- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: New Theoretical Approaches to the Self in
by Jeremy W. Crampton 25 Jan '02

25 Jan '02

Tim et al., In my case I meant that since Foucault identifies confession as a historically and spatially particular technique of the self (one's relationship to oneself), which is formed as a method of coming into a more authentic relationship with oneself in early Christianity/Middle Ages, then... Then could cyberspace be fruitfully seen as another (historically and spatially particular) regime for this confessional modality to operate? Foucault did indeed see the confession as a technique which was understood as the production of truth about oneself: "He was authenticated by the discourse of truth he was able or obliged to pronounce concerning himself. The truthful confession was inscribed at the heart of the procedures of individualization [subjectification] by power" F., Hist. of Sex. 1, pp. 58-59. As a consequence it came to be seen that "confession frees, but power reduces one to silence" (p. 60). Of course it is his project to show that this has "taken us in" and is a "ruse" and in fact power does not silence nor confession make you free from power relations. As for cyberspace therefore we can interpret it as confessional in both a weak and a strong sense. The weak sense (not all that weak actually!) would document the many amazing ways and opportunities in which one can produce the truth about onself (blogging, chat rooms, IM, anonymized sex discourses, actual confessions on eg., notproud.com, and so on). I think blogging in particular should be analyzed as a modern digital regime of confession going back to the Middle Ages. Anyway, the stronger sense would be that anything we do in cyberspace is towards a renunciation of the body (as eg. the Christian martyrs who sacrificed their bodies, either to the death or through penitance) and to overcoming the body in order to reach... what? a higher spiritual state? A more mindful state? A more truthful state? Penitance? Cyberspace as the will to penitance! I think the former is certainly an easier argument to make, but remain intrigued by the second... thanks... From: T.R.Jordan(a)open.ac.uk To: air-l(a)aoir.org Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:47:30 -0000 Subject: [Air-l] Re: New Theoretical Approaches to the Self in Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org Hi, Can't say I agree that Foucault was talking about confessions are a place where we recover our 'true selves', but then again I haven't looked at that book for quite a while. I tried to analyse relations of power, using Foucault and other theories of power/knowledge/subjectivity, and their inter-relations in terms of generating selves, collectives and imaginaries. (Cyberpower it's called) I can't see any space for 'true selves' outside all these circuits of power, only places for different constructions of selves and societies generating different types of societies and selves. Sorry if I've mistaken your take on Foucault, re-reading your post I'm not sure if you mean confessions produce true selves or if cyber-confessions may be able to do so. Tim Jordan

2 1

mobile research
by Vishwanath, Arun 25 Jan '02

25 Jan '02

In my cell phone research, I am comparing US and HongKong - looking at non users, and users; Also I am comparing India and US on similar dimensions. My research focus is on differential utlity ( uses and gratifications) and diffusion theory. I will be posting my preliminary findings early next week on the list serve for anyone who is interested. Arun V

1 0

RE: Mobile Phone Research
by Kumiko Aoki, Ph.D. 25 Jan '02

25 Jan '02

> Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:18:36 +0000 > From: Nalini Kotamraju <nalinik(a)socrates.berkeley.edu> > To: <air-l(a)aoir.org>, <avishwan(a)indiana.edu> > Subject: [Air-l] Re: Mobile Phone Research > Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > I am currently working on a comparative (US and UK) study of > teenagers' use > of mobile phones and I've outputted my Endnote file onto a web page. > > Mobile Phones/SMS/Text Messaging > http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~nalinik/mobile.html > > Most of the research is not US-specific, but may still be of use > to you and > others. I'm always looking for additions, so if anyone has references to > add, I'm pleased to hear about them. I am also working on a comparative (US and Japan) study of adolescents' use of wireless phones. I greatly appreciate your sharing of your bibliography. I have some additions though some of them may be a bit dated and not related to behavioral aspects of wireless phone use: Beaubrun, R. and Pierre, S. (2001). Technological developments and socio-economic issues of wireless mobile communications. _Telematics and Informatics_, 18, 143-158. Ishii, K. (1996). PHS: revolutionalizing personal communication in Japan. _Telecommunications Policy_, 20(7), 497-506. Leung, L. and Wei, R. (1998). The gratifications of pager use: sociability, information-seeking, entertainment, utility, and fashion and status. _Telematics and Informatics_, 15, 253-264. Katz, J. E. (1997). Social and organizational consequences of wireless communications: A selective analysis of residential and business sectors in the United States. _Telematics and Informatics_, 14 (3), 223-256. Web Connection. (2000). The Asian-led wireless world. Available through request to Frank Yu [Frank_Yu(a)Post.Harvard.Edu] Wei, R. and Leung, L. (1999). Blurring public and private behaviors in public space: policy challenges in the use and improper use of the cell phone. _Telematics and Informatics_, 16, 11-26. Woo, K., and Fock, H.K.Y. (1999). Customer satisfaction in the Hong Kong Mobile Phone Industry. _The Service Industries Journal_, 19(3), 162-174. Kumiko Aoki, Ph.D. Associate Director of Communication Research Center Assistant Professor of Communication Boston University 640 Commonwealth Ave. Boston, MA 02215 tel: 617/358-1305 fax: 617/358-1301 email: kaoki(a)bu.edu homepage: http://people.bu.edu/kaoki "If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door."

