If you’re a regular reader of Cyborgology, chances are good that you caught the most recent “brouLOL” (yes, that’s like a 21st century brouhaha) over digital dualism and augmented reality. If you’re a careful reader of Cyborgology, chances are good you also caught (at least) one glaring omission in much of the writing featured in this wave of commentary. What was missing?
Ladies, gentlemen, and cyborgs, allow me to (re)introduce you to Jenny Davis (@Jup83) and Sarah Wanenchak (@dynamicsymmetry)—oh yeah, and my name’s Whitney Erin Boesel (I’m @phenatypical). None of us identify as men, and all of us have written about digital dualism. In fact, you may have seen our work referenced recently under some collective noms de plume: “the other digital dualism denialists,” “others on this blog,” “others,” “other Cyborgologists,” “other regular contributors,” etc. If you’re a crotchety sociologist with a penchant for picking apart language (ahem: guilty), it doesn’t get much better than this. During the conversation earlier this month, the named and cited Cyborgologists were (almost) always men—while Jenny, Sarah, and I were referenced obliquely (at best) in an unnamed “other” category.
I’m going to do three things in this post. First, I’m going to update my earlier work mapping out writing on digital dualism and augmented reality. Second, I’ll give you a hyperlinked play-by-play of last week’s discussion (or “pissing match”) between author Nicholas Carr and both named and “othered” Cyborgologists in order to illustrate how pertinent work by women theorists has been overlooked (on both sides of the debate). Third, I’m going to ask for your help in compiling a list of women, trans or genderqueer folks, and people of color who are writing about digital dualism, augmented reality, or closely related topics. My goal is to write a follow-up post later this month that highlights more of the overlooked and/or marginalized voices in the digital dualism debates, and which demonstrates clearly that dialogues about digital dualism aren’t just between “white boys with toys.” [And later this week, I’ll add my own critique of Carr’s digital dualism piece to the existing pool of responses.]
Please note that one thing I am not going to do in this post is speculate as to why, or with what motives, any particular men have neglected to cite or to consider work by women who theorize digital dualism and augmented reality. There’s no way I could know these things, and I’m not going to pretend that I could be as charitable in my treatment of strangers as I would be with my friends. More importantly, the subjective individual “why” is neither as interesting, nor as important, as the broader social factors that assist or encourage the lot of us to ignore women thinkers in the first place. The question to ask is not, “Why did he do that,” but “Why do so many of us do this, and to what effect, and with what consequences?”
The problem is that women’s contributions are often either overlooked or outright ignored—both in conversations about technology, and in conversations about theory—and that this silencing has a negative impact both on the quality of our collective scholarship and on individual scholars. With this in mind, I encourage you to read the rest of my essay not as an exercise in pointing fingers at specific men, but as a case study in gender, visibility, and the importance of being conscientious about whom and how we cite —for all of us who do this work, regardless of how we gender-identify.
An Updated Crash Course in Augmented Reality and Critiques of Digital Dualism
Nathan Jurgenson (@nathanjurgenson) both appropriated the term “augmented reality” and coined the new term “digital dualism” in February of 2011. I gave an overview of the next 18 months of related work in an August 2012 post about what I saw as a critical “hole” in augmented reality theory, which basically boils down to its missing ontology. In October of 2012, Jurgenson proposed to start patching the hole I identified with an updated typology framework that includes strong and mild variants of both digital dualism and augmented reality, and Davis offered a corresponding empirical typology. (Sarani Rangarajan (@nineran) offered a critique of Jurgenson’s first draft of the strong/mild typology, while Michael Sacasas (@frailestthing) proposed a typology of connectivity[i]; Giorgio Fontana (@giorgiofontana) offered some new definitions to reinforce the augmented reality framework.)
