{"id":11639,"date":"2012-08-30T18:52:02","date_gmt":"2012-08-30T22:52:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=11639"},"modified":"2012-08-30T18:58:04","modified_gmt":"2012-08-30T22:58:04","slug":"the-hole-in-our-thinking-about-augmented-reality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2012\/08\/30\/the-hole-in-our-thinking-about-augmented-reality\/","title":{"rendered":"The Hole in Our Thinking about Augmented Reality"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been thinking on and off since mid-summer about a hole I\u2019ve identified in our collective theorizing of augmented reality<\/a>. To illustrate it, imagine the following conversation:<\/p>\n

Digital Dualist:<\/strong> \u2018Online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019 are two distinct, separate worlds!<\/strong>
\nMe:<\/strong> That\u2019s not true. \u2018Online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019 are part of the same augmented reality.
\nDigital Dualist:<\/strong> Are you saying that ‘online’ and ‘offline’ are the same thing?
\nMe:<\/strong> No, of course not. Atoms and bits<\/a> have different properties, but both are still part of the same world.
\nDigital Dualist:<\/strong> So \u2018online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019 are different, but not different worlds?
\nMe:<\/strong> Correct.
\nDigital Dualist:<\/strong> But if they\u2019re not different worlds<\/em>, then what kind of different thing are they?
\nMe:<\/strong> \u2026<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know about you, but this is where I get stuck.<\/p>\n

My thinking along these lines was first sparked by a tweet in which Nathan Jurgenson (@nathanjurgenson<\/a>) reported that Rian van der Merwe (@RianVDM<\/a>) had misread<\/a> his IRL Fetish piece<\/a>, and come away with the idea that Jurgenson \u201cthink[s] on\/offline are the same<\/a>.\u201d That wasn\u2019t my reading of the IRL Fetish essay, but I realized it wasn\u2019t hard to see where van der Merwe might have gotten that impression if he wasn\u2019t already coming from an augmented reality perspective.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve since gone back through a lot of writing on digital dualism and augmented reality (both on Cyborgology and elsewhere), and come to the conclusion that while Team Augmented Reality does a great job of explaining the enmeshment of \u2018online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019, and what the difference between ‘online’ and ‘offline’ isn\u2019t<\/em>, we need to do a much better job of explaining clearly what the difference between ‘online’ and ‘offline’ actually is<\/em>.<\/strong> While the precise nature of the difference may not need to be spelled out for those of us who already embrace an augmented reality framework, not<\/em> spelling it out leaves too much room for misreadings and misinterpretations of our work. If we want to make a dent in pervasive digital dualism, we need to address this theoretical hole<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Below, I review some of what\u2019s been written about digital dualism and augmented reality, as well as what\u2019s been written about the differences between \u2018online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019; I then pose some of my lingering questions. It\u2019s my hope that this post will start a conversation that will strengthen all of our work within the \u2018augmented reality\u2019 framework by helping to clarify our terminology.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
A beginning.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Jurgenson first coined this usage of the term \u201caugmented reality\u201d in 2009<\/a>, but most of us at Cyborgology tend to reference this 2011 post<\/a> in which Jurgenson states,<\/p>\n

I am proposing an alternative view that states that our reality is both technological and organic, both digital and physical, all at once. We are not crossing in and out of separate digital and physical realities, a la\u00a0The Matrix<\/em>, but instead live in one reality, one that is augmented by atoms and bits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pj Rey (@pjrey<\/a>) offers a more intensely theoretical explanation<\/a> of augmented reality, in which he states,<\/p>\n