1 0

Additional mobile phone research articles and books (pre-2002)
by J Katz 25 Jan '02

25 Jan '02

Here are additional cites of research on the users of and environment for distributed mobile personal communication technologies, or what Ron Rice and I shorthand as "Syntopia." Katz, James E. Connections: Social and Cultural Studies of the Telephone in American Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999. Katz, James E. "Understanding Communication Privacy: Unlisted Telephone Subscribers in the United States," The Information Society, 12 (4), 1996: 407-423. Katz, James E. "Higher-Order Social Consequences of Widespread Mobile Personal Communications," Pp. 91-120 in C. M. Firestone, The Emerging World of Wireless Communications, (Queenstown, MD: The Aspen Institute and Institute for Information Studies, 1996). Katz, James E. and Philip Aspden "Theories, Data, and Potential Impacts of Mobile Communications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57, 133-156, 1998. Katz, James E. "Communication in the year 2075." Science and the Future. Annual Supplement of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago and London: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1999.

1 0

RE: [Air-l] Defining Versions of Reality
by Steve Fox (NLG) 25 Jan '02

25 Jan '02

Thanks Jeremy, It does help. I believe I had readings from this book from one of my graduate classes a couple of years ago...I'll take a second look at it. After I read it and some of the readings from my current class in on-line communities and cyberculture, I may have some additional questions on the more "organic" side of community. This raised some interesting thoughts, but I wanted to read more about it before asking any further questions. Cheers, Steve

1 0

Re: New Theoretical Approaches to the Self in
by T.R.Jordan＠open.ac.uk 25 Jan '02

25 Jan '02

Hi, Can't say I agree that Foucault was talking about confessions are a place where we recover our 'true selves', but then again I haven't looked at that book for quite a while. I tried to analyse relations of power, using Foucault and other theories of power/knowledge/subjectivity, and their inter-relations in terms of generating selves, collectives and imaginaries. (Cyberpower it's called) I can't see any space for 'true selves' outside all these circuits of power, only places for different constructions of selves and societies generating different types of societies and selves. Sorry if I've mistaken your take on Foucault, re-reading your post I'm not sure if you mean confessions produce true selves or if cyber-confessions may be able to do so. Tim Jordan

1 0

Defining Versions of Reality
by Steve Fox (NLG) 24 Jan '02

24 Jan '02

I am struggling with the definition of reality in some of the online community articles I have read. They seem to make a distinction between physical and virtual communities, sometimes pulling in "imagined communities" but fail to really discuss the perception of reality from the point of view from the individual. Maybe I'm completely missing something, and if I am please correct me or maybe point me in the direction of some articles, but isn't this a very important distinction to draw. Community in one sense is a perceived notion, possibly a perceived connectedness with others. So let's say my reality as an individual does not involve a high degree of face-to-face contact, then I must have on some level a constructed perception of my community - something which dictates my behavior within and around those community activities...to a certain degree wouldn't the same apply for online communities? Maybe I'm digging to deep within the individual to gain a clear perspective... Steve

