I'm responding to Michael saying "If we could even just simply describe ourselves, we will have some rare insight." (I have read all the posts in this thread - but should perhaps explain that I'm not an academic and so I am not familiar with all the references and haven't completely understood all that I have read). <br>
<br>I have two contributions to offer related to identity. <br><br>One relates to identity and employment. I am preparing some workshops for people who are facing redundancy, and the thinking behind those workshops is relevant to the question of identity. In the workshops we will look at the wider picture, the personal implications, and what can be done. First we will need to reflect that we are in a period of rapid change. It is hard to remember exactly how things were five years ago.... ten years... fifteen ... It is hard to remember all the gadgets we didn't have, and the ways we managed to do things without them etc. Given our difficulties in remembering clearly the rapidly changing past, and given that the pace of change is increasing - how can we possibly imagine five years ahead, or even shorter periods? This means that for an increasing number of us the future is a foreign country, and the best we can do is to make what preparations we can for the journey into the unknown and whatever it may bring. <br>
<br>Losing jobs and going out into an uncertain future has implications for our sense of self - which for many people is tied up with their job label. No matter what the future brings I believe that a couple of things are worth looking at before redundancy hits. One is that in most uncertain situations we are stronger together. So, when facing redundancy and loss of the social interactions of your work it is important to build your relationships with others outside of work. When you suddenly end your job and become time-rich it is important to do meaningful things with others The worst possible thing is to hide yourself away writing job applications letters and getting isolated and depressed. <br>
<br>A key issue to address is your attitude to the question "Does being workless (I mean "without paid work") also mean you are worthless?". Naturally I am suggesting that an attitude of "I am my job label" is very narrow, and that only valuing people for what they can buy is a shallow way to look at things, and not an attitude they want to hold on to. I want to help people develop a different view of themselves (and other people) that can help them to cope with having no job label (and maybe even to thrive outside the tyranny of continuous, predictable, full-time employment). <br>
<br>I will not discuss now the value of all the unpaid work that we do for each other, nor the challenge of alternative, unpredictable working patters nor the alternative ways of rewarding effort other than money, but we will look at them in the workshops. <br>
<br>Also possibly relevant to "If we could even just simply describe ourselves, we will have some rare insight." is my own attempt to do so, written last Monday, on returning from <a href="http://www.dadamac.net/event/uncivilisation-2011-dark-mountain-festival">UNCIVILISATION 2011: The Dark Mountain Festival</a> I wrote this <a href="http://dadamac.posterous.com/on-returning-from-dark-mountain">http://dadamac.posterous.com/on-returning-from-dark-mountain</a> (NB I gave up a full time job ten years ago in order to devote more time to something that is still hard to describe. It was in response to the needs and vision of a friend who was going back home to set up a community project. I was willing to live more precariously, doing miscellaneous paid work to cover essential bills, so that I could have time and flexibility to commit myself to what I thought was more important. I am still doing that and when people ask me what I do I struggle
to give an answer.)<br><br>So - those are my two responses to "simply describing ourselves" - offered in response to your latest post and to your appreciation of the various previous responses to your earlier post.<br>
<br>Pamela<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 August 2011 20:45, Michael Wesch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.wesch@gmail.com">mike.wesch@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Great comments & questions from you all. Some are familiar (rattling<br>
through my own head as I think through these things). Others were new<br>
and brought some welcome challenges to my thinking. I'm letting you<br>
all into the fuzzy edges of my thinking, so my language will be a bit<br>