Our work on digital dualism and augmented reality continued over the winter. Davis used Jurgenson’s typology to theorize embodiment. Wanenchak wrote about how dualist-influenced emotions can persist even when one fully recognizes that there is but one augmented reality, and Davis considered what might be behind some people’s feelings that digital interaction is less “real” or meaningful. Guest author James Vincent (@jjvincent) drew a parallel between academic critiques of digital dualism and New Aesthetic artwork, and guest author Legacy Russell (@legacyrussell) built on the digital dualism critique to establish what she calls “Glitch Feminism.” PJ Rey (@pjrey) and I began an ongoing project to flesh out both an ontology of augmented reality and a theory of augmented subjectivity; we wrote on the origins of the augmented subject and produced a genealogy of the term “augmented reality” as first steps. Jurgenson looked at digital dualism in coverage of the Manti Te’o case, and David Banks (@DA_Banks) previewed his (amazing) Theorizing the Web 2013 (#TtW13) talk on the political origins of digital dualism.
By the time you click on all the pieces I’ve listed above, and then click all the pieces linked in those pieces, you’ll have a pretty good picture of the work that’s been done on digital dualism and augmented reality from February 2011 through February 2013. But if you skimmed the last two paragraphs, here’s the tl;dr you need for the next section: every single member of Cyborgology not only writes about digital dualism, but also produced something on digital dualism in the first two months of 2013.
Denialism, Duellism, and Dude-liness (in four waves)
The fun starts with a blog post from author Nicholas Carr, in which he lays out a rather scathing assessment of the digital dualism critique (and takes shots at both Nathan Jurgenson and David Banks personally). Carr draws on several pieces by Jurgenson (with particular emphasis on “The IRL Fetish”), as well as on Banks’s preview of his TtW13 talk. Carr refers to the rest of Cyborgology en masse; though he references Wanenchak’s ‘dualist emotions’ post in his comments section, Carr can be bothered neither to link to Wanenchak’s post nor even to mention her by name.
Drew Kalbach (@drewkalbach) disagrees with Carr, and makes passing reference to Jurgenson.
Banks responds to Carr by further contextualizing digital dualism both historically and politically, and by refuting Carr’s accusation that in his TtW13 preview post he treats people “as dopes.” In a footnote, Banks suggests that Carr made a grave error in failing to engage Rey’s 2012 piece “The Myth of Cyberspace.”
Jurgenson responds to Carr largely by addressing Carr’s misreadings of his work, but closes with some analysis around the nature/technology dichotomy. Jurgenson also points out two places where Carr would have done well to engage Rey.
Wanenchak links to Banks’s and Jurgenson’s responses to Carr, then responds to Carr’s accusation that critics of digital dualism have neglected to consider people’s feelings and emotions. She also refutes Carr’s reading of her work in his comments section.
Chris Baraniuk (@machinestarts) focuses mainly on the exchange between Carr and Jurgenson in his post about “digital duellists,” and draws on material from email interviews he conducted with Carr in 2011 and with Jurgenson in 2013. He spends a sentence mentioning Banks’s and Wanenchak’s responses to Carr, and engages extensively with Rey’s work on “the myth of cyberspace.”
Tyler Bickford (@tylerbickford) focuses mainly on the exchange between Carr and Jurgenson to lay out an interesting critique: that the term “augmented reality” is itself inherently dualist, and that while he agrees with Jurgenson’s cumulative critique of digital dualism, Jurgenson also undermines that critique by insisting that the digital and the physical are “different.”[ii] Bickford draws heavily on Donna Haraway; he also mentions Banks’s response to Carr, Davis’s empirical typology of augmented reality, and my “hole in our thinking” piece. Notably, Bickford stated on Twitter that his goal in writing his response was, in part, “to make [the discussion] about gender/feminism”; he also noted that work by women Cyborgologists was being overlooked, and that he too had done so even despite his feminist intentions in writing his response:
.@bonstewart @nathanjurgenson this is also my bad. It's @phenatypical's post that originally got me thinking any this http://t.co/QnIRGS1GhB
— Tyler Bickford (@tylerbickford) March 3, 2013
.@bonstewart @nathanjurgenson but I framed my post as response to Nathan, w just passing cite to @phenatypical . That was the wrong thing
— Tyler Bickford (@tylerbickford) March 3, 2013
Sacasas responds primarily to Bickford, but reframes the conversation as one between Jurgenson, Carr, and himself that’s been going on since the publication of Jurgenson’s “The IRL Fetish.” Sacasas agrees with Bickford’s critique that “augmented reality” is itself dualist, and that the term “reality” should be thrown out of the discussion—but where Bickford provides what is possibly the first “strong augmentationalist” critique of augmented reality, Sacasas ends on a mild dualist note by closing with a paean to face-to-face interaction.
