The point about the heterogeneity of the university is really great. The needs and ways of operating among and between different areas, especially in large universities, are not always served by a one-size-fits-all digitisation strategy. Indeed, as he points out, there is an incredible amount of value in the ambiguities that are present in the classroom. Here, his point about “teachers are liars” is one that I have thought about quite a bit. Coming from a performance background, I have always endeavored to acknowledge the performative aspects of teaching. Teaching (and writing for that matter) can be about provocation; it can be about eliciting responses in dialogue; it doesn’t have to be about simply passing information gleaned from one source, through the larynx or the computer scree, to a willing (or not so willing) receptacle). The point made here about education not being simply a matter of information transfer speaks directly to the issue of the necessary presence of living, contradictory, ambiguous bodies in the process of educating.
Alex has posted about an article on Web 2.0 and reputation management, and I have commented at length.
What happens to subjectivity when every whim, thought, impulse, or embarrassing photo becomes permanently cataloged on Twitter, Facebook, or the Blog? How will this immutable digital trail impact our relationship to ourselves, to knowledge, to our understandings of past and the future? One of the effects, as the article intimates may be a radicalization of image maintenance and protection that accelerates an already creeping cultural narcissism associated with immanent collective surveillance and identity/reputation construction.
In the eyes of the state, our national anthem ought only to be sung at hockey games and the Olympics, certainly not in the streets by citizens “standing on guard”:
As much as the national anthem gets perverted daily in problematic constructions of our national identity, in this video, it appears that some of the key lyrics “free,” “love,” and “standing on guard” are interpreted quite differently by either side!
“The [copyright ] consultation appears to have been little more than theatre,” says Michael Geist. I wonder if we simply duped ourselves into thinking it would have been anything but. The Harper government simply made it appear as if Canadians voices were to be heard regarding alterations to copyright law. But, in typical Harper government fashion, those voices are simply ignored in favour of supine capitulation to US and other corporate interests. I wonder at what point people will stop believing in this farce we call democracy.
With mounting pressure from the U.S. – there have repeated meetings with senior U.S. officials in recent weeks – the PMO sided squarely with Moore’s vision of a U.S.-style copyright law. The detailed provisions will be negotiated over the coming weeks by the respective departments, but they now have their marching orders of completing a bill that will satisfy the U.S. that comes complete with tough anti-circumvention rules and no flexible fair dealing provision.
I’ve just put up free full versions of my two albums. It will be a little while before there’s anything new, and it’s been nine years (!) since the last new stuff! You can find them on the Music page. Enjoy!
Share