slippery and I admittedly don't fully know what I'm trying to say just<br>
yet. Thank you all for indulging me. Your comments and questions are<br>
very useful.<br>
<br>
On agency and causality: (I should note at the outset that I used to<br>
be a very strong advocate for agency in theory-building until I<br>
witnessed the witch-hunts in PNG. Hard to explain it briefly here,<br>
but the events certainly demonstrated the power of culture, structural<br>
power, etc. I think we may over-emphasize "agency" in the West because<br>
we live with an ideology and illusion of strong agency) I find my own<br>
thinking about this resonates fairly well with ANT (Actor Network<br>
Theory) in which humans, things, institutions, etc. can all be seen as<br>
"agents" within a network that is constantly being remade & revised<br>
... not unlike the now-super-hip imagery of the Deleuze & Guittari<br>
rhizome. But those are "tools for thought" that do not necessarily<br>
translate very well to writing up a narrative about something that<br>
happened or is currently happening, so language starts to fail me as I<br>
try to explain how the self might be changing (or even *becoming*)<br>
given changes in our social, cultural, and technological environments.<br>
Concepts of the self, ethics, morals, values, etc. are really an<br>
integral part of these environments - so causality is not really<br>
something to debate. If we could even just simply describe<br>
ourselves, we will have some rare insight. In many ways I mean to<br>
take up the question Foucault started addressing just before he died.<br>
He became interested in a question once asked by Kant: "What are we<br>
today?" and he suggested that Lasch had started to answer this in the<br>
American context with his 1979 work, "The Culture of Narcissism." But<br>
reading Lasch is not unlike reading present-day books about today's<br>
youth. He has several profound passages but there are many broad<br>
generalizations being made that seem to apply to one group but not<br>
another. Likewise, today we get books about this generation - some of<br>
which call them the "dumbest" (Bauerlein) or entitled and narcissistic<br>
(Twenge, etc.) while others hail them as the next great generation<br>
(Strauss and Howe). And all of them struggle with the "we" question<br>
that Keith brings up ... What is this "we" that we mean to talk about<br>
anyway .... devoid of any recognition of class, culture, race,<br>
ethnicity, background, etc. So ...<br>
<br>
On "we": This is a big question. It may be more useful to divorce<br>
the language from a specific group of people and think more in terms<br>
of cultural logics or cultural systems. Castells takes the stance<br>
that while 4 billion people are not "in the network" they are<br>
nonetheless deeply affected by its existence, logic, and processes.<br>
But notably, many of them are not going to be taking on post-modern<br>
meta-reflexive perspectives on the self that Gergen thinks might be<br>
becoming more commonplace.<br>
<br>
On the history of networks:<br>
<br>
There may be other anthros on this list that can talk more about<br>
different aspects of this. The short answer is that yes, there have<br>
always been networks. Interestingly, many social situations that<br>
perhaps should have been understood as networks were originally<br>
understood and described as groups and hierarchies. In 1974, Roy<br>
Wagner made waves in anthropology by simply asking "Are there groups<br>
in the New Guinea Highlands?" and not answering in the affirmative.<br>
That was toward the beginning of the breakdown of the "culture"<br>
concept as too bounded, fixed, etc. (so we now tend to talk about<br>
"sociality" rather than "society" and "rhizomes" rather than<br>
"culture") I find it interesting that we seemed to have started<br>
seeing "networks" just as we were starting to experience them in more<br>
domains of our life - but I'm not ready to write a full intellectual<br>
history about it. It's just a passing thought.<br>
<br>
Thanks again for your thoughts and comments,<br>
Mike<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, George Siemens <<a href="mailto:gsiemens@gmail.com">gsiemens@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi Mike, all,<br>
> I'm enjoying the reflections on "who we are becoming". Too much discussion<br>
> on new media, social media, web 2.0 is about "hey, look, this is changing".<br>
> Very little is about the implications of that change, and, for that matter,<br>
> the durability of change (a few of my thoughts on the change/becoming<br>