Jurgenson responds to Bickford by revisiting his own strong/mild digital dualism/augmented reality framework, and briefly references Sacasas’s response to Bickford. Jurgenson concludes that Bickford makes some valid points about how he (Jurgenson) has articulated his ideas around digital dualism and augmented reality, and that he is continuing to think about Bickford’s points.
Jurgenson also responds (on his personal blog) to Baraniuk, and takes issue with some of Baraniuk’s framing both of the exchange with Carr and of Cyborgology’s position on technology—though he also feels these problems stem from Carr’s inaccurate reading of the anti-digital-dualism argument. Jurgenson also posts the full text of the email interview he did with Baraniuk about the exchange with Carr, in which he comments to Baraniuk that Carr failed to engage with work by Rey, Davis, Wanenchak, and myself.
Alright, so now what?
In January of 2011, I was lucky enough to attend Donna Haraway’s retirement celebration at The University of California, Santa Cruz. The event was incredible: it featured performances, presentations, speeches in-room and via Skype, a delicious potluck lunch, critter masks, and a ritual. What I remember most from that day, however, were the repeated references to Dr. Haraway’s “generous citation practices.” Friends, colleagues, and students (both past and present) made this point over and over again: that Haraway went out of her way to cite even email threads and in-person conversations, even with her students, and that her commitment to making these citations had had positive impacts—both professionally and emotionally—for the people she cited.
Those repeated expressions of praise and gratitude made an incredible impression on me. They reminded me how important it is to cite the people who influence our thinking, and made me realize that citation can be an important political act. What I took home that evening from “Messing With Haraway” was not only a deeper appreciation of an extraordinary scholar, but also an updated picture of the scholar I aspire to become.
Citation matters, folks. Sure, we can’t all read everything—but when we don’t do due diligence in referencing the people and work we have read and do know about, we make it easier and more acceptable for other people both to do likewise and to avoid discovering that work in the first place. Failing to put Harawasian effort into our citations makes it easier for more powerful voices to be heard, and contributes to drowning less powerful voices out; more often than not, it also leads us to produce work of lower quality (just wait until my next post, in which I’ll point out how much work on digital dualism Carr overlooked).
Yes, “academia is a feudal system” (to quote the cliché I’m already sick of hearing). Yes, when tenure time comes, we’ll all be judged according to our individual output; The University will not care what kind of colleagues we have been, how we have worked with others, what we have accomplished collectively. Without a doubt, we are structurally incentivized to view The Academy in “survival of the fittest” terms. But my god, don’t we want to change this? Aren’t we committed to forging a mode of scholarship that’s more just, that’s more accessible and accountable, and that moves beyond the much-maligned model in which a bunch of white men with PhDs sit around talking to themselves and believe they’ve conquered the world? Would any of us be engaged in the somewhat transgressive practice of public, inter- and non-disciplinary theory work that Cyborgology and similar blogs represent, if not?
I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I want a different Academy—and while I probably won’t get one in my own lifetime, I remain committed to working toward that goal.
