<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Mike, all,<div><br></div><div>I'm enjoying the reflections on "who we are becoming". Too much discussion on new media, social media, web 2.0 is about "hey, look, this is changing". Very little is about the implications of that change, and, for that matter, the durability of change (a few of my thoughts on the change/becoming distinction from 2007 citing Baudrillard: <a href="http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=96">http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=96</a>).</div><div><br></div><div> Mike - from reading your last several contributions to idc, you're obviously focused on the network structure, network logic, etc. Some of the language you use strikes me as deterministic "what kind of self/person emerges from this environment"? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the role of personal agency in the network model you're advocating. I don't think the network makes us. I'm also not 100% convinced we make the network. There is some type of relationship that blends the two, but it isn't cause/effect or even dichotomous. Networks are today more explicit because the systems we use to communicate make this relationship obvious (roads, telegraphs, then mobiles, then the internet, now social media). For that matter, is the internet really the "new thing" here? Aren't Roman roads and telegraphs the real innovation? In light of Arthur's model of technological assemblies, the internet is a current instantiation of networks, but hardly the most novel.</div><div><br></div><div>Network logic isn't new either, is it? What's new, in human history, is the hierarchical models we've functioned under for the past several centuries and that today define our government, schools, religions, and businesses. Networks, not always optimized for democracy or equity, are *the* foundational structure of humanity. With your expertise in anthropology, now with a digital focus, you're better able to comment on the historical role of networks and the degree to which they are deterministic today than I am. Reactions?</div><div><br></div><div>George </div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 2011-08-24, at 9:12 AM, Michael Wesch wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Thanks, Pam. These observations are definitely in line with what I am<br>thinking about these days ... which leads me to the very big question<br>at the core of all of this which I cannot answer just yet. The simple<br>version is "Have we changed?" or "Are we changing?" but I mean to ask<br>this question at a very deep fundamental level.<br><br>The question actually came to me during my fieldwork in Papua New<br>Guinea. There, what we call "the belief in witchcraft" is common. I<br>say this is what we call it, because people who believe in witchcraft<br>usually do not see it as a "belief." It is a simple observation of<br>the way things are. More importantly, the "belief" in witchcraft is<br>part and parcel of a totally different model of personhood & self that<br>one might call "relational" or to use McKim Marriott's word "dividual"<br>rather than "individual." People who "believe" in witchcraft view<br>their selves and bodies as deeply interconnected with others. Healthy<br>relations lead to healthy bodies. When a body gets sick or dies,<br>basic logic implies that there must be a sick relation. Witchcraft<br>allegations ensue.<br><br>I was in a very remote area of Papua New Guinea where there had been<br>almost no government contact, and certainly no sustained governance<br>... until about 2 years after I arrived. Local men who had been<br>trained in governance came back to the village to govern. They took a<br>census, held meetings, tried court cases, made maps, plans, etc. ...<br>basic statecraft stuff. Except that all of this basic statecraft<br>stuff required the creation of "categorical individuals" to work.<br>Officers grew frustrated as the "relational dividuals" failed to<br>provide fixed names or residences that they could put in their little<br>boxes. Locals were frustrated and sometimes mystified by meetings<br>where they could not speak - or where they had to take turns, or<br>declare whether or not they were making a comment, posing a question,<br>or otherwise, so the guy in the corner writing the minutes could<br>record it appropriately.<br><br>Ultimately the officers knew something had to change. People were<br>moving around too much and social life was too chaotic for their<br>relatively fixed and categorical books. They did not see the problem<br>as "dividuality." It was witchcraft. Long story very short: a<br>classic witch-hunt ensued - carefully documented, each accused witch<br>tried in a formal court, punished, asked to become State's witness to<br>identify other witches ... the list grew ... etc.<br><br>None of this did anything to get ride of witchcraft. Instead, the<br>logic of witchcraft encompassed the whole process and those who were<br>accused by the state did what they have always done when somebody<br>accused them of witchcraft. They accused them back. Three months<br>later the hunt was over. Most of the 100+ on the list now convinced<br>that the government itself was full of witches.<br><br>But as I watched the trials (which was a terrible experience) I was<br>wondering if the death of witchcraft could not be far behind. The<br>structures of the state were taking over. These relational dividuals<br>were slowly but surely learning the ways of categorical identity -<br>creating and providing formal records for the clinic, which<br>objectified their body under the gaze of the local doctor ... creating<br>a trail of marks and individual achievement through the new school (a<br>measure of their minds), striving for salvation for their souls in the<br>new churches, and standing court as individuals. The Western trio of<br>individualism: mind, body, and spirit had moved in. They were still<br>relational dividuals when I left in 2006 - but they were individuals<br>too. (Andrew Strathern, studying a more developed region of PNG has<br>called this "relational individualism")<br><br>The short of this is to note that witchcraft / "relational<br>dividuality" thrives in cultures of intense interdependence. As noted<br>by Robin Briggs, in my favorite book about European witchcraft<br>(Witches and Neighbors), the relatively recent abandonment of<br>witchraft (& "relational dividuality") by Europeans "has much to do<br>with the decline of neighborhood and the associated rise of national<br>and bureaucratic power structures as dominating forces in our lives."<br><br>So I'm back in Kansas now. And we have very different power structures<br>becoming dominant in our lives. Here I am thinking about the Network<br>Society writ large (think Manuel Castells). What kind of self /<br>person emerges in this environment?<br><br>Is it the mediated self of Thomas de Zengotita ... the saturated self<br>of Kenneth Gergen ... the Narcissist of Lasch/Twenge/etc.???<br><br>That's the question: Who are we becoming?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Pamela McLean<br><<a href="mailto:pamela.mclean@dadamac.net">pamela.mclean@dadamac.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Interesting blog<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I'd love to respond on many levels but will just choose one for now<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Ref your discussion of identity and the internet - including "As a society,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">we continue trending toward individualism and superficiality even as we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">value connection, community, and authenticity. We disengage from community,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">social action, and politics. We amuse ourselves to death. And the most<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">amazing collaboration and creativity machine ever created celebrates its<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">20th anniversary as a distraction device."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I have some observations based on ten years work which has been enabled by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the Internet. I could justify them all and link them into an argument if<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">necessary - but time does not allow at present so for now I'll just list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">them<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Individualism is related to competition, a "you are what you own" culture,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">consumer society, industrial society, production, consumption, capitialism,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">markets, competition, belief in continual (infinite) growth despite living<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">on a finite planet.