Re: [Air-L] Virtual Ethnography and CyberAnthropology
Hi Everyone, Good to see the discussion is still ongoing! Mathias, you say: "I have however problems with the notion of "performed purely in the virtual arena". There are so few purely virtual arenas, almost everything seems to be augmented virtuality, mixed realities or augmented reality as Philippe Kerremans and others call it. Where would you look for pure virtuality?" You're 100% correct! In fact, I don't think there are ANY purely virtual spaces. As such, I don't 'do' virtual ethnography or even consider it a viable option for valid research. That's why I consider what I do 'cyber anthropology' but even that is problematic as Laetitia illuminates; "Does the cyber anthroppology assumes a "network" of interactions? Because cybernetic models (issued from WW2 and Coldwar) are based on the figure of networks. If it assumes such organisation, then cyber-anthropology fails to reevalute the distinction between virtual and real: The virtual as a field *born on this metaphor*...I thought on the contrary( according to the title) that cyber antropology would me much more emphasizing the distinction virtual/real before reading your mail!" Well I disagree with your notion of cybernetic systems. From "Soft Machines: Ana and the Internet" "Norbert Wiener's book, /Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine/. (Wiener 1965) introduces the term 'Cybernetics'. It is the science or study of control or regulation mechanisms in human/machine systems, the interface between human and technological artefacts. If we take the cyborg to represent the meshing of human with technological, then technologies, however rudimentary (the bicycle, the ball point pen, the bow and arrow) perfectly and elegantly make us cyborgs. We must conclude; that language, as a technology, as that key component of /being/ a human being, places us all inside the cyber, regardless of how wired in we are, how far off line or however long ago we existed. These symbolic worlds where humanity exists reduces, or produces us to cyber." (this of course raised further problematics like "what isn't cyber anthropology!?") What this whole discussion should illustrate is that we all operate on assumptions about what we are researching, we may have assumed a 'virtual space', assumed a 'boundary' to our 'virtually' ethnographic field site, assumed what 'cybernetic' means (based on Terminator films or other popular culture conceptions). All in all, the point of this whole discussion, and any discussion regarding methods of research should be that the methods should be reflexive and reflect the needs of the research site, problem or goal. The problem with 'virtual ethnography' as a recent phenomena is that often the starting point is the method, rather than the research. I'm really enjoying hearing what people have to say!! Pearse
Hi Pearse and everyone, Pearse, really interesting that you mentioned... " If we take the cyborg to represent the meshing of human with technological, then technologies, however rudimentary (the bicycle, the ball point pen, the bow and arrow) perfectly and elegantly make us cyborgs. We must conclude; that language, as a technology, as that key component of /being/ a human being, places us all inside the cyber, regardless of how wired in we are, how far off line or however long ago we existed. These symbolic worlds where humanity exists reduces, or produces us to cyber." ...as there have been some discussions on my blog (teusner.org) about how we theorise the cyborg and its basis for researching people online. Brenda Brasher has done some work on thinking about cyborgs as a class of people whose access to and interaction with and through technology separates them from others in language, thought, values and maybe even economic status. Sue Thomas has also written another theory of the cyborg as one who - rather than looking at the Internet to see the world - is one whom the world sees by looking at the Internet. (hope that makes sense). I also know that Heidi Campbell and David Gunkle are presenting at the ICA conference on a panel about human relations to technology and truth. It might be worth checking out. paul emerson teusner -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Pearse Stokes Sent: Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:21 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Virtual Ethnography and CyberAnthropology Hi Everyone, Good to see the discussion is still ongoing! Mathias, you say: "I have however problems with the notion of "performed purely in the virtual arena". There are so few purely virtual arenas, almost everything seems to be augmented virtuality, mixed realities or augmented reality as Philippe Kerremans and others call it. Where would you look for pure virtuality?" You're 100% correct! In fact, I don't think there are ANY purely virtual spaces. As such, I don't 'do' virtual ethnography or even consider it a viable option for valid research. That's why I consider what I do 'cyber anthropology' but even that is problematic as Laetitia illuminates; "Does the cyber anthroppology assumes a "network" of interactions? Because cybernetic models (issued from WW2 and Coldwar) are based on the figure of networks. If it assumes such organisation, then cyber-anthropology fails to reevalute the distinction between virtual and real: The virtual as a field *born on this metaphor*...I thought on the contrary( according to the title) that cyber antropology would me much more emphasizing the distinction virtual/real before reading your mail!" Well I disagree with your notion of cybernetic systems. From "Soft Machines: Ana and the Internet" "Norbert Wiener's book, /Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine/. (Wiener 1965) introduces the term 'Cybernetics'. It is the science or study of control or regulation mechanisms in human/machine systems, the interface between human and technological artefacts. If we take the cyborg to represent