> distinction from 2007 citing Baudrillard: <a href="http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=96" target="_blank">http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=96</a>).<br>
> Mike - from reading your last several contributions to idc, you're<br>
> obviously focused on the network structure, network logic, etc. Some of the<br>
> language you use strikes me as deterministic "what kind of self/person<br>
> emerges from this environment"? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the role<br>
> of personal agency in the network model you're advocating. I don't think the<br>
> network makes us. I'm also not 100% convinced we make the network. There is<br>
> some type of relationship that blends the two, but it isn't cause/effect or<br>
> even dichotomous. Networks are today more explicit because the systems we<br>
> use to communicate make this relationship obvious (roads, telegraphs, then<br>
> mobiles, then the internet, now social media). For that matter, is the<br>
> internet really the "new thing" here? Aren't Roman roads and telegraphs the<br>
> real innovation? In light of Arthur's model of technological assemblies, the<br>
> internet is a current instantiation of networks, but hardly the most novel.<br>
> Network logic isn't new either, is it? What's new, in human history, is the<br>
> hierarchical models we've functioned under for the past several centuries<br>
> and that today define our government, schools, religions, and businesses.<br>
> Networks, not always optimized for democracy or equity, are *the*<br>
> foundational structure of humanity. With your expertise in anthropology, now<br>
> with a digital focus, you're better able to comment on the historical role<br>
> of networks and the degree to which they are deterministic today than I am.<br>
> Reactions?<br>
> George<br>
><br>
> On 2011-08-24, at 9:12 AM, Michael Wesch wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> Interesting blog<br>
><br>
> I'd love to respond on many levels but will just choose one for now<br>
><br>
> Ref your discussion of identity and the internet - including "As a society,<br>
><br>
> we continue trending toward individualism and superficiality even as we<br>
><br>
> value connection, community, and authenticity. We disengage from community,<br>
><br>
> social action, and politics. We amuse ourselves to death. And the most<br>
><br>
> amazing collaboration and creativity machine ever created celebrates its<br>
><br>
> 20th anniversary as a distraction device."<br>
><br>
> I have some observations based on ten years work which has been enabled by<br>
><br>
> the Internet. I could justify them all and link them into an argument if<br>
><br>
> necessary - but time does not allow at present so for now I'll just list<br>
><br>
> them<br>
><br>
> Individualism is related to competition, a "you are what you own" culture,<br>
><br>
> consumer society, industrial society, production, consumption, capitialism,<br>
><br>
> markets, competition, belief in continual (infinite) growth despite living<br>
><br>
> on a finite planet.<br>
><br>
> There is dissatisfaction with this lifestyle<br>
><br>
> There is uncertainly relating to continuation of some aspects of it - slow<br>
><br>
> down of economic growth, peak oil concerns, unstable financial system etc<br>
><br>
> Events such as UNCIVILISATION 2011: The Dark Mountain Festival -<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.dadamac.net/event/uncivilisation-2011-dark-mountain-festival" target="_blank">http://www.dadamac.net/event/uncivilisation-2011-dark-mountain-festival</a><br>
><br>
> Greater collaboration is possible through the internet<br>
><br>
> Collaborative approaches via the internet - emerging alternative systems for<br>
><br>
> thinking about things and for doing things<br>
><br>
> The internet as a way to rediscover and reinvent local community - meet-ups,<br>
><br>
> special interest groups, etc<br>
><br>
> Book e-gaia by Gary Alexander - example of collaboration instead of<br>
><br>
> competition<br>
><br>
> Various personal experiences of collaboration in online projects<br>
><br>
> Reduction in "look at me" performance aspect of internet use<br>
><br>
> Increase in collaborative communities of interest and appreciation of<br>
><br>
> benefits of working together for various individual and/or shared<br>
><br>
> benefits.<br>
><br>
> Identity through positive belonging in groups and networks - ones that<br>
><br>
> often work (without pay) at doing things together<br>
><br>