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">There is dissatisfaction with this lifestyle<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">There is uncertainly relating to continuation of some aspects of it - slow<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">down of economic growth, peak oil concerns, unstable financial system etc<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Events such as UNCIVILISATION 2011: The Dark Mountain Festival -<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.dadamac.net/event/uncivilisation-2011-dark-mountain-festival">http://www.dadamac.net/event/uncivilisation-2011-dark-mountain-festival</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Greater collaboration is possible through the internet<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Collaborative approaches via the internet - emerging alternative systems for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">thinking about things and for doing things<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The internet as a way to rediscover and reinvent local community - meet-ups,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">special interest groups, etc<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Book e-gaia by Gary Alexander - example of collaboration instead of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">competition<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Various personal experiences of collaboration in online projects<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Reduction in "look at me" performance aspect of internet use<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Increase in collaborative communities of interest and appreciation of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">benefits of working together for various individual and/or shared<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">benefits.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Identity through positive belonging in groups and networks - ones that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">often work (without pay) at doing things together<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Explorations of new ways of working and emergent roles - e.g. peer-to-peer<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">network: - P2P working, the commons, open source production, 3D printing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I wonder if this bare bones list makes any sense to you and if it links in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">any way with what you are thinking and exploring. I believe that people will<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">develop a different view of themselves - and their "worth" - as the 21st<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">century moves on and the true impact of the internet emerges and is felt and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">better understood. I wonder what your thoughts are on that.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Pamela McLean<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Snippets to remind me what you said<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">We need a vision for who we and our students need to *be*... .it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">would help to know who we are.. “find ourselves,”.. “Identity” is so<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">important to us because we live in a world in which identity and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">recognition are not givens. ...Just when we think we know who we are the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">doubts start to creep in: … the postmodern being is a restless nomad”<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Two “slides” (as Taylor calls them) result from this process..the quest for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">identity squeezes in on us.. We start focusing more and more on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ourselves and our own self-fulfillment, often to the detriment of deepand<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">lasting relationships. (Note: this is not something the internet<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">created. In fact, some would argue the internet was created as correction to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this (and it has worked and failed in dramatic fashion<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">depending on the person and context).) As a result, we become increasingly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">disengaged from our communities and public life as we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">focus more and more on ourselves.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Secondly, . we no longer share the same beliefs and values across the whole<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">society, and that there can be little or no ground on which to stand to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">claim that your beliefs and values are true while others are false. Society<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">becomes increasingly fragmented.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">As a society, we continue trending toward individualism and superficiality<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">even as we value connection, community, and authenticity. We disengage from<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">community, social action, and politics. We amuse ourselves to death. And the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">most amazing collaboration and creativity machine ever created celebrates<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">its 20th anniversary as a distraction device.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">But he also sees the potential for creating a “virtuous circle.” Successful<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">common actions can breed a sense of empowerment<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and connection that can spread to other domains. That’s where we come in as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">teachers. We have an opportunity, not just to teach our students<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">“something,” but to be part of their journey and help them find meaning and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">purpose in an over-saturated, fragmented, and distracting world full of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">self-indulgent temptations.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I won’t spend the rest of this blog harping on about how I try to do this,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">but diving into this work of 1991 has re-invigorated my passion<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for project-based learning in which students engage in real and relevant<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">problems that excite them, work together to approach these<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">problems as a learning community, and harness and leverage digital<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">technologies while also critically reflecting on how those technologies<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">mediate and change their lives.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I know this has been a long post, but how we understand society, and our<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">capacity to imagine how society might change (or if it can change)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">can have a dramatic effect on how we teach. In 1968, Warren Bennis and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Philip Slater made many of the same observations I have put forth here<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in “The Temporary Society.” Imagining a radically more flexible social<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">world, they suggested that “we should help our students … (1) Learn<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">how to develop intense and deep human relationships quickly – and learn how<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to “let go.” … (2) Learn how to enter groups and leave them.