This is the part where I need your help. I want to get a post up later this month that highlights the work of women, trans and genderqueer folk, and people of color who are working on or writing about digital dualism, augmented reality, or similar topics. Please respond in the comments to this post with names of people who are doing this work, and include a link to that work if at all possible. I’ve started a list of my own, and have gotten a few more suggestions on Twitter, but I think it would be helpful to keep the working suggestions list in a public place where everyone can see who’s been mentioned so far, so I’m offering up the “comments” section here. Like I said, we can’t all read everything—but I’m willing to bet there’s a fair amount of interesting, quality work on these topics that’s being overlooked, and I want to start making it easier for all of us to find that work.
No matter how brilliant someone’s work is, you can’t cite it if you don’t know it exists—so let’s take that first step.
[Note: I edited this piece on 12 March 2013 in order to clarify my point about women Cyborgologists being lumped into the “other” category, and to update my listing of recent work on digital dualism in response to Nathan’s comment below.]
Like a lot of woman scholars, Whitney Erin Boesel also theorizes digital technologies on Twitter. She’s @phenatypical.
“No Girls Allowed” sign image from http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2012/04/where-are-women-ny-times-ethicist-picks.html
“No Women” sign from http://siliconvalleymamas.com/2011/06/join-the-club-gender-discrimination-in-2011/
“Manarchist” meme image from http://www.theprecarious.com/content/manarchist-explosion
[ii] I absolutely cannot wait to return to this point in my next post. Watch this space.
quiet riot girl — March 11, 2013
I haven't read this all yet. I too notcied the debate being framed as between what I termed - a bit sarcastically - 'men of ideas'.
But I don't know if I'd go so far as to say women are being 'silenced'. Your post is not silence for a start. And in the piece by Machine Starts about Jurgenson v Carr the writer also mentioned Sherry Turkle at least. And at the #ttw13 there were loads of women talking, tweeting, organising, questioning etc.
Here's my take. I believe that the 'where are the women?' statements are PART OF THE PROBLEM. They give too much credit to the 'white men' and their 'pissing contests' and present women as innocent victims of their lack of 'voice'.
I believe gender inequalities are a problem in the realms in which you are focussing on - academia, journalism, tech, entrepreneurship etc. But I dont think these inequalities are as simple as a 'lack' of women and a 'dominance' of men. You mention trans people and people from diverse ethnicities, but as an afterthought, or as subservient to 'women'.
I am a woman. And, as I have said before, the people who have 'silenced' or attempted to silence me the most have been feminist women.
Now I'll read the rest of your post!
SAA — March 11, 2013
I work with Dr. Fischer on evolving a theory that goes around/subsumes/works with all mixed, dual, blended, augmented realities.
We call it PolySocial Reality (PoSR).
Publications specifically on PoSR, here:
Other pubs here:
andee baker — March 11, 2013
Whitney, have you thought of looking at the Theorizing the Web program for people who have issues of digital dualism or allusions to it in the titles of their papers, or that show up in the abstracts? I think that work counts in that it represents developing ideas. You already mentioned David Banks.
That new world may have a chance to come about one day. Some of us had hoped it would be more developed by now. :-)
quiet riot girl — March 11, 2013
I am going to link to some work by a couple of people who I like, regardless of their demographic 'credentials'because they are names not mentioned in this post.
Paul Reilly, University of Leicester UK:
Check out Paul's twitter hashtag he uses in his classes: #actandprotest
Lesley Gourlay Institute of Education London
Lesley presented at #ttw13
Another issue could be terminology. Not everyone uses terms like digital dualism or augmented reality but may be covering some similar ground. They could be being excluded on this basis not gender.
PJ Patella-Rey — March 11, 2013
Agreed that we all should be conscious of this.
I've also been really impressed and inspired by Haraway's "generous citation practices." It helps me appreciate how important intellectual communities are.
I happy that you, David Banks, and Chris Baraniuk all found my Myth of Cyberspace essay informative in this debate. It is, perhaps, worth noting that I initially developed those ideas on Cyborgology in a piece called "There is No Cyberspace," though, of course, people have been making similar arguments for many years (and continue to do so with poor citation practices you are criticizing!).