> Explorations of new ways of working and emergent roles - e.g. peer-to-peer<br>
><br>
> network: - P2P working, the commons, open source production, 3D printing<br>
><br>
> I wonder if this bare bones list makes any sense to you and if it links in<br>
><br>
> any way with what you are thinking and exploring. I believe that people will<br>
><br>
> develop a different view of themselves - and their "worth" - as the 21st<br>
><br>
> century moves on and the true impact of the internet emerges and is felt and<br>
><br>
> better understood. I wonder what your thoughts are on that.<br>
><br>
> Pamela McLean<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Snippets to remind me what you said<br>
><br>
> We need a vision for who we and our students need to *be*... .it<br>
><br>
> would help to know who we are.. “find ourselves,”.. “Identity” is so<br>
><br>
> important to us because we live in a world in which identity and<br>
><br>
> recognition are not givens. ...Just when we think we know who we are the<br>
><br>
> doubts start to creep in: … the postmodern being is a restless nomad”<br>
><br>
> Two “slides” (as Taylor calls them) result from this process..the quest for<br>
><br>
> identity squeezes in on us.. We start focusing more and more on<br>
><br>
> ourselves and our own self-fulfillment, often to the detriment of deepand<br>
><br>
> lasting relationships. (Note: this is not something the internet<br>
><br>
> created. In fact, some would argue the internet was created as correction to<br>
><br>
> this (and it has worked and failed in dramatic fashion<br>
><br>
> depending on the person and context).) As a result, we become increasingly<br>
><br>
> disengaged from our communities and public life as we<br>
><br>
> focus more and more on ourselves.<br>
><br>
> Secondly, . we no longer share the same beliefs and values across the whole<br>
><br>
> society, and that there can be little or no ground on which to stand to<br>
><br>
> claim that your beliefs and values are true while others are false. Society<br>
><br>
> becomes increasingly fragmented.<br>
><br>
> As a society, we continue trending toward individualism and superficiality<br>
><br>
> even as we value connection, community, and authenticity. We disengage from<br>
><br>
> community, social action, and politics. We amuse ourselves to death. And the<br>
><br>
> most amazing collaboration and creativity machine ever created celebrates<br>
><br>
> its 20th anniversary as a distraction device.<br>
><br>
> But he also sees the potential for creating a “virtuous circle.” Successful<br>
><br>
> common actions can breed a sense of empowerment<br>
><br>
> and connection that can spread to other domains. That’s where we come in as<br>
><br>
> teachers. We have an opportunity, not just to teach our students<br>
><br>
> “something,” but to be part of their journey and help them find meaning and<br>
><br>
> purpose in an over-saturated, fragmented, and distracting world full of<br>
><br>
> self-indulgent temptations.<br>
><br>
> I won’t spend the rest of this blog harping on about how I try to do this,<br>
><br>
> but diving into this work of 1991 has re-invigorated my passion<br>
><br>
> for project-based learning in which students engage in real and relevant<br>
><br>
> problems that excite them, work together to approach these<br>
><br>
> problems as a learning community, and harness and leverage digital<br>
><br>
> technologies while also critically reflecting on how those technologies<br>
><br>
> mediate and change their lives.<br>
><br>
> I know this has been a long post, but how we understand society, and our<br>
><br>
> capacity to imagine how society might change (or if it can change)<br>
><br>
> can have a dramatic effect on how we teach. In 1968, Warren Bennis and<br>
><br>
> Philip Slater made many of the same observations I have put forth here<br>
><br>
> in “The Temporary Society.” Imagining a radically more flexible social<br>
><br>
> world, they suggested that “we should help our students … (1) Learn<br>
><br>
> how to develop intense and deep human relationships quickly – and learn how<br>
><br>
> to “let go.” … (2) Learn how to enter groups and leave them.<br>
><br>
> ”<br>
><br>
> While I agree with their observations, and the spirit of their suggestions,<br>
><br>
> I take a slightly different approach. If community, social action, and<br>
><br>
> empathy levels are down (as research shows them to be), then I think it is<br>
><br>
> our responsibility to help create more socially conscious and empathic<br>
><br>
> students/citizens.<br>
><br>