2 1

(no subject)
by Lachlan Brown 24 Jan '02

24 Jan '02

was Re: my email archives > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "archiving." <warschauer> >anyone else archived all their incoming and outgoing emails, <hunsinger> >How do we keep it secure (both in the sense of "private" and in the sense of "safe")? How do we think about it, if at all, right now? That is, I suspect we all have this sense of the "stuff" that we have on our disks and hard drives, but how does that intersect and interplay with how we feel about the box of letters we keep in the closet? Will we encrypt stuff, or keep it open? Will we erase some? <jones> >One day no doubt the world will mourn the loss of my juvenilia. <cubitt> I doubt the world will mourn, Sean, the loss of your juvenilia, as long as it did not and does not impact the rights of others. Forgive me for crashing in, but a little bird told me I should take time out of my intervention in Nettime (I think I have pitched things about right over there), to check to see what AoIR was doing under the duress of contemporary cultural events and the impact of emergency legislation. I sense unease. This e-mail archive thread reads a little like an annual general meeting of the Intellect and Imagination Temperance Society and I would remind you four of your duties and responsibilities not merely as scholars, but as members of an international intellectual community. After seven or eight years in which questions of archival, catalogue, identity, access and availability of information and knowledge, gender, ethnicity, uneven distributions of information, uneven accumulations of knowledge, new relations of distribution of media and communications and new relations of mediation in a tremendous cultural contest that cast new perspectives on the nature of governance, institution, scholarship, democracy, not to mention an economy led like a pig with a ring in its nose by the mere idea of Internet, youd think wed have got a little further along in an understanding of technology in contemporary culture. What, one wonders, have you all been doing? Yes, I kept all of my files and email communications 1993-present. Saved, time-locked, stored, periodically. I thought this was a simple matter of research scholarship, quite in line with the Social Sciences Methods and Approaches course I took at Goldsmiths College as a requirement in undertaking PhD work. Given the intense contests already apparent in 1993-94 perhaps rather more apparent then than they are now -- around the meanings and governance of the technology, I would have been remiss in my scholarship to not do so. >>>It was easy to imagine a scenario in which, say, The National Security State employed archives to influence government, commerce and public opinion to help render compliance to the agenda of the National Security State, alternatively imagine a situation in which commercial or alternative interests employed these archives to the same end. Or rather, easy to anticipate the nature of a contest between these interests (its called the pretzel debate apparently) and you, pretty much, have something closely resembling contemporary culture>>> Lachlan Lachlan Brown Thirdnet Ltd Cultural Studies Goldsmiths College University of London Toronto: M.(416) 826 6937 VM: (416) 822 1123 lachlan(a)london.com http://third.net -- _______________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup 1 cent a minute calls anywhere in the U.S.! http://www.getpennytalk.com/cgi-bin/adforward.cgi?p_key=RG9853KJ&url=http:/…