I also started wrestling with the question of what kind of subject inhabits augmented reality in a post called "Cyborgs and the Augmented Reality they Inhabit," though I now think it's probably better to move away from the term "cyborg" and embrace something like the term "augmented subject" that you and I came up with.
In any case, I'm excited to see this debate continue to unfold, and I agree that it is important for us to try our best to make proper attributions to each other.
andee baker — March 11, 2013
Whitney, I think aside from one "digital dualism panel" there was more on those issues at the conference, TtW13. Would you consider looking there, in the titles and abstracts of individual papers of 2013, as well as in previous programs?
True, networks are forming, good point. I think the Association of Internet Researchers was a promising facet of this. I was trying unsuccessfully to find your email or text info if you prefer so as not to clog the board with nuances I'm attempting to get across on a one-to-one basis.
Amelia Acker — March 12, 2013
Hi Whitney, great recap. I appreciated your ideas about the importance of citation.
While reading Cyborgology in the past few months, I have noticed some of the ideas described here have cropped up in novels, memoir and video art in last couple of years. A short list:
- Barbara Browning's _I am Trying to Reach You_(2009) has a protagonist who believes that Youtube videos and subsequent comments are part of an encroaching conspiracy in his everyday life
- In _Heroines_(2012), Kate Zambreno writes at length about the experience of blogging and the network of companions that platforms like Tumblr/Blogger afford.
- Ryan Trecartin's Temp Stop (Re'Search Wait's) (2009-2010) and Any Ever (2011), these series are hard to describe, but are undeniably engaging with augmented reality
These examples have pushed my thinking of the dude-ly digital dualism debates in another direction: what are the kinds of sources that haven't been called upon and cited to make these arguments? Though these works don't explicitly engage with "digital dualism" as a debate, the augmented self/cyborg seems to be theorized really well in each, and perhaps most importantly, it is through the experiential knowledge of the speaker/protagonist/viewer. I really think that fiction and memoir could be another direction to look for relevant cites as well. Thanks!
quiet riot girl — March 12, 2013
I do not think 'white men' is an accurate description of those who dominate debates on digital dualism or anything else. I suspect they have other characteristics in common. Because in USA for example, many 'white men' are INCREDIBLY disadvantaged in terms of economics, education etc. Are they writing about digital dualism? I doubt it. Once we start looking at 'the academy' we are already talking about some very 'well off' people in many ways.
also, as for 'not being listened to' = 'silencing' I see where you're coming from. But not sure its an exact fit. and again, it is feminist women who have 'not listened' to me the most, in groups, on blogs, twitter etc and who have banned and blocked me to high heaven. so 'silencing' is not just something those big bad 'white men' do.
Evilagram — March 12, 2013
Wait, what does gender (or race) have to do with digital dualism? Isn't the point here to maximize and optimize output, by writing good articles and doing good explorations of the concept of digital dualism?
Being male/female or white/latino/black/asian has no connection to how well a person writes about a given topic.
Shouldn't we be prioritizing efficiency or efficacy here and letting the chips fall where they may with regards to all characteristics of the speaker that do not directly affect their works?
Is there evidence of an active opposition to diversity in these topics that I am not aware of? One that disregards the merit of the writer in favor of secondary characteristics?
nathanjurgenson — March 12, 2013
whitney, terrific post! tracing this kind of citation history is difficult, and often thankless, work - so thank you!
your point that we should remember to cite who we are reading, and who we are being influenced by, is a great and well-taken. i would also push this a bit further and point out that this issue is often not people forgetting to cite who they are reading and influenced by, but it's people not reading and thus unwilling or unable to be influenced by women. so, yes, both citation practices and epistemic legitimacy are at play here, and they certainly both influence each other.
a separate topic this suggests is work to do on digital dualism from a standpoint epistemology perspective. dualistic versus synthetic ways of knowing the world could very well map differently for those with different experiences, histories, standpoints. i do not think it is coincidence that work blurring categories has largely come from a more progressive direction.