> I don’t want to help make students for the world.<br>
><br>
> I want to help make students who make the world over."<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 23 August 2011 18:54, Michael Wesch <<a href="mailto:mike.wesch@gmail.com">mike.wesch@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Yesterday I made 5 observations related to my goal of inspiring great<br>
><br>
> questions:<br>
><br>
> 1. Inspiring great questions is hard.<br>
><br>
> 2. Large numbers of students tune out or just "get by".<br>
><br>
> 3. They are seeking identity and recognition.<br>
><br>
> 4. There is something in the air (the Web, etc.)<br>
><br>
> 5. That we are in the midst of a change that started several decades<br>
><br>
> ago away from groups and hierarchies towards networks and network<br>
><br>
> logic.<br>
><br>
> Some of these observations are certain, others debatable. Today I'm<br>
><br>
> wrestling with #5, and thinking about how #3 is really playing out.<br>
><br>
> Charles Taylor argues that the ethic of authenticity emerged in the<br>
><br>
> late 1700s - part and parcel of modern individualism. But modern<br>
><br>
> individualism fits very nicely with groups and hierarchies. If we are<br>
><br>
> really moving towards networks and network logic, what happens to<br>
><br>
> individualism? And what happens to authenticity? Thomas de Zengotita<br>
><br>
> thinks authenticity is for the Romantics - dead in the 21st Century<br>
><br>
> ... and Gergen proposed that at least *some* people were abandoning<br>
><br>
> individualism for a more "relational" self - but were failing to find<br>
><br>
> the linguistic resources to describe, defend, and live with their new<br>
><br>
> selfhood. A couple of weeks ago I started thinking about all this and<br>
><br>
> blogged the following ...<br>
><br>
> "We need a vision for who we and our students need to *be* – not just<br>
><br>
> what we should know. I’m not sure what that is, but I do know that it<br>
><br>
> would help to know who we are, and to know who we are it would help to<br>
><br>
> know who we were . . . and that’s why I’m sitting in my office reading<br>
><br>
> a bag full of books written in 1991.<br>
><br>
> Who we were: 1991<br>
><br>
> On August 6th, 1991, the Web debuted as a publicly accessible service<br>
><br>
> on the Internet. Almost 20 years later to the day, I’m sitting here<br>
><br>
> reading five books released in the year before that momentous<br>
><br>
> occasion: Charles Taylor’s “The Ethics of Authenticity, Kenneth<br>
><br>
> Gergen’s “The Saturated Self,” Harvey’s “Condition of Postmodernity,”<br>
><br>
> Anthony Giddens’ “Modernity and Self-Identity” and Jameson’s “Cultural<br>
><br>
> Logic of Late Capitalism.” Each of them presents a brilliant<br>
><br>
> perspective on who we were at that moment just before the web was born<br>
><br>
> – and all are (despite their depth and perceptiveness) charmingly and<br>
><br>
> innocently unaware of Tim’s little invention that would start to<br>
><br>
> reshape how we live, work and play.<br>
><br>
> Even a cursory read quickly dispels certain myths about the effects of<br>
><br>
> the Web. Here are three observations that immediately stand out:<br>
><br>
> 1. We were already distracted.<br>
><br>
> In 1991 we worried that our kids were narcissistic, disengaged, and<br>
><br>
> not easily impressed … that their attention spans were no more than 4<br>
><br>
> minutes, the average link of an MTV music video. Our kids (and all of<br>
><br>
> us) were already distracted by what Gergen fancifully calls<br>
><br>
> “invitations to incoherence”. If Gergen were to re-write today he<br>
><br>
> would undoubtedly include in these “invitations” the persistent<br>
><br>
> e-mailing, IM’ing, status-updating, texting, tweeting, etc. that<br>
><br>
> invite us into other worlds and thereby make every moment a bit<br>
><br>
> incoherent. But in 1991 he settled for the ability to receive a call<br>
><br>
> or fax from anybody in the world and instantly be transported into<br>
><br>
> another social universe. Gergen went so far as to suggest that such<br>
><br>
> activities “engender a multiplicitous and polymorphic being who<br>
><br>
> thrives on incoherence.” In 1991 he could temper such remarks by<br>
><br>
> noting that few had taken the leap into this polymorphic state, but<br>
><br>
> followed up such caveats by noting that “there is good reason to<br>
><br>
> believe that what is taking place within these groups can be taken as<br>
><br>
> a weathervane of future cultural life in general … in the longer run …<br>