In the tradition of much post-Modern theorizing, \u201caugmented reality\u201d offers a new conceptual paradigm, seeking to implode\/queer\/do category work on the real\/virtual dichotomy and make room for a more flexible understanding of social media that allows for recursivity between these two concepts.\u00a0\u2026However, the symbolic order expressed through the digital does not emerge out of nothing; it is a reproduction or extension of what has always existed.\u00a0 The digital and material are always in circulation and neither can be abstracted from the new order of social relations.\u00a0 That is to say, society is neither online or offline; it is augmented.\u00a0 Thus, augmented reality and the cyborgs who populate it are now the proper objects of sociological inquiry<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Alternatively, as Jenny Davis (@Jup83<\/a>) put it most recently<\/a>,<\/p>\n

Reality is augmented\u2014characterized by the entwinement of human and technologies rather than their categorical separation. \u00a0Digital and physical, online and offline are false dichotomies that the bloggers here at Cyborgology actively work to blur.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As Davis correctly points out, Cyborgologists (and others!) have indeed worked hard to blur those false dichotomies. I think it\u2019s safe to say we\u2019ve produced some great work illustrating the co-constitutive enmeshment of the physical and the digital<\/strong>, especially in tracing flows of impacts and information back and forth across the supposed border between \u2018online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019, or between \u2018the physical\u2019 and \u2018the digital\u2019. A small sampling of my favorite pieces that touch on these points include<\/strong> Zeynep Tufekci (@techsoc<\/a>) on friendship and interaction<\/a> and on activists\u2019 use of social media, Sarah Wanenchak (@dynamicsymmetry<\/a>) on augmented libraries<\/a> and on \u00a0narrative structure<\/a>, David Banks (@DA_Banks<\/a>) on why rejecting digital dualism is important<\/a>, Bonnie Stewart (@bonstewart<\/a>) on Klout<\/a>, Rey on the myth<\/a> of cyberspace<\/a>, Davis on reality curation<\/a> and on CITASA<\/a>, and Jurgenson on both faux-vintage photography<\/a> and the fallacy of web objectivity<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
The digital and the physical are thoroughly and inextricably enmeshed.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But now that we\u2019ve made the case for the inseparability of \u2018online\u2019 and \u2018offline,\u2019 how do we describe the ways in which the two remain different, if not entirely distinct from each other? If the two aren\u2019t different realities, and aren\u2019t different worlds, what sort of different things are they?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Discussion of the \u2018difference\u2019 within augmented reality has most often focused not on differences between online and offline, but on differences between \u201cthe digital\u201d and \u201cthe physical\u201d (which I see as a closely related set of differences, but not the same set of differences). These differences are most often boiled down to the differences between \u2018atoms\u2019 and \u2018bits,\u2019<\/strong> which in Jurgenson\u2019s words<\/a> \u201chave different properties, influence each other, and together create reality.\u201d He has also recently clarified<\/a> that,<\/p>\n

[T]he digital and physical are not the same, <\/em>but we should aim to better understand the relationship of different combinations of information, be they analog or digital, whether using the technologies of stones, transistors, or flesh and blood. Also, technically, bits are<\/em> atoms, but the language can still be conceptually useful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Tufekci elaborates on this point<\/a> by arguing that,<\/p>\n

Bits are easy to copy while preserving their full organization, atoms are not (in other words, in the online world we have whatever Scotty in Star Trek used to beam people up by deconstituting them molecule by molecule and reassembling them someplace else. (Oops, if you are in an industry where your product is in bit form). Bits travel much easier than atoms, making bits much harder to censor and isolate (I\u2019m looking at you, Mubarak). The architecture in the online world depends on the underlying code while the architecture of the offline world depends on laws of physics. Hence, online, we don\u2019t have the same balance of privacy and visibility that come from the physical properties of space and time: that offline speech disappears after it is uttered; that, offline, we can usually see who is looking at us; offline walls, doors, locks and windows operate in a predictable manner. (That is why Facebook can be so jarring at times: it often ignores deeply ingrained cultural conventions based on laws of physics. It puts all your friends in the same room, by default\u2013and its new timeline defies rules of flow of time as we knew it).<\/p>\n

