Above is a digital collage of all my presences on the web – I tried to put this up on Wallwisher a few weeks ago but I couldn’t embed it. At the time, I commented ‘my fragmented and distributed self’ and now having read Sian I can see that it is also evidence of my embodied absence on the web.
On registering on a social site, we are invariably invited – almost as a first step – to ‘upload an image’, to duplicate ourselves visually in a piece of identity work which invites artifice and play as much as ‘authenticity’ or its semblance. In that our images and profiles – and, in more visual environments, our avatars – represent a ‘re-embodiment’ within the terms of the digital, we scatter our ‘bodies’ across the web where they gain a kind of independence as nodes for commentary, connection and appropriation by others into new networks and new configurations. These versions of ourselves become representative of uncanny ‘embodied absence’ as much as ‘disembodied presence’ (Hook 2005); our actual and immediate activity on the network at any given time is less important than the presence of our representation, our ‘ghost’. p. 6
My initial view was that I was scattered in several places in cyberspace. I understood it as both evidence of the cognisphere and also as an extension of myself as a cyborg. But I found the notion of being scattered and fragmented uncomfortable – scattered and fragmented being seen as negative states. However, conceptualizing this as ‘embodied absence’ makes me happier. I see it now as having ‘bookmarks’ in several places; that my representation of myself or my avatar hold my views and musings or artefacts that I constructed which others can reflect upon and comment upon without my being present in real time. That I can have multiple conversations simultaneously yet asynchronously – bending time and mind. I feel the lifestream is important as a device to collect my scattered selves. It is a tool to help me reformulate my fragmented thinking into a new whole.
The relation to pedagogy, I would like to reflect on Usher quoting Green on learning as traditionally being seen in terms of ‘interiority’.
…Green (1993) …argues that learning has traditionally been conceived in terms of ‘interiority’, a particular kind of cognition and mental development, linked to a normative view of rationality…new technologies [can be seen ] ‘as amplifiers of human attributes and capacities, and hence of human potential; as prosthetic devices which enable learners to operate differently’ (Green 1993:28) p. 4
Usher, Robin (1998) Lost and Found: ‘cyberspace’ and the (dis)location of teaching, learning and research, Research, teaching and learning: making connections in the education of adults, SCUTREA, Exeter.
While Sian correctly pointed out during our chat session that this is another duality contrasting traditional and new approaches to learning, I think the concept of interiority is worth reflecting upon. Perhaps Green’s distinction is too sharp; that there is a place for ‘interiority’ when using new technologies in education. I would argue that in reflecting on an academic article, for example, one would go through an initial process of ‘interiority’, assessing the article in terms of one’s previous knowledge, linking it to other relevant articles etc. What is different in the idea of ‘prosethetic devices’ which enable learners to learn differently is when, for example, the student then blogs about their initial thinking about the article and is open to comments from multiple sources – not just the tutor but also fellow students as well as anyone else who cares to read the blog.
What I found accelerated learning in this course was being able to read other students’ blogs and comments. In traditional teaching essays are a private interaction between an individual student and tutor. And I wonder whether this is linked to traditional assessment criteria that the assignment has to be the work of the individual student only. However, if the objective is learning not assessment then the ‘privacy’ of individual work is no longer important. Feedback from a variety of sources is what is important. We need to let go of the notion of our ‘ownership’ of ideas. Of course, this is counter to academic career structures where you need to show evidence of your individual publications. And it might not work so well in primary and secondary education where one needs to gain confidence in one’s own ability first before sharing it for scrutiny by others – I don’t know. However, I think it is relevant for post-graduate work. For example, most research is done by teams yet we insist that dissertations and theses are sole works. A newly minted social science PhD may never had any experience of collaboration in research but that is what they are likely to do if they pursue a research career.
One of the key aspects of Hayles’ argument that resonated with me is her notion of the history of intellectual and scientific development having a seriated pattern – in the shape of a tiger’s iris.
