{"id":14521,"date":"2013-03-11T18:44:10","date_gmt":"2013-03-11T22:44:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=14521"},"modified":"2013-03-12T20:30:50","modified_gmt":"2013-03-13T00:30:50","slug":"dude-ly-digital-dualism-debates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2013\/03\/11\/dude-ly-digital-dualism-debates\/","title":{"rendered":"Dude-ly Digital Dualism Debates"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"no-girls-sign\"<\/a>If you\u2019re a regular reader of Cyborgology, chances are good that you caught the most recent \u201cbrouLOL<\/a>\u201d (yes, that\u2019s like a 21st<\/sup> century brouhaha) over digital dualism and augmented reality. If you\u2019re 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?<\/p>\n

Ladies, gentlemen, and cyborgs, allow me to (re)introduce you to Jenny Davis (@Jup83<\/a>) and Sarah Wanenchak (@dynamicsymmetry<\/a>)\u2014oh yeah, and my name\u2019s Whitney Erin Boesel (I\u2019m @phenatypical<\/a>). 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<\/i>: \u201cthe other digital dualism denialists<\/a>,\u201d \u201cothers on this blog<\/a>,\u201d \u201cothers<\/a>,\u201d \u201cother Cyborgologists<\/a>,\u201d \u201cother regular contributors<\/a>,\u201d etc. If you\u2019re a crotchety sociologist with a penchant for picking apart language (ahem: guilty), it doesn\u2019t get much better than this. During the conversation earlier this month, the named and cited Cyborgologists were (almost) always men\u2014while Jenny, Sarah, and I were referenced obliquely (at best) in an unnamed “other” category.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m going to do three things in this post. First, I\u2019m going to update my earlier work<\/a> mapping out writing on digital dualism and augmented reality. Second, I\u2019ll give you a hyperlinked play-by-play of last week\u2019s discussion (or \u201cpissing match<\/a>\u201d) between author Nicholas Carr and both named and \u201cothered\u201d Cyborgologists in order to illustrate how pertinent work by women theorists has been overlooked (on both sides of the debate). Third, I\u2019m 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.<\/b> 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\u2019t just between \u201cwhite boys with toys<\/a>.\u201d [And later this week, I\u2019ll add my own critique of Carr\u2019s digital dualism piece<\/a> to the existing pool of responses.]<\/p>\n

\"no-women-allowed1\"<\/a>Please note that one thing I am not<\/i> 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\u2019s no way I could know these things, and I\u2019m 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 \u201cwhy\u201d 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, \u201cWhy did he do that,\u201d but \u201cWhy do so many of us do this, and to what effect, and with what consequences?\u201d<\/p>\n

The problem is that women\u2019s contributions are often either overlooked or outright ignored\u2014both in conversations about technology, and in conversations about theory\u2014and 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<\/i>, but as a case study in gender, visibility, and the importance of being conscientious about whom and how we cite \u2014for all of us who do this work, regardless of how we gender-identify.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

An Updated Crash Course in Augmented Reality and Critiques of Digital Dualism<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

\"Image<\/a>
Image Credit: Audrey Penven<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Nathan Jurgenson (@nathanjurgenson) both appropriated the term \u201caugmented reality\u201d and coined the new term \u201cdigital dualism\u201d in February of 2011<\/a>. I gave an overview of the next 18 months of related work in an August 2012<\/a> post about what I saw as a critical \u201chole\u201d 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<\/a> of both digital dualism and augmented reality, and Davis offered a corresponding empirical typology<\/a>. (Sarani Rangarajan (@nineran<\/a>) offered a critique<\/a> of Jurgenson\u2019s first draft of the strong\/mild typology, while Michael Sacasas (@frailestthing<\/a>) proposed a typology of connectivity<\/a>[i]<\/a>; Giorgio Fontana (@giorgiofontana<\/a>) offered some new definitions<\/a> to reinforce the augmented reality framework.)<\/p>\n

Our work on digital dualism and augmented reality continued over the winter. Davis used Jurgenson\u2019s typology to theorize embodiment<\/a>. Wanenchak wrote about how dualist-influenced emotions can persist<\/a> even when one fully recognizes that there is but one augmented reality, and Davis considered what might be behind some people\u2019s feelings<\/a> that digital interaction is less \u201creal\u201d or meaningful. Guest author James Vincent (@jjvincent<\/a>) drew a parallel between academic critiques of digital dualism and New Aesthetic artwork<\/a>, and guest author Legacy Russell (@legacyrussell<\/a>) built on the digital dualism critique to establish what she calls “Glitch Feminism<\/a>.” PJ Rey (@pjrey<\/a>) 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<\/a> and produced a genealogy of the term \u201caugmented reality\u201d<\/a> as first steps. Jurgenson looked at digital dualism in coverage of the Manti Te\u2019o case<\/a>, and David Banks (@DA_Banks<\/a>) previewed his (amazing) Theorizing the Web 2013<\/a> (#TtW13<\/a>) talk on the political origins of digital dualism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

