There has been some terrific debate on my theorizing of what I call “augmented reality.” In brief, I reject “digital dualism”, the tendency to view the on and off line as separate spheres, and instead argue that we should view them as enmeshed, creating what I call “augmented reality.” [I talk more about this here.]
Today, I am posting some of the debate that occurred over Twitter and another post responding to a critique of a talk I gave on the topic.
One criticism has been that the augmented reality perspective somehow obscures the important ways in which the on and offline are different. I agree that the spheres indeed have different properties. I write here and here about, for example, how atoms tend to be more scarce than bits. Further, I write here about how these important differences are best viewed through the augmented lens.
It is this last point which I feel is most important in responding to the specific criticisms given by Zeynep Tufekci over Twitter. It is my hope that future conversations on this topic take into account the points made in that short essay. I’ll post the debate, still ongoing, below.
| “ |
An interesting dynamic of the “digital activist” sphere in the Arab Uprisings is how many know each other offline, across nations. |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson … except through much effort & most of connections are first online & only then offline–very different than US for most |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson This is diff from the the way FB is naturally online/offline. These people are not regular part of each others’ lives. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc right, but physical meetings massively important for the cause; activism, even when primarily digital, benefits from the physical |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc the importance bloggers meeting up in physical space speaks to the power of augmentation, against the idea of “digital” activism |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson Yes, the in person meetings are crucial. But there is also power in “digital” activism — and a lot of it as well. |
|
|
The conversation takes off the next day when Zeynep tweets…
| “ |
So many stories of dangers -including torture & death- social media activists face! Nobody shld say “slacktivism” near me ever again. #ab11 |
|
|
| “ |
ppl could only think digital activism is “slacker” if they first wrongly think of digital & physical activisms as mostly separate @techsoc |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson In fact, the interesting discussion was sometimes online expression is not activism — but it has political consequences |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson The discussion wasn’t about that angle–in many cases in the region, it is separate. Online/offline not always integrated. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc disagree. the over-assumption of that separation between digital and physical activism partly why “slacktivism” viewed pejoratively |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc ppl failing to see slacktivism leading to torture or non-activist online talk having material consequences = the fallacy in action! |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc seems i am saying ‘people view on/offline too separate’ and you are saying ‘that separation still sometimes important’ – fair? |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson I’m saying what you call augmentation has many levels and inflections — “online/offline integrated” can be too flat. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc not sure i follow “levels” and “inflections”, but my sense would be that they could be best described thru augmented paradigm |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc wld be a good blog post; but i think the differences b/w digital/physical activism best articulated through ‘augmented’ perspective |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson … & also not forget that there is a lot of “digital only” micro-politics which does not link to offline in any direct way |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson … but it’s important not to collapse the distinction b/w online and offline and also all the different ways they interact |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson What you call “augmented” has always been my only & default way of looking at it–so I don’t necessarily name it but … + |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc agree on/offline have differences, but those can really only be described by taking the other into account: http://t.co/lFzw1UIT |
|
|
Here, I am linking to my essay on this blog that deals with how the augmented paradigm does not obscure the differences between atoms and bits, but instead provides a better language to talk about these important differences.
 |
Defending and Clarifying the Term Augmented Reality » Cyborgology
Yesterday, Sang-Hyoun Pahk delivered a critique of the usage of the term augmented reality on this blog. First, thank you, criticism of this term is especially important for me (and others) because augmented reality is the fundamental unit of analysis about which I seek to describe.
|
The conversation picks up again for a third day.