nathanjurgenson — March 12, 2013
also, it is important in this recap to not skip over Legacy Russell's great "Digital Dualism And The Glitch Feminism Manifesto" posted here at Cyborgology: http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2012/12/10/digital-dualism-and-the-glitch-feminism-manifesto/
Stéphane Vial — March 12, 2013
For me, the problem is that I discovered your community just one month ago and there is so much to read, and, unfortunately, not in my native language! That's why I started to read the white boy who coined the term "digital dualism" :) But I'm so excited to discover all those great contributions against digital dualism, from boys or girls as well (this no matters to me)! I l like especially the critics of the concept of cybserspace and I'm looking forward to having time for reading what is the "Augmented Subject". I will need a semester to read back this blog! Thank you, Whitney for so great work.
Nick Carr — March 12, 2013
I sincerely apologize for leaving you, Jenny, and Sarah undebunked in my recent debunking spree. It won't happen again. I had actually drafted most of my dualism post a long time ago in response to the Jurgenson pieces, but was only inspired to finish it upon reading the recent Banks piece. So it wasn't composed as a response to the whole DD/RA corpus, even if - my error - it may have come off that way.
So I'm sorry about the oversight or the slight, which was unintended. And, by all means, let's have a good pissing match sometime.
Louise — March 13, 2013
Thanks for this great post! I will definitely add names as I come across them. Really inspired by the reference to Haraway's citation practices. What's interesting to me here is the way that poststructuralist 'death of the author' ideas combined with theories of collaboration can often function as an ideological excuse not to name and cite authors - and women/minorities will always suffer from that invisibility disproportionately. Citation is about fairness and respect, not about going back to the 'authorial ego'!
Mark N. — March 13, 2013
In regards to earlier work, you might find Michael Benedikt's 1991 essay "Cyberspace: First Steps" an interesting precursor. It doesn't look at the dystopian rhetoric around online vs. "real" life, but it does look at some of the utopian rhetoric around "cyberspace: A new universe, a parallel universe". Benedikt argues that "cyberspace as just described does not exist", and goes on to argue that cyber-spaces are rather a kind of geography, like other geographies constructed by multiple spatial, temporal, and social factors, but with some aspects foregrounded that are different from those foregrounded in, say, the geography of the city square.
It's the lead essay to his 1991 MIT Press book of the same name (which likely has some other interesting contributions as well, but I haven't read them). It's also reprinted in The Cybercultures Reader (Routledge, 2000).
David Banks — March 13, 2013
Great work Whitney! I'll throw Virginia Eubanks and Jenna Burrell in the mix:
Niether of them explicitly mention DD/AR but are definitely working from the mild augmented reality perspective. As I mentioned in my presentation, creating a post hoc list is really important to me. To that end I'd sift through the Race after the Internet reader as well. I'll keep looking.
Also worth mentioning here: Your post really highlights the fact that the DD/AR debate needs something other than the blog, I think. I wish there was some artifact that we could point to and say, "once you've digested that, you're up to speed." I think Sarah knows what that artifact is. Something that rhymes with MOOC I think...? Nook? Yeah I think we need to write a nook. Those are popular with the kids these days.
Drew Kalbach — March 13, 2013
Thanks for calling me out. You're totally right in everything you said. I was particularly struck by the anecdote about Donna Harraway being generous with citation. My post is really lazy in terms of citing pretty much anything. Being new to the academia game, that's something I need to be better at. So, thanks, I will now definitely be more aware in future posts.
As for a recommendation: I'm primarily a poetry person, so I'd recommend Judith Goldman's work, particularly stuff from her newer book l.b.,or, catenaries. It deals with primarily aesthetics and poetics, but the digital is constantly seeping in around the edges, which I love.
Atomic Geography — March 14, 2013
Great post and comments. An observation - the list of marginalized groups doesn't include the disabled, people with disabilities, or whatever formulation you like. Kinda surprised by that because of some of the great past posts here on this area.
