciprocal in a manner to which neither television nor movies can aspire”.  He relates this idea of being constantly observed to panopticism, as individuals are policing themselves online, as they know there is always a chance they could be under surveillance.

When discussing space within the Internet, Winokur focuses more on the idea that the Internet could be anywhere in terms of a virtual sense, rather than a geographical sense. In terms of space, the Internet is dispersed like power is dispersed in a panopticon. However, he argues that this space can be both multiple and homogenous in that it can be used anywhere, especially with the advancement of communication technologies such as Smartphones, but at the same time, the websites people visit are often the same.  Popular websites, such as Facebook, YouTube, or MySpace, are visited most frequently which gives the internet that homogenous attribute.  I disagree with Winokur’s point here about the spatial aspect of the Internet being dispersed as power is in panopticism. Later I will discuss in more detail how I feel this point relates to the idea of totality within the Internet system, and how we are limited to the spatial disbanding of power based on our accessibility, our infrastructure, and social status as well.

As for authority, Winokur argues that creating surveillance software promotes the idea that the user is always being watched or could be at any given time, and that because of this, individuals may take on the responsibility themselves to police others on the Net.

“Anti-virus software, spyware, anti-spyware, anti-pornography software, firewalls, Trojans, anti-Trojan programs, worms, data-erasure programs, and other forms of self-surveillance -- software more or less readily available to all Internet citizens -- can infiltrate other computers or monitor the penetrations into one's own computer; it is possible to locate the source of the attack, thus monitoring the activities and strategies of individuals and corporations.”

This dispersion of authority brings key focus on the relationship between those who are in the centre and those who are being watched, when relating the Internet to a panoptic system.

Lastly, when discussing totality, Winokur argues that virtual reality is itself a version of totality, as the ability to have access to the Internet all the time, and it’s portable nature now with Smartphones and PDA’s, gives the Internet a totalizing nature.  As discussed in the forum, I agree with Winokur’s point that the Internet is totalizing, but only when people are online.  And although the accessibility of the Net is growing with each passing day, there are still many places, both foreign and domestic that render us “offline” no matter what technology we may possess.  In this sense, the Internet is not totalizing, as you have to, first of all, have access to the Internet, and secondly be online in order to be fully enveloped within this technology.  I do agree with his argument that the Internet is the most totalizing of media so far, beating our films and television, but I am not convinced that the Internet is the be-all end-all of totality within our society.

The aspect of the article that lost me was the idea of discourse and code.  This may stem from my ignorance of how this technology works at a very basic form, however I am left with this question to throw out to the masses: If code is invisible, but what it creates (the Internet) is not, then what is meant by Winokur’s argument that the Internet creates what it defines, unlike language?

I found a few websites on Michael Foucault that helped me get a better understanding of who he is and what he is about.  Thanks for reading, and feel free to check out the sites listed below.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Michael Foucault." 17 September 2008.  10 Feb 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/>.

Clare O'Farrell. "Michael Foucault." Key Concepts. 30 October 2010.  . 10 Feb 2011. <http://www.michel-foucault.com/concepts/index.html>.

Eric Oakley. "Michel Foucault: The Panopticon and Panopticism." Michel Foucault: The Panopticon and Panopticism. 14 November 2005.  Associated Content. 10 Feb 2011. <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/13822/michel_foucault_the_panopticon_and.html?cat=37>.

Guy Debord: The Society of the Spectacle

In this article, Guy Debord argues a few different points, the most predominant being that social life no longer exists, except in images and representations.  He describes this new society as that of a series of spectacles or appearances, rather than real relationships with people.