\u2026There is certainly a difference between emailing someone and, say, sitting in a cafe by the Bosphorus; however, I am not able to categorize it merely as one is good\/the other is bad. Each form has strengths and weaknesses depending on the topic, person, location, moment\u2026\u00a0Some things are better discussed over email. But sometimes you need to be able to hold out a hand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jurgenson too emphasizes<\/a> that,<\/p>\n

[T]he term augmented reality does not need to imply that the differences between atoms and bits does not matter. Quite the opposite\u00a0because\u00a0we cannot begin to describe these differences<\/strong> until we start with the assumption of augmented reality. We cannot adequately discuss one without taking into account the other\u2019s at least partial influence. Simply put, the assumption of augmented reality makes possible the very discussion about the relevant differences between atoms and bits that Sang (and myself) wants to have. [emphasis mine<\/em>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Perhaps this, then, is the problem. As we\u2019ve worked to establish augmented reality as a theoretical paradigm, we\u2019ve argued: 1) that the physical and the digital are different because atoms and bits are different; 2) that the atoms\/bits difference is important; 3) that the atoms\/bits difference is not one of good vs. bad. We\u2019ve stopped short, however, of theorizing these admittedly important differences<\/strong>, and instead cited the undertheorized differences between atoms and bits as evidence for why the augmented reality perspective is necessary. This is a valid point; we do<\/em> need to understand augmented reality in order to understand the relationships between atoms and bits, between \u2018the digital\u2019 and \u2018the physical,\u2019 between \u2018online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019. What remains now is for those of us who have adopted the augmented reality framework to start \u201cthe very discussion\u201d about what those differences are.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
We still have work to do…but that’s why we do this, right?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

If we start by more extensively theorizing the differences between atoms and bits, what will that tell us about the differences between \u2018the digital\u2019 and \u2018the physical\u2019? Will that shed light on the differences between \u2018online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019? What kinds<\/em> of differences are these? And while we\u2019re at it, what kinds of things<\/em> are these (for lack of a better term)?<\/p>\n

In my (probably incomplete) survey of writing on augmented reality and digital dualism, the word most frequently used to describe \u2018the digital\u2019 and \u2018the physical\u2019 is spheres<\/a><\/em>. These spheres<\/a> are \u201cvery different<\/a>,\u201d but absolutely \u201cnot<\/a> separate [.pdf],<\/a>\u201d and thoroughly \u201cenmeshed<\/a>\u201d\u2014but if we\u2019re going to be concrete about it, what exactly is a \u2018sphere\u2019? What\u2019s that supposed to mean, and how do you explain it to the hypothetical Digital Dualist in my opening dialogue?<\/strong> [Full disclosure: I use \u2018sphere\u2019 terminology all over my own work, and\u2014though I have a footnote definition I use in papers\u2014I often use \u2018sphere\u2019 terms without explanation when I talk about my work; I\u2019m as guilty of this as anyone.] \u2018Sphere\u2019 may mean something self-evident to a bunch of theorists, but it isn\u2019t going to make much headway in countering popular digital-dualist conceptions of the world.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cSpace\u201d and \u201cenvironment\u201d have also been used (the former perhaps more metaphorically than the latter), but spatial metaphors can be a slippery slope; how clear are the lines between \u2018a space\u2019, \u2018a place\u2019, and \u2018a world\u2019? Relatedly, Malcolm Harris (@BigMeanInternet<\/a>) recently described Twitter as \u201ca territory\u2026 a global city\u201d that he named Twitterland<\/a><\/em>; Jurgenson countered that Twitter is not a new city, but rather a part of the same cities<\/a> that we\u2019ve had since before we had Twitter. \u201cThe power of new technologies Harris is describing are precisely born of the fact that they are not<\/em>, as the title of the story suggests, of a \u2018Twitterland,\u2019\u201d Jurgenson argues; rather, \u201c[t]he power-grabs in play are those of one reality, one of physical space, material inequalities, bodies that hurt, people with histories, pains, pleasures, re-networked\u00a0together.\u201d While this poetic description illustrates why Twitter (and by extension, \u2018the digital\u2019 or \u2018the online\u2019) isn\u2019t a new or separate place, again we have to ask the question: when we consider these great unwieldy assemblages of people and power and politics, of technology and information and affect, of everything else that makes up an augmented world, what is it that we\u2019re looking at?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