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">”<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">While I agree with their observations, and the spirit of their suggestions,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I take a slightly different approach. If community, social action, and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">empathy levels are down (as research shows them to be), then I think it is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">our responsibility to help create more socially conscious and empathic<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">students/citizens.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I don’t want to help make students for the world.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I want to help make students who make the world over."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On 23 August 2011 18:54, Michael Wesch <<a href="mailto:mike.wesch@gmail.com">mike.wesch@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Yesterday I made 5 observations related to my goal of inspiring great<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">questions:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1. Inspiring great questions is hard.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2. Large numbers of students tune out or just "get by".<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">3. They are seeking identity and recognition.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">4. There is something in the air (the Web, etc.)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">5. That we are in the midst of a change that started several decades<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ago away from groups and hierarchies towards networks and network<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">logic.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Some of these observations are certain, others debatable. Today I'm<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">wrestling with #5, and thinking about how #3 is really playing out.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Charles Taylor argues that the ethic of authenticity emerged in the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">late 1700s - part and parcel of modern individualism. But modern<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">individualism fits very nicely with groups and hierarchies. If we are<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">really moving towards networks and network logic, what happens to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">individualism? And what happens to authenticity? Thomas de Zengotita<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thinks authenticity is for the Romantics - dead in the 21st Century<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">... and Gergen proposed that at least *some* people were abandoning<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">individualism for a more "relational" self - but were failing to find<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the linguistic resources to describe, defend, and live with their new<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">selfhood. A couple of weeks ago I started thinking about all this and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">blogged the following ...<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"We need a vision for who we and our students need to *be* – not just<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what we should know. I’m not sure what that is, but I do know that it<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">would help to know who we are, and to know who we are it would help to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">know who we were . . . and that’s why I’m sitting in my office reading<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a bag full of books written in 1991.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Who we were: 1991<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On August 6th, 1991, the Web debuted as a publicly accessible service<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">on the Internet. Almost 20 years later to the day, I’m sitting here<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">reading five books released in the year before that momentous<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">occasion: Charles Taylor’s “The Ethics of Authenticity, Kenneth<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Gergen’s “The Saturated Self,” Harvey’s “Condition of Postmodernity,”<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Anthony Giddens’ “Modernity and Self-Identity” and Jameson’s “Cultural<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Logic of Late Capitalism.” Each of them presents a brilliant<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">perspective on who we were at that moment just before the web was born<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">– and all are (despite their depth and perceptiveness) charmingly and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">innocently unaware of Tim’s little invention that would start to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">reshape how we live, work and play.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Even a cursory read quickly dispels certain myths about the effects of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the Web. Here are three observations that immediately stand out:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1. We were already distracted.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In 1991 we worried that our kids were narcissistic, disengaged, and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not easily impressed … that their attention spans were no more than 4<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">minutes, the average link of an MTV music video. Our kids (and all of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">us) were already distracted by what Gergen fancifully calls<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">“invitations to incoherence”. If Gergen were to re-write today he<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">would undoubtedly include in these “invitations” the persistent<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">e-mailing, IM’ing, status-updating, texting, tweeting, etc. that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">invite us into other worlds and thereby make every moment a bit<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">incoherent. But in 1991 he settled for the ability to receive a call<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">or fax from anybody in the world and instantly be transported into<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">another social universe. Gergen went so far as to suggest that such<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">activities “engender a multiplicitous and polymorphic being who<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thrives on incoherence.” In 1991 he could temper such remarks by<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">noting that few had taken the leap into this polymorphic state, but<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">followed up such caveats by noting that “there is good reason to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">believe that what is taking place within these groups can be taken as<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a weathervane of future cultural life in general … in the longer run …<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the technologies giving rise to social saturation will be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">inescapable.”<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Gergen prophetically notes that “We enter the age of techno-personal<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">systems,” but he was not imagining the World Wide Web. By<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">“technologies of saturation” he simply means roads, cities, cars,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">planes, cities, phones, computers, newspapers, radio, TV that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">collectively “saturate” us with information and connections that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">surpass our capacity to manage effectively.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2. Our education system was already “in crisis” and out of step with the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">times.