Digital Dualisms of the Real » Cyborgology — March 14, 2013
[...] idea on a mostly unheard of blog. But then lots and lots of smart people joined in, as Whitney has thoughtfully summarized; with additions, critiques, and countless examples, discussions are getting more nuanced, longer [...]
Louise — March 15, 2013
It would be great to know of work by people with different experiences of embodiment - especially as they might have different perspectives on the whole debate between Dualism and Augmentation. An opera was recently premiered (in the UK) about a dying woman in a care home who goes into a Second Life type VR world as a form of therapy. So the starting point was dualistic (although that was questioned in the narrative). Maybe people with disabilities or physical illness may benefit from the emancipatory potential of dualism? Just speculating...but it's an interesting area.
synthetic zero archive — March 15, 2013
[...] been an increasing brouhaha in blogs and on Twitter over “digital dualism”; Whitney Boesel summarizes it adroitly here (while also pointing out a curious asymmetry in citations of female theorists in the debates). [...]
Friday Roundup: March 15, 2013 » The Editors' Desk — March 15, 2013
[...] the next front of the Digital Dualism wars, Whitney Erin Boesel points out the “boys’ club” was never a boys’ club; SIM City’s big mistakes are bigger than Electronic Arts seems to think; and Doug Hill [...]
William Reichard — March 15, 2013
Very interesting! I didn't even get to the end of Carr's piece before I heard Marshall McLuhan in my head screaming in disbelief at some of his statements, but that's beside the point. I'm adding a comment because I read a paper a while back by Lisa Galarneau, "Spontaneous Communities of Learning: Learning Ecosystems Surrounding Virtual Worlds" (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0046ZS2M8/ref=r_soa_w_d) that might fit, as much of it deals with the perception that social interaction online is somehow a substitute for the "real," and thought I'd add it in case it fit into the catalog.
I'm tempted to say this reflects a masculinization of the "real" in general, but I don't have a real foundation for saying that other than my hunch. What undoubtedly continues to be true is how much trouble men having seeing all the ways that they exclude others from discussions. I'm glad to see it being taken on here.
Best of luck in the continued efforts!
Surveillance and Digital Dualism: A Reflection on Theorizing the Web (#TtW13) » Cyborgology — March 18, 2013
[...] Jurgenson) as well as the Myth of Cyberspace (PJ Rey), without limiting themselves to being white boys with toys. Those who still believe in the difference between the real and the virtual had better watch out [...]
Difference Without Dualism (Part One) » Cyborgology — March 20, 2013
[...] But I argue that this question is actually lurking in the background of much this month’s earlier digital dualism debate, and that giving it some attention straightens a lot of things out—especially the compelling (but [...]
LEGACY — March 22, 2013
Hi Whitney, thanks for the shout-out, and for taking the initiative here to shed light on an important issue.
Here's a piece I recently write for Rhizome, expanding on #Glitch politic: http://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/mar/12/glitch-body-politic/.
Much support and warm regards!
Miscellaneous Observations | The Frailest Thing — March 23, 2013
[...] does a remarkably thorough job of documenting the digital dualism debates over the last year or two here, and here she offers the first part of her own effort to further clarify the terms of the digital [...]
Digital Dualism and Lived Experience: Everyday Ontology Produces Everyday Ethics » Cyborgology — April 9, 2013
[...] two days before the Theorizing the Web conference, Nicholas Carr is trying to invalidate the digital dualism critiques coming from the Cyborgology’s blog authors. We can wonder why a Pulitzer Prize nominee author [...]
The Introvert Fetish » Cyborgology — August 30, 2013
[...] the relationship between digital dualism and the IRL Fetish (both concepts Nathan Jurgenson’s handiwork): digital dualism marks a [...]
Cyborgology Turns Three » Cyborgology — October 26, 2013
[…] 1. Dude-ly Digital Dualism Debates […]