| “ |
Same in my region. Not everyone is as wired as US. $$$ RT @techsoc @nathanjurgenson in the region…. Online/offline not always integrated. |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @techsoc but of course the online influences those without access and those logged off |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson @techsoc umm… Not always. |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @nathanjurgenson Yes, not always. That’s the point I’m making. The link can be fledgling.. I’m agreeing with @katypearce here. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @nathanjurgenson + thus, less incllinded to share w. have nots. plus ‘internet doesn’t register as credible source for have nots. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @nathanjurgenson when government + media are untrustworthy, interpersonal comm is #1. Would be hard to do 2-step flow here. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @katypearce the link between on/offline just as important when people use distinct spheres |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @techsoc augmentation comes in many flavors and these folks exist within that augmentation in different ways |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @techsoc tho wld love to see longer form discussion of y you may NOT want to think from an augmented framework. havent seen that |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @techsoc protester not using digital tools still influenced by digitality; person not on FB still (more?) influenced by it |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @techsoc credible source example quite good at articulating just how digitality (in its absence) has massive impact on these ppl |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @techsoc differing outcomes depending on ones engagement w/ digital/physical demonstrates how the link is not “fledgling” at all |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @techsoc downplaying the link as “fledgling” leads to a very different set of research questions and conclusions |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson @katypearce that digital world is part of this world is trivially true — (even as there are idiotic attempt to separate) |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce But beyond that just saying it’s all augmented hides significant differences & that there are many regions+ |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce +there are “digital only” spheres in a way you don’t see in US. (Again, beyond the trivial first-level effect) |
|
|
| “ |
Agreed RT @techsoc @nathanjurgenson: @katypearce +there are “digital only” spheres in a way you don’t see in US. |
|
|
| “ |
@katypearce @techsoc strongly disagree. “digital only” a fallacy and conceptually obscures important relations |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @katypearce not “trivial”: much academic, popular, journalism makes bad conclusions from standpoint that holds dig/physical seprate |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @katypearce only from augmented perspective can we articulate significant differences & impact of so-called “digital-only” spheres |
|
|
| “ |
@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce well, that they do and I always rail against that. but really important not to hide vast differences. |
|
|
| “ |
@techsoc @katypearce agreed, of course. i’ll link here again: http://t.co/lFzw1UIT would love to hear how augmentation obscures differences |
|
|
I link again to my post arguing that the augmented perspective is the best one to describe important differences between digital and physical.
|
Defending and Clarifying the Term Augmented Reality » Cyborgology
Yesterday, Sang-Hyoun Pahk delivered a critique of the usage of the term augmented reality on this blog. First, thank you, criticism of this term is especially important for me (and others) because augmented reality is the fundamental unit of analysis about which I seek to describe.
|
Follow Nathan on Twitter: @nathanjurgenson
Follow Zeynep: @techsoc
Comments 3
Jeremy Antley — October 11, 2011
Excellent gathering of thoughts on this and the following post. Based on my own studies of Russian peasant behavior during the Imperial period, I wonder if disagreement on the topic of 'augmented reality' stems from not recognizing the full mobility potential of information, it's ability to cross into either the analog or digital spheres with their varied norms, tactics and utilizations. This would help explain why Facebook influences both on/off-line activity. Both atoms and bits, as you describe in both posts, are essentially units of information and it is my belief that this characteristic binds them both in what you have termed 'augmented reality'.
From my own observations and conjectures, the reason people hold to the belief that the analog/digital spheres of activity are separate, distinct entities stems from the asynchronous effects produced between the operation of both. This is because 'atoms' are, in general, governed by low mobility potential, that is the reluctance of the form to undergo transformation through transmission. A published book will remain the same even if you and I read the same volume at different points in time. However, 'bits' are, in general, governed by high mobility potential, that is they have a high capacity to undergo transformation through transmission. There are numerous examples of how digital artifacts undergo rapid change through their use, but I would also point out that oral rumors, clearly in the analog realm, also embrace the same high degree of mutability. Observers tend to view the analog and digital realms as separate because, in their juxtaposition, the asynchronicity between the two, in their capacity to be modified, is often great. Yet the information created in analog/digital realms flows across both, evidenced, for example, by tweets linking to published books or essays, like those produced on this blog, or the reverse, where essays produce tweets.
Because of this, I would add that atoms are just as profuse as bits- yet the asynchronous effects between the two give atoms the appearance of being scarce in comparison to the relative abundance of bits. Asynchronicity between high & low mobility knowledge constructs both links analog/digital activity in an augmented reality conception and provides the illusion that they operate in separate spheres.
Strong and Mild Digital Dualism » Cyborgology — October 29, 2012
[...] And my critique has itself been counter-critiqued. I’ve responded to criticisms here, here, and here. Recently, observing this dialogue, Whitney Erin Boesel and Giorgio Fontana have worked to [...]