><br>
> the technologies giving rise to social saturation will be<br>
><br>
> inescapable.”<br>
><br>
> Gergen prophetically notes that “We enter the age of techno-personal<br>
><br>
> systems,” but he was not imagining the World Wide Web. By<br>
><br>
> “technologies of saturation” he simply means roads, cities, cars,<br>
><br>
> planes, cities, phones, computers, newspapers, radio, TV that<br>
><br>
> collectively “saturate” us with information and connections that<br>
><br>
> surpass our capacity to manage effectively.<br>
><br>
> 2. Our education system was already “in crisis” and out of step with the<br>
><br>
> times.<br>
><br>
> Drop out rates were high. Psychological drop out rates were even<br>
><br>
> higher. As Harvey notes, the Fordist big business-big labor-big state<br>
><br>
> alliance that had brought decades of prosperity to the West had given<br>
><br>
> way to globalization and “flexible accumulation.” The US<br>
><br>
> de-industrialized and by 1991 nearly half of all Americans were<br>
><br>
> working in “information.” We were already a knowledge economy in a<br>
><br>
> globalizing world, but our schools were not keeping up – still<br>
><br>
> teaching in an industrial model.<br>
><br>
> And there was no shortage of reformers. Canons were falling.<br>
><br>
> Interdisciplinary was all the buzz. New departments – especially<br>
><br>
> Women’s Studies, African American Studies, Culture Studies – sprung up<br>
><br>
> and took aim at the traditional, stodgy, power-laden,<br>
><br>
> white-male-centered educational system. (i.e. Wikipedia did not invent<br>
><br>
> challenges to traditional models of authority.)<br>
><br>
> 3. We thought our kids were self-obsessed, overly-self-important<br>
><br>
> narcissists.<br>
><br>
> There were already persistent complaints about our kids being<br>
><br>
> disengaged and narcissistic. Students were feeding off of the<br>
><br>
> revolutionary energy of the reformers, reading the postmodernist<br>
><br>
> challenge to authority as an ally in elevating their own opinions to<br>
><br>
> the status of experts. Alan Bloom voiced the concerns of those who<br>
><br>
> were concerned about these developments in “The Closing of the<br>
><br>
> American Mind,” ranting about the self-obsessed “anything goes”<br>
><br>
> attitude of our youth. The book struck a chord and enjoyed a run atop<br>
><br>
> the Times Bestsellers list. (Lasch’s excellent “Culture of<br>
><br>
> Narcissism,” originally published in 1978, had also come back as a<br>
><br>
> revised edition in 1991).<br>
><br>
> Familiar Themes<br>
><br>
> Twenty years later the same complaints abound. Jean Twenge has called<br>
><br>
> our youth “Generation Me” and worries that we are facing a “Narcissism<br>
><br>
> Epidemic.” Nicholas Carr has eloquently argued that multi-tasking is<br>
><br>
> merely distracted thinking and that without adequate awareness of how<br>
><br>
> the Internet effects our brains we are destined for the “Shallows.”<br>
><br>
> And blogs, tweets, bookshelves, and conference programs abound with<br>
><br>
> complaints and proposed solutions to our current education crisis.<br>
><br>
> If the themes seem familiar, perhaps it is simply because these 1991<br>
><br>
> authors were perceptive enough to identify fundamental persistent<br>
><br>
> tensions in our culture rather than simply identifying the “trends.”<br>
><br>
> They are not hung up on these three simple observations. They are<br>
><br>
> seeking the roots, and what they dig up is as relevant today as it was<br>
><br>
> in 1991.<br>
><br>
> Taylor calls it “an act of retrieval.” Most cultural commentators miss<br>
><br>
> the mark by failing to recognize the underlying moral ideal at work<br>
><br>
> that is producing the apparent problems. What appears as distraction,<br>
><br>
> dissolution, fragmentation, and self-indulgent, self-important<br>
><br>
> narcissism is, at a deeper level, an expression of our pursuit of the<br>
><br>
> authentic self.<br>
><br>
> The ethic of authenticity was born in the late 18th century and<br>
><br>
> persists to this day. Being “authentic” requires us to “find<br>
><br>
> ourselves,” “get in touch with our inner lives,” and act from our<br>
><br>
> “core.” It springs from what Taylor calls “the massive subjective turn<br>
><br>
> of modern culture.” “Identity” is so important to us (and especially<br>
><br>
> our students) because we live in a world in which identity and<br>
><br>
> recognition are not givens. They must be achieved. It is our “core<br>
><br>