If \u2018digital\u2019 isn\u2019t a place or a world or a reality, can it be a practice<\/em>? A mode of engagement? A way of being, or an orientation?<\/strong> Can \u2018physical\u2019 be each or any of these things? What are the stakes and implications for each possibility? What does it mean if we agree \u2018digital\u2019 can fall into a category that \u2018physical\u2019 cannot, or vice versa? And critically, why are we limiting ourselves with dualist framings by implicitly accepting that whatever<\/em> the applicable categories are, there are only two designations: \u201cdigital\u201d and \u201cphysical\u201d? What happens if we push past binary logic in our critiques of digital dualism? <\/strong><\/p>\n

It also seems clear that \u2018digital\u2019 is the marked category, and that whatever kind of thing it is, \u2018not digital\u2019 is such only by implication or association; \u2018online\u2019 is the Other without which the Subject (the dualists\u2019 supposed \u2018offline world\u2019) cannot define itself<\/strong>. This highlights an additional problem (one among many, really), which is the way the term \u2018physical\u2019 implicitly becomes a catchall for all the things and kinds of things that are not already marked as \u2018digital\u2019. Some things are neither digital nor physical; thoughts, sensations, power dynamics, *-isms (to name just a few) may have both physical and digital manifestations, but don\u2019t fit neatly into either designation. If our goal is to understand our (augmented) world, we do ourselves a disservice by lumping all of its non-digital aspects under \u2018physical\u2019. As we work to better theorize the differences between atoms and bits, can we consider as well the differences between those things that are neither?<\/strong> Or those things that might be both?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Let’s think even further outside the box.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As I\u2019ve said, these are just some preliminary thoughts\u2014but I hope to stir up more conversation on these topics, and to push more of us into taking on the task of theorizing categorical difference within the augmented reality framework.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Whitney Erin Boesel (@phenatypical<\/a>) will theorize with you on Twitter if you *ping* in her direction.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Hole in web photo from http:\/\/www.rogue-penguin.com\/wp\/2010\/05\/if-spider-and-web-andrew-plotkin\/<\/a><\/em>
\n Spider beginning web photo from http:\/\/www.pbase.com\/image\/82091047<\/a><\/em>
\n Enmeshed webs photo from http:\/\/www.fragmentsfromfloyd.com\/fragments\/2004\/04\/<\/a><\/em>
\n Working spider photo from http:\/\/blog.seattlepi.com\/kitsapandbeyond\/2007\/08\/<\/a><\/em>
\n Heart-shaped web photo Dominique Piccinato from http:\/\/parisapartment.wordpress.com\/page\/7\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I\u2019ve been thinking on and off since mid-summer about a hole I\u2019ve identified in our collective theorizing of augmented reality. To illustrate it, imagine the following conversation: Digital Dualist: \u2018Online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019 are two distinct, separate worlds! Me: That\u2019s not true. \u2018Online\u2019 and \u2018offline\u2019 are part of the same augmented reality. Digital Dualist: Are you […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1875,"featured_media":11655,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9967],"tags":[10728,2324,10729,2603,10447,10558,18389,3131,16158,514,10192,3256,66,4521],"class_list":["post-11639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","tag-atoms","tag-augmented-reality","tag-bits","tag-digital","tag-digital-dualism","tag-jenny-davis","tag-malcolm","tag-nathan-jurgenson","tag-offline","tag-online","tag-physical","tag-pj-rey","tag-theory","tag-zeynep-tufekci"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/files\/2012\/08\/spider-use-this.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11639","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1875"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11639"}],"version-history":[{"count":36,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11639\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11683,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11639\/revisions\/11683"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}