Bolter,
Jay David and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
I
feel that an argument Bolter and Grusin make is that “whenever our identity is
mediated [by technology] it is also remediated because we always understand a
particular medium in relation to past and present media” (231). This argument
is very relevant to English studies, especially when we think of remediated
selves—both in terms of teachers and students. I see a connection between the
remediated self and the online classroom. Bolter and Grusin’s section regarding
the networked self relates to Marilyn M. Cooper’s article with Cynthia L.
Selfe, “Comptuer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and
Internally Persuasive Discourse”. Cooper and Selfe discuss online forums as a
space where students can converse freely with one another without the pressures
and inequalities of a traditional classroom. I view this online forum as a
remediated space—that is, an online forum that refashions the classroom.
Students are still responsible for attendance via participation, though their
attendance is shown through their virtual submission. Students in these
remediated classrooms must present remediated selves; interestingly, Cooper and
Selfe present this idea in 1990, nine years before Bolter and Grusin’s
groundbreaking book. While describing the parameters for their student’s
participation on an online forum, Cooper and Selfe wrote, “class members
contributed to the conference at their convenience, as long as they did so
twice a week, and they were invited to use pseudonyms to identify their entries
if they wished” (Cooper and Selfe 853). Thus, students like “Velcro,”
“Disgruntled,” and “Bink” all projected remediated versions of themselves,
giving their instructor the ability to see and juggle both versions of their
selves, the self attending class under their given name, and their online self,
posting under a chosen nickname. Being able to see both selves would change the
way I’m able to interpret the actions of various students who are quieter in
the physical classroom, which, in turn, might change the way I teach.
Hey Jenna,
ReplyDeleteexcellent thinking...I particularly like your word choice and combination in the use of the phrase virtual submission. I think virtual submission is something worth recognition, in the sense that virtual submission is both the impetus and product of an online environment.
The impetus to join into discussions in class, in person, on the other hand, is slightly different because one isn't graded on virtual submissions but real world submissions of differing input types. With that being said, I would venture to say that the types of submissions I would devise for an in class discussion are different than the ones I have to craft for an online environment.
My point is, I think that in addition to offering a remediated version of those whose participation is otherwise limited in person, it also necessitates the remediation of anyone else who might participate in both manners.
Even more to the point, I think it is hard to make the same exact points in spoken words as one would in a written response. For me, I tend to elaborate more in writing, if at least just because I feel like I can. In person, I remediate those points to only the ones I feel I can make within the fluid context of group discussions.
The ultimate point, that you made, and that I've tried adapting, is that teachers can learn a great deal about the learning styles of differing students through the remediated exchange of ideas possible thanks to the various remediations already craftily remediated.
Your exploration of remediated selves reminds me of a discussion that occurred in Susan Ross's digital diversity class, which I am observing this semester. She showed a clip from the documentary "Rip! Remix Manifesto" (Canadian) discussing issues with music copyright laws and how those prohibit the creativity of remixing. I guess my tangential point is that it is interesting how/when remediation is acceptable and when it is not. Remediating ourselves is considered natural, but doing this to music, which is "owned" by an industry, then we've taken the natural remediation and transferred it to something forbidden.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link in case anyone is interested: http://www.nfb.ca/film/rip_a_remix_manifesto/
If you got to 7:13, this is where he explains the manifesto, which I think is the most interesting "theorem for digital culture" ever.
I hadn't thought about this before, but I think you're probably already there -- does remediation assume that the starting identity is something physical? Like, the real ("real") me and the "real" Great Gatsby as opposed to this internet me or the movie version?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a really deep thought, but have you ever had students do writing or post on Angel before you match names and faces? Do their in-class personalities and bodies remediate what we imagine them to be through their writing?
Hey, checked out your timeline, real awesome. I was thinking, "the Z-I sure looks fun." I was also thinking that the hand-crank mimeograph could have been on to something in as much as I think it would be pretty sweet if there was a hand-crank laptop in the modern sense of laptop....or even a hand-crank internet connection.....that would be great in the wood! Alan Turing seems to have really got the point of all this, makes it sure sound simple.
ReplyDeleteOh, and one more thing, Slug, Shag and Alan, what a group of people. Especially considering their names! I have never heard of Spacewars until I read your comment, so i guess I missed that one...but real cool!