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Drop out rates were high. Psychological drop out rates were even<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">higher. As Harvey notes, the Fordist big business-big labor-big state<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">alliance that had brought decades of prosperity to the West had given<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">way to globalization and “flexible accumulation.” The US<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">de-industrialized and by 1991 nearly half of all Americans were<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">working in “information.” We were already a knowledge economy in a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">globalizing world, but our schools were not keeping up – still<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">teaching in an industrial model.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">And there was no shortage of reformers. Canons were falling.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Interdisciplinary was all the buzz. New departments – especially<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Women’s Studies, African American Studies, Culture Studies – sprung up<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and took aim at the traditional, stodgy, power-laden,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">white-male-centered educational system. (i.e. Wikipedia did not invent<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">challenges to traditional models of authority.)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">3. We thought our kids were self-obsessed, overly-self-important<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">narcissists.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">There were already persistent complaints about our kids being<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">disengaged and narcissistic. Students were feeding off of the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">revolutionary energy of the reformers, reading the postmodernist<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">challenge to authority as an ally in elevating their own opinions to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the status of experts. Alan Bloom voiced the concerns of those who<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">were concerned about these developments in “The Closing of the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">American Mind,” ranting about the self-obsessed “anything goes”<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">attitude of our youth. The book struck a chord and enjoyed a run atop<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the Times Bestsellers list. (Lasch’s excellent “Culture of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Narcissism,” originally published in 1978, had also come back as a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">revised edition in 1991).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Familiar Themes<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Twenty years later the same complaints abound. Jean Twenge has called<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">our youth “Generation Me” and worries that we are facing a “Narcissism<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Epidemic.” Nicholas Carr has eloquently argued that multi-tasking is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">merely distracted thinking and that without adequate awareness of how<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the Internet effects our brains we are destined for the “Shallows.”<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">And blogs, tweets, bookshelves, and conference programs abound with<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">complaints and proposed solutions to our current education crisis.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">If the themes seem familiar, perhaps it is simply because these 1991<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">authors were perceptive enough to identify fundamental persistent<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">tensions in our culture rather than simply identifying the “trends.”<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">They are not hung up on these three simple observations. They are<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">seeking the roots, and what they dig up is as relevant today as it was<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in 1991.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Taylor calls it “an act of retrieval.” Most cultural commentators miss<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the mark by failing to recognize the underlying moral ideal at work<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that is producing the apparent problems. What appears as distraction,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">dissolution, fragmentation, and self-indulgent, self-important<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">narcissism is, at a deeper level, an expression of our pursuit of the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">authentic self.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The ethic of authenticity was born in the late 18th century and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">persists to this day. Being “authentic” requires us to “find<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ourselves,” “get in touch with our inner lives,” and act from our<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">“core.” It springs from what Taylor calls “the massive subjective turn<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of modern culture.” “Identity” is so important to us (and especially<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">our students) because we live in a world in which identity and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">recognition are not givens. They must be achieved. It is our “core<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">project” as Giddens says.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But there are tensions at work within this quest for identity and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">recognition. Authenticity demands an entirely original creation –<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which frequently involves opposition to society. Yet at the same time<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">our creations cannot be meaningful without being open to the meaning<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">systems created and sustained by society. We never quite feel like we<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">have “found ourselves.” Just when we think we know who we are the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">doubts start to creep in: Is this really the real me? Or have I been<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">duped by society? Or we find ourselves so on the margins that we feel<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a loss of meaning and purpose. Most of us sway between these poles,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">always struggling to find who we really are. The “technologies of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">saturation” only amplify these issues by providing us with countless<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">options, so that each self we portray or become “cries out for an<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">alternative, points to a missed potential, or mocks the chosen action<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for its triviality … the postmodern being is a restless nomad”<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(Gergen).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Two “slides” (as Taylor calls them) result from this process. First,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">like a chinese fingercuff the quest for identity squeezes in on us<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ever harder as we try to escape it. We start focusing more and more on<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ourselves and our own self-fulfillment, often to the detriment of deep<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and lasting relationships. (Note: this is not something the internet<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">created. In fact, some would argue the internet was created as a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">correction to this (and it has worked and failed in dramatic fashion<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">depending on the person and context).) As a result, we become<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">increasingly disengaged from our communities and public life as we<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">focus more and more on ourselves. (Giddens and Harvey would want to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">point out that this is amplified by the “disembedding mechanisms” of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">modernity that hide the many connections and relationships that allow<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">us to survive.)