> project” as Giddens says.<br>
><br>
> But there are tensions at work within this quest for identity and<br>
><br>
> recognition. Authenticity demands an entirely original creation –<br>
><br>
> which frequently involves opposition to society. Yet at the same time<br>
><br>
> our creations cannot be meaningful without being open to the meaning<br>
><br>
> systems created and sustained by society. We never quite feel like we<br>
><br>
> have “found ourselves.” Just when we think we know who we are the<br>
><br>
> doubts start to creep in: Is this really the real me? Or have I been<br>
><br>
> duped by society? Or we find ourselves so on the margins that we feel<br>
><br>
> a loss of meaning and purpose. Most of us sway between these poles,<br>
><br>
> always struggling to find who we really are. The “technologies of<br>
><br>
> saturation” only amplify these issues by providing us with countless<br>
><br>
> options, so that each self we portray or become “cries out for an<br>
><br>
> alternative, points to a missed potential, or mocks the chosen action<br>
><br>
> for its triviality … the postmodern being is a restless nomad”<br>
><br>
> (Gergen).<br>
><br>
> Two “slides” (as Taylor calls them) result from this process. First,<br>
><br>
> like a chinese fingercuff the quest for identity squeezes in on us<br>
><br>
> ever harder as we try to escape it. We start focusing more and more on<br>
><br>
> ourselves and our own self-fulfillment, often to the detriment of deep<br>
><br>
> and lasting relationships. (Note: this is not something the internet<br>
><br>
> created. In fact, some would argue the internet was created as a<br>
><br>
> correction to this (and it has worked and failed in dramatic fashion<br>
><br>
> depending on the person and context).) As a result, we become<br>
><br>
> increasingly disengaged from our communities and public life as we<br>
><br>
> focus more and more on ourselves. (Giddens and Harvey would want to<br>
><br>
> point out that this is amplified by the “disembedding mechanisms” of<br>
><br>
> modernity that hide the many connections and relationships that allow<br>
><br>
> us to survive.)<br>
><br>
> Secondly, there is what Taylor calls “a negation of all horizons of<br>
><br>
> significance” which is a fancy way of saying that we no longer share<br>
><br>
> the same beliefs and values across the whole society, and that there<br>
><br>
> can be little or no ground on which to stand to claim that your<br>
><br>
> beliefs and values are true while others are false. Society becomes<br>
><br>
> increasingly fragmented.<br>
><br>
> The two slides feed back into the process itself. The first slide<br>
><br>
> makes us feel more disengaged from society so we increasingly seek<br>
><br>
> meaning, recognition, and identity. The second slide creates more and<br>
><br>
> more options for us to try out on the journey, while taking away the<br>
><br>
> possibility of ever finding the “right” identity or being universally<br>
><br>
> positively recognized because there are too many diverse viewpoints<br>
><br>
> and possibilities.<br>
><br>
> As a society, we continue trending toward individualism and<br>
><br>
> superficiality even as we value connection, community, and<br>
><br>
> authenticity. We disengage from community, social action, and<br>
><br>
> politics. We amuse ourselves to death. And the most amazing<br>
><br>
> collaboration and creativity machine ever created celebrates its 20th<br>
><br>
> anniversary as a distraction device.<br>
><br>
> What to do?<br>
><br>
> Taylor is not shy about noting that what we have here is a “vicious<br>
><br>
> circle.” But he also sees the potential for creating a “virtuous<br>
><br>
> circle.” Successful common actions can breed a sense of empowerment<br>
><br>
> and connection that can spread to other domains. That’s where we come<br>
><br>
> in as teachers. We have an opportunity, not just to teach our students<br>
><br>
> “something,” but to be part of their journey and help them find<br>
><br>
> meaning and purpose in an over-saturated, fragmented, and distracting<br>
><br>
> world full of self-indulgent temptations.<br>
><br>
> I won’t spend the rest of this blog harping on about how I try to do<br>
><br>
> this, but diving into this work of 1991 has re-invigorated my passion<br>
><br>
> for project-based learning in which students engage in real and<br>
><br>
> relevant problems that excite them, work together to approach these<br>
><br>
> problems as a learning community, and harness and leverage digital<br>
><br>