1 0

Fwd: digital art conference
by Steve Jones 24 Jan '02

24 Jan '02

>***************************************************** >* >* First Call For Papers >* --------------------- >* >* COSIGN 2002 >* >* The 2nd International Conference on >* >* COMPUTATIONAL SEMIOTICS FOR GAMES AND NEW MEDIA >* >* Augsburg (Germany) >* >* 2nd September - 4th September, 2002 >* >* http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/ >* >****************************************************** > >CONFERENCE SCOPE >==================== > >This cross-disciplinary conference explores the ways in which semiotics >(and >related theories such as structuralism and post-structuralism) can be >applied to creating and analysing computer systems. >It is intended for anyone with an interest in areas of overlap (or >potential >overlap) between semiotics and computers. This would include, but is not >limited to, the following: computer scientists; HCI and AI practitioners; >creators of expert systems; digital artists; designers; critics; >semioticians; narratologists; etc. > >Semiotics is the study of signs, symbols and signification, and is >therefore >the study of how meaning is created, encoded and understood. Computational >semiotics is understood here to be the application of semiotic theories to >computer systems and interactive digital media. Three possible aspects of >this are: > - The way in which meaning can be created by, encoded in, or understood >by, >the computer (using systems or techniques based upon semiotics). > - The way in which meaning in interactive digital media is understood by >the viewer or user (again using systems or techniques based upon >semiotics). > - The way in which semiotics can be used as the starting point for a >system >for looking critically at the content of interactive digital media. > >Media that make use of the unique capabilities of digital systems are of >particular interest to this conference. These include: hypermedia; content >analysis systems (particularly those that extract higher-level meaning); >the >semantic web (and similar systems); multimedia and the internet; digital >art, net art and other technology-based or technology-oriented art forms, >computer games, interactive narratives and other forms of interactive >entertainment; virtual reality systems and virtual environments. > >COSIGN 2002 invites submissions in the following categories: > >1. Academic Papers >2. Artworks >3. Posters >4. Technical Demonstrations > >Details of the submission procedures are given below. Authors of accepted >papers will be required to prepare an electronic version for the online >conference proceedings (PDF), which will supplement the traditional >printed >volume. > >Information about the conference are available at the following web >address: >http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/ > >The programme and online proceedings for COSIGN 2001 are available at the >following web address: >http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2001/program.html > > > >IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES >============================= > >Academic Papers and Artworks > >Submission date: 27th March 2002 >Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 >Camera-ready copy by 10th June 2002 > > >Posters and Technical Demonstrations > >Submission date: 22nd April 2002 >Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2002 >Camera-ready copy by 10th June 2002 > > >SUBMISSION PROCEDURE >==================== > > >1. ACADEMIC PAPERS > >Papers are invited on any subject that explores areas of overlap (or >potential overlap) between semiotics and interactive digital media. >Examples of this include, but are not limited to, the following: > > - The use of semiotics in artificial intelligence and expert systems. > - Software architectures and technologies using, based upon or inspired >by >semiotic theories, systems or models. > - The use of semiotics in the creation of generative narrative systems, >interactive digital games, entertainment and artworks. > - The use of semiotics in the study and criticism of digital interactive >media. > - Narratology in games and new media. > - Semiotic-orientated HCI. > - Semiotics and Hypermedia. > >Papers should demonstrate an understanding of - and engagement with - the >principles of semiotics (understood here as the study of signs) and gain >something from this engagement. >All papers must be submitted electronically (in either Postscript, >Microsoft >Word, RTF or PDF format) to Frank Nack at the following address: >Frank.Nack(a)icwi.nl >------------------------------------------------------ >Submission date for Academic Papers: 27th March 2002 >Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 >PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 >------------------------------------------------------ > >2. ARTWORKS > >In addition to academic and theoretical papers, presentations of artworks >of >all forms and in all formats are invited. We are particularly interested >in >digital art, net art and other technology-based or technology-oriented art >forms. >Selection of work for presentation at the conference will be based upon >its >relevance to the themes of the conference, its interest in demonstrating >or >exploring the potential of new media, and its challenging of perceptions, >theoretical assumptions, or understanding in any areas related to the >conference. Selection may also be constrained by practical requirements >for >equipment, safety, etc. Final decisions will be made by the Artwork >Committee. >Artworks will be assessed on the basis of documentation of the work >presented in the form of an online website. The website should display the >following: > - A textual description of the proposed artwork and any illustrations > - A biography of the artist(s)/author(s) > - Contact details > >Please submit the URL of the website containing your proposal in an email >to >Andy Clarke at the following address: >andy(a)kinonet.com > >Those wishing to submit additional supporting material, such as >videotapes, >should contact Andy Clarke to make arrangements for this. No >responsibility >is taken by the COSIGN organisers for any such material, and all expenses >for its return must be met by the artist. >------------------------------------------------------- >Submission date for Artworks: 27th March 2002 >Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 >PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 >------------------------------------------------------- > > >3. POSTERS > >There will be an opportunity for researchers to present new work and ideas >that are not yet ready for the full presentation. Short papers will be >presented in poster format, and will be included in both the hardcopy and >electronic proceedings. >All papers must be submitted electronically (2 to 4 pages of A4 size, >double >spaced, in either Postscript, Microsoft Word, RTF or PDF format) to Clive >Fencott at the following address: >P.C.Fencott(a)tees.ac.uk >------------------------------------------------------- >Submission date: 22nd April 2002 >Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2002 >PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 >------------------------------------------------------- > > >4. TECHNICAL DEMONSTRATIONS > >Demonstrations of relevant leading-edge work and work in progress are >invited. Submissions will be peer-reviewed to ensure quality. >Demonstration >proposals must be submitted electronically (in either Postscript, >Microsoft >Word, RTF or PDF format) to Craig Lindley at the following address: >craig.lindley(a)interactiveinstitute.se > >Those wishing to submit supporting material, such as videotapes, should >contact Craig Lindley to make arrangements for this. >------------------------------------------------------------- >Submission date for Technical Demonstrations: 22nd April 2001 >Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2001 >PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 >------------------------------------------------------------- > >ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION PROCEDURE >================================ >Authors and artists who have difficulty in making their submission in the >appropriate form (as outlined above) should contact: > > Frank Nack > CWI - INS2 > Kruislaan 413 > P.O. Box 94079, > NL-1090 GB Amsterdam > Email: Frank.Nack(a)cwi.nl > Phone: +31 20 592 4223 > Fax: +31 20 592 4312 > > >ORGANISING COMMITTEE >==================== >Elisabeth Andre - University of Augsburg (Germany) >Andy Clarke - Kinonet (UK) >Clive Fencott - University of Teeside (UK) >Craig Lindley - Interactive Institute (Sweden) >Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) >Frank Nack - CWI (Netherlands) > > >PROGRAMME COMMITTEE (preliminary) >=================== >Elisabeth Andre - University of Augsburg (Germany) >Wilton Azavedo - Mackenzie Presbyterian University, So Paulo, (Brazil) >Paul Brna - Leeds University (UK) >Kevin Brooks - Motorola Human Interface Labs (USA) >Andrew Clarke - Kinonet (UK) >Clive Fencott - University of Teeside (UK) >Mathias Fuchs - Sibelius Academy, Helsinki >(Finland) >Werner Kriechbaum - IBM (Germany) >James Lester - North Carolina University (USA) >Craig Lindley - Interactive Institute (Sweden) >Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) >Frank Nack - CWI (Netherlands) >Mirko Petric -University of Split (Croatia) >Paolo Petta - OFAI (Austria) >Doug Rosenberg - University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) >Ola Stockfelt - University of Goteborg/University of Skovde (Sweden) >Robert Wechsler - Palindrome Inter-media Performance Group (Germany) > > >ARTWORK COMMITTEE (preliminary) >================= > >Andrew Clarke - Kinonet (UK) >Silvia Eckermann - Digital artist (Austria) >Fatima Lasay - University of the Philippines (Philippines) >Luca Marchetti - Mediaart Journalist (Italy) >Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) >Timothy Portlock - University of Illinois (USA) >David Rokeby - Digital Artist (Canada) >Doug Rosenberg - University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) > >************************************************