  
“…all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation” [1]

“The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images” [4]

This issue is of significance to us now, in terms of living through an ‘Internet Revolution’, because Debord viewed the advancement of media technologies within society as a means for the spectacle to become our society, rather than to supplement our lives within our society.  He viewed the spectacle as “the main production of present-day society” [15], meaning we are not producing goods and services anymore, but rather more spectacle, or the images that represent the commodities. He sees the advancement in communications technologies as a very visual shift, which he deems as negative since this visuality leaves us with one-way communication that shifts us from being an active member of a society to an increasingly passive consumer of the spectacle. He describes this in paragraph 18,

“The spectacle, as a tendency to make one see the world by means of various specialized mediations (it can no longer be grasped directly), naturally finds vision to be the privileged human sense which the sense of touch was for other epochs” [18]

“It is the opposite of dialogue.  Wherever there is independent representation, the spectacle reconstitutes itself.” [18]

This argument gets more convincing the more I put it into terms of today’s society.  I do not fully agree with Debord’s Marxist point of view, but I do see where he is coming from.  To look at society as a compilation of images and representations, rather than experiences and relationships, requires a more pessimistic way of thinking.  Debord described everything we do; products we consume; methods of developing and retaining relationships; as nothing more than a means of feeding the spectacle which is in itself our society.  I feel that although this does hold some truth in that we do passively consume a lot more than we realize through various communications technologies, such as television, radio, and the internet, that such technologies, namely the advancement of the internet and Web 2.0, have allowed us to participate in society more so than when Debord was constructing his thesis his 1967.

As I referenced in my post for the Weekly Discussion on Guy Debord, “the internet does allow us as consumers to feel as though we are a part of the bigger picture. Web 2.0 has allowed us to not just see what we consume, but we can voice back our feelings about it in hopes that we may have an effect on the evolution of the product”.

The discussion on this article has been amazing in that it has helped answer a lot of the questions and confusions I had after reading through the article myself.   However, if I am to ask one question of my fellow classmates, it is this:

If the Internet is simply another means for the spectacle to grow and engulf us as a society, is there anything we can do to change this? Can we flip the Internet back on the spectacle and change the direction in which our society is heading, to involve more interaction and less passivity within our economy?

I have found a few websites that helped illustrate Guy Debord’s point, and offer up some more background on him as a Situationist. About half way down the page of this kagablog entry, as well as on the next page, there are images to represent each paragraph of Debord’s Society of the Spectacle.  As well, I found the psychogeographic map of Paris that Debord compiled to be quite interesting.  It helps illustrate his thinking as part of the Situationist Movement.  Lastly, 'avoiding the void' offers a great explanation of Debord’s work, and assisted my understanding of this article.

Debord, Guy. “Separation Perfected.” Society of the Spectacle. Detroit: Black and Red, 1983. Sections 1-34. (CanCopy Course Kit)

Abraxas. "Kagablog." Society of the Spectacle. December 2007 - January 2008. 26 January 2011.

<http://kaganof.com/kagablog/category/categories/society-of-the-spectacle/>.

Imaginart Museum Projects. Guy Debord 1957: Psychogeographic Guide of Paris. 26 January 2011.

<http://imaginarymuseum.org/LPG/Mapsitu1.htm>.

Avoiding the Void. "Guy Debord." The Society of the Spectacle. 16 June 2010. 27 January 2011.

<http://avoidingthevoid.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/notes-guy-debord-society-of-the-spectacle/>.

One picture to represent many thoughts...

As referenced in my forum discussion posted January 19th, this picture (one of the many magnificent works of art by Annette Seip) represents my thoughts on the internet.

"While you're within a revolution, living through the revolution, it's hard to recognize it.  In this photograph, the only thing in focus is that fraction of myself.  The rest is illustrative of the unknown; of the progressive whirlwind of technological advancement occurring all around us through this revolution, and may only come into focus once we have seen the other side."

Philosophy and the Internet

Hey everyone!

I have created this blog because I have decided to expand my mathematical/scientific brain into the philosophical world.  It's been a ride so far!  As a requirement of the course, we students are to create a blog/facebook page/youtube channel to post our "Critical Responses" to assigned readings in the course.  And so, my blog :)

However, I think this blog thing might be really fun - I always find everyday happenings quite entertaining and would love to share them with the masses.  So intertwined in the scholastic writings, you may find the odd blog on life as we know it.

So thank you for reading - and feel free to comment on anything you see on here!