> technologies while also critically reflecting on how those<br>
><br>
> technologies mediate and change their lives.<br>
><br>
> I know this has been a long post, but how we understand society, and<br>
><br>
> our capacity to imagine how society might change (or if it can change)<br>
><br>
> can have a dramatic effect on how we teach. In 1968, Warren Bennis and<br>
><br>
> Philip Slater made many of the same observations I have put forth here<br>
><br>
> in “The Temporary Society.” Imagining a radically more flexible social<br>
><br>
> world, they suggested that “we should help our students … (1) Learn<br>
><br>
> how to develop intense and deep human relationships quickly – and<br>
><br>
> learn how to “let go.” … (2) Learn how to enter groups and leave them.<br>
><br>
> ”<br>
><br>
> While I agree with their observations, and the spirit of their<br>
><br>
> suggestions, I take a slightly different approach. If community,<br>
><br>
> social action, and empathy levels are down (as research shows them to<br>
><br>
> be), then I think it is our responsibility to help create more<br>
><br>
> socially conscious and empathic students/citizens.<br>
><br>
> I don’t want to help make students for the world.<br>
><br>
> I want to help make students who make the world over."<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
><br>
> Michael Wesch, PhD<br>
><br>
> Associate Professor of Cultural Anthropology<br>
><br>
> Coffman Chair for University Distinguished Teaching Scholars<br>
><br>
> 2010 NITLE Fellow<br>
><br>
> 2009 National Geographic Emerging Explorer<br>
><br>
> 2008 US Professor of the Year<br>
><br>
> 2007 Wired Magazine Rave Award Winner<br>
><br>
> Director of the Digital Ethnography Working Group<br>
><br>
> Kansas State University<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:mwesch@ksu.edu">mwesch@ksu.edu</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://mediatedcultures.net" target="_blank">http://mediatedcultures.net</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://bikemanhattan.info" target="_blank">http://bikemanhattan.info</a><br>
><br>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
><br>
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity<br>
><br>
> (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org" target="_blank">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc" target="_blank">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br>
><br>
> List Archive:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/" target="_blank">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br>
><br>
> iDC Photo Stream:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br>
><br>
> RSS feed:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc" target="_blank">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br>
><br>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br>
><br>
> Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us" target="_blank">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br>
><br>
><br>
><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>
> <a href="http://mediatedcultures.net" target="_blank">http://mediatedcultures.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://bikemanhattan.info" target="_blank">http://bikemanhattan.info</a><br>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity<br>
> (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org" target="_blank">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br>
> <a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc" target="_blank">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br>
><br>
> List Archive:<br>
> <a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/" target="_blank">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br>
><br>
> iDC Photo Stream:<br>
> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br>
><br>
> RSS feed:<br>
> <a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc" target="_blank">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br>
><br>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:<br>
> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br>
><br>
> Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us" target="_blank">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>--<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<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>
<a href="http://mediatedcultures.net" target="_blank">http://mediatedcultures.net</a><br>
<a href="http://bikemanhattan.info" target="_blank">http://bikemanhattan.info</a><br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>