1 0

Re: Lurking
by Mary L. Gray 24 Jan '02

24 Jan '02

> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:43:33 -0500 > From: "Karim R. Lakhani" <lakhani(a)MIT.EDU> > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Lurking > i was not implying that everyone should participate in every > conversation but it would seem that people should participate in a > discussion that is appropriate. like you did! i am against full time > free-riding. it would be interesting for the list owner of this list to > calculate the free rider component of this list. i.e. how many have > signed on and how many have participated even once, vs pure > non-participants. > thus your appearance is welcome! i wanted to throw out for consideration that lurking IS active participation. falling back on discussions of audiences as active participants, i would like to suggest that lurkers are readers/listeners/viewers and often the imagined recipients of our posts to newsgroups, lists, etc. unless, we're addressing a specific author (which might be sent as personal email), we mean our messages to reach to those "just listening" as much as we hope to use our words to bring up conversation, true? why would we see listening as "free riding"? i tend to talk too much when i'm in a group situation, so i've been practicing something the activists around me call "stepping down" so that others can "step up" to speak more often. i think if someone didn't know me, they might think i'm a lurker rather than one of those 15% who are always getting a word in edgewise. so, i wonder what it is about lurking that we see as non-participatory when we're in settings where we can't see how one might be participating in other ways (telling people off-list about the conversation, bringing the discussion up in other lists, writing private emails to others on the list)? is there even such a thing as a "pure non-participant"? best, mary ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mary L. Gray <mlgray(a)ucsd.edu> Department of Communication University of California, San Diego vox: 502/451.5003 mail: PO Box 4004, Louisville, KY 40204 http://weber.ucsd.edu/~mgray ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0