the meshing of human with technological, then technologies, however rudimentary (the bicycle, the ball point pen, the bow and arrow) perfectly and elegantly make us cyborgs. We must conclude; that language, as a technology, as that key component of /being/ a human being, places us all inside the cyber, regardless of how wired in we are, how far off line or however long ago we existed. These symbolic worlds where humanity exists reduces, or produces us to cyber." (this of course raised further problematics like "what isn't cyber anthropology!?") What this whole discussion should illustrate is that we all operate on assumptions about what we are researching, we may have assumed a 'virtual space', assumed a 'boundary' to our 'virtually' ethnographic field site, assumed what 'cybernetic' means (based on Terminator films or other popular culture conceptions). All in all, the point of this whole discussion, and any discussion regarding methods of research should be that the methods should be reflexive and reflect the needs of the research site, problem or goal. The problem with 'virtual ethnography' as a recent phenomena is that often the starting point is the method, rather than the research. I'm really enjoying hearing what people have to say!! Pearse _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hi Pearse (and others) I am not sure the definition I gave is my definition but rather the one we like to forget. Robert Wiener defined cybernetics ,as we know, as "the study of control and communication in the animal and the machine" In immediate post-WW2 years , part of the scientific research was focused on the nervous system and its mechanisms. During the fifties, a real micro-physiological revolution is leaded by the electronic and micro electrodes advances highlighting nervous pathways, but scientists were still unable to explain their unitary findings in more global theories of nervous mechanisms. In other words, most of the brain activity couldn't be modeled at that time. On the other side, some researchers were tending towards a more global approach: mathematical theories constituted helpful tools in their attempts, namely system theory by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, information theory by Shannon, and Wiener's cybernetic. The last one was very productive for research about nervous system and machines. Wiener collaborated with biologists, neurophysiologists and psychologists. They finally end up with a definition of the nervous system as a machine directed towards a goal, emphasizing the underlying teleological principle of a regulated action, potentially modified by feedbacks in order to achieve a goal. Considering that cybernetics born with the Applied mathematic department and system theories flourishing there,we should not forget that part while focusing only on the human-machine aspect of cybernetics, but we should have also a look at the network metaphor this field highlighted. Thank you all for this ongoing discussion, Laetitia 2009/2/5 Pearse Stokes <pearsestokes@gmail.com>
Hi Everyone,
Good to see the discussion is still ongoing!
Mathias, you say:
"I have however problems with the notion of "performed purely in the virtual arena". There are so few purely virtual arenas, almost everything seems to be augmented virtuality, mixed realities or augmented reality as Philippe Kerremans and others call it. Where would you look for pure virtuality?"
You're 100% correct! In fact, I don't think there are ANY purely virtual spaces. As such, I don't 'do' virtual ethnography or even consider it a viable option for valid research. That's why I consider what I do 'cyber anthropology' but even that is problematic as Laetitia illuminates; "Does the cyber anthroppology assumes a "network" of interactions? Because cybernetic models (issued from WW2 and Coldwar) are based on the figure of networks. If it assumes such organisation, then cyber-anthropology fails to reevalute the distinction between virtual and real: The virtual as a field *born on this metaphor*...I thought on the contrary( according to the title) that cyber antropology would me much more emphasizing the distinction virtual/real before reading your mail!"
Well I disagree with your notion of cybernetic systems. From "Soft Machines: Ana and the Internet"
"Norbert Wiener's book, /Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine/. (Wiener 1965) introduces the term 'Cybernetics'. It is the science or study of control or regulation mechanisms in human/machine systems, the interface between human and technological artefacts.
If we take the cyborg to represent the meshing of human with technological, then technologies, however rudimentary (the bicycle, the ball point pen, the bow and arrow) perfectly and elegantly make us cyborgs. We must conclude; that language, as a technology, as that key component of /being/ a human being, places us all inside the cyber, regardless of how wired in we are, how far off line or however long ago we existed. These symbolic worlds where humanity exists reduces, or produces us to cyber." (this of course raised further problematics like "what isn't cyber anthropology!?")
What this whole discussion should illustrate is that we all operate on assumptions about what we are researching, we may have assumed a 'virtual space', assumed a 'boundary' to our 'virtually' ethnographic field site, assumed what 'cybernetic' means (based on Terminator films or other popular culture conceptions).
All in all, the point of this whole discussion, and any discussion regarding methods of research should be that the methods should be reflexive and reflect the needs of the research site, problem or goal. The problem with 'virtual ethnography' as a recent phenomena is that often the starting point is the method, rather than the research.
I'm really enjoying hearing what people have to say!!
Pearse
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (3)
-
laetitia le chatton -
Paul Emerson Teusner -
Pearse Stokes