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Secondly, there is what Taylor calls “a negation of all horizons of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">significance” which is a fancy way of saying that we no longer share<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the same beliefs and values across the whole society, and that there<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can be little or no ground on which to stand to claim that your<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">beliefs and values are true while others are false. Society becomes<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">increasingly fragmented.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The two slides feed back into the process itself. The first slide<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">makes us feel more disengaged from society so we increasingly seek<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">meaning, recognition, and identity. The second slide creates more and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">more options for us to try out on the journey, while taking away the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">possibility of ever finding the “right” identity or being universally<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">positively recognized because there are too many diverse viewpoints<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and possibilities.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">As a society, we continue trending toward individualism and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">superficiality even as we value connection, community, and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">authenticity. We disengage from community, social action, and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">politics. We amuse ourselves to death. And the most amazing<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">collaboration and creativity machine ever created celebrates its 20th<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">anniversary as a distraction device.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">What to do?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Taylor is not shy about noting that what we have here is a “vicious<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">circle.” But he also sees the potential for creating a “virtuous<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">circle.” Successful common actions can breed a sense of empowerment<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and connection that can spread to other domains. That’s where we come<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in as teachers. We have an opportunity, not just to teach our students<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">“something,” but to be part of their journey and help them find<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">meaning and purpose in an over-saturated, fragmented, and distracting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">world full of self-indulgent temptations.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I won’t spend the rest of this blog harping on about how I try to do<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">this, but diving into this work of 1991 has re-invigorated my passion<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for project-based learning in which students engage in real and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">relevant problems that excite them, work together to approach these<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">problems as a learning community, and harness and leverage digital<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">technologies while also critically reflecting on how those<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">technologies mediate and change their lives.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I know this has been a long post, but how we understand society, and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">our capacity to imagine how society might change (or if it can change)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can have a dramatic effect on how we teach. In 1968, Warren Bennis and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Philip Slater made many of the same observations I have put forth here<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in “The Temporary Society.” Imagining a radically more flexible social<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">world, they suggested that “we should help our students … (1) Learn<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">how to develop intense and deep human relationships quickly – and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">learn how to “let go.” … (2) Learn how to enter groups and leave them.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">”<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">While I agree with their observations, and the spirit of their<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">suggestions, I take a slightly different approach. If community,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">social action, and empathy levels are down (as research shows them to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">be), then I think it is our responsibility to help create more<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">socially conscious and empathic students/citizens.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I don’t want to help make students for the world.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I want to help make students who make the world over."<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">--<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Michael Wesch, PhD<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Associate Professor of Cultural Anthropology<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Coffman Chair for University Distinguished Teaching Scholars<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2010 NITLE Fellow<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2009 National Geographic Emerging Explorer<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2008 US Professor of the Year<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2007 Wired Magazine Rave Award Winner<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Director of the Digital Ethnography Working Group<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Kansas State University<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mwesch@ksu.edu">mwesch@ksu.edu</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mediatedcultures.net">http://mediatedcultures.net</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://bikemanhattan.info">http://bikemanhattan.info</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">List Archive:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">iDC Photo Stream:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">RSS feed:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">iDC Chat on Facebook:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br><br><br>-- <br>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>Michael Wesch, PhD<br>Associate Professor of Cultural Anthropology<br>Coffman Chair for University Distinguished Teaching Scholars<br>2010 NITLE Fellow<br>2009 National Geographic Emerging Explorer<br>2008 US Professor of the Year<br>2007 Wired Magazine Rave Award Winner<br>Director of the Digital Ethnography Working Group<br>Kansas State University<br><a href="mailto:mwesch@ksu.edu">mwesch@ksu.edu</a><br>http://mediatedcultures.net<br>http://bikemanhattan.info<br>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)<br>iDC@mailman.thing.net<br>https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc<br><br>List Archive:<br>http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/<br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/<br><br>RSS feed:<br>http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc<br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647<br><br>Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>