By the time you click on all the pieces I\u2019ve listed above, and then click all the pieces linked in those pieces, you\u2019ll have a pretty good picture of the work that\u2019s been done on digital dualism and augmented reality from February 2011 through February 2013. But if you skimmed the last two paragraphs, here\u2019s the tl;dr you need for the next section: every single member of Cyborgology<\/a><\/i> not only writes about digital dualism, but also produced something on digital dualism in the first two months of 2013.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Denialism, Duellism, and Dude-liness (in four waves)<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

\"berenstain-bears-No-Girls-Allowed\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Round One: <\/b>
\nThe fun<\/a> starts with a blog post from author Nicholas Carr, in which he lays out a rather scathing assessment<\/a> 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 \u201cThe IRL Fetish<\/a>\u201d), as well as on Banks\u2019s preview of his TtW13 talk<\/a>. Carr refers to the rest of Cyborgology en masse<\/i>; though he references Wanenchak\u2019s \u2018dualist emotions\u2019 post<\/a> in his comments section, Carr can be bothered neither to link to Wanenchak\u2019s post nor even to mention her by name<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Round Two:<\/b>
\nDrew Kalbach (@drewkalbach<\/a>) disagrees with Carr<\/a>, and makes passing reference to Jurgenson.<\/p>\n

Banks responds to Carr<\/a> by further contextualizing digital dualism both historically and politically, and by refuting Carr\u2019s accusation that in his TtW13 preview post<\/a> he treats people \u201cas dopes.\u201d In a footnote<\/a>, Banks suggests that Carr made a grave error in failing to engage Rey\u2019s 2012 piece \u201cThe Myth of Cyberspace<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jurgenson responds to Carr<\/a> largely by addressing Carr\u2019s misreadings of his work, but closes with some analysis around the nature\/technology dichotomy. Jurgenson also points out two<\/a> places<\/a> where Carr would have done well to engage Rey.<\/p>\n

Wanenchak links to Banks\u2019s<\/a> and Jurgenson\u2019s<\/a> responses to Carr, then responds to Carr\u2019s accusation<\/a> that critics of digital dualism have neglected to consider people\u2019s feelings and emotions. She also refutes Carr\u2019s reading of her work in his comments section<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Round Three:<\/b>
\nChris Baraniuk (@machinestarts<\/a>) focuses mainly on the exchange between Carr and Jurgenson in his post about \u201cdigital duellists<\/a>,\u201d and draws on material from email interviews he conducted with Carr in 2011 and with Jurgenson in 2013. He spends a sentence mentioning Banks\u2019s<\/a> and Wanenchak\u2019s<\/a> responses to Carr, and engages extensively with Rey\u2019s work on \u201cthe myth of cyberspace<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tyler Bickford (@tylerbickford<\/a>) focuses mainly on the exchange between Carr and Jurgenson to lay out an interesting critique: that the term \u201caugmented reality\u201d is itself inherently dualist<\/a>, and that while he agrees with Jurgenson\u2019s cumulative critique of digital dualism, Jurgenson also undermines that critique by insisting that the digital and the physical are \u201cdifferent.\u201d[ii]<\/a> Bickford draws heavily on Donna Haraway; he also mentions Banks\u2019s response to Carr<\/a>, Davis\u2019s empirical typology of augmented reality<\/a>, and my \u201chole in our thinking<\/a>\u201d piece. Notably, Bickford stated on Twitter that his goal in writing his response was, in part, \u201cto make [the discussion] about gender\/feminism<\/a>\u201d; he also noted that work by women Cyborgologists was being overlooked<\/a>, and that he too had done so even despite his feminist intentions in writing his response:
\nhttps:\/\/twitter.com\/tylerbickford\/status\/308283135420948481
\nhttps:\/\/twitter.com\/tylerbickford\/status\/308283363221979136<\/p>\n

Round Four:<\/b>
\nSacasas responds primarily to Bickford<\/a>, but reframes the conversation as one between Jurgenson, Carr, and himself that\u2019s been going on since the publication of Jurgenson\u2019s \u201cThe IRL Fetish<\/a>.\u201d Sacasas agrees with Bickford\u2019s critique<\/a> that \u201caugmented reality\u201d is itself dualist, and that the term \u201creality\u201d should be thrown out of the discussion\u2014but where Bickford provides what is possibly the first \u201cstrong augmentationalist\u201d critique of augmented reality, Sacasas ends on a mild dualist note by closing with a paean to face-to-face interaction.<\/p>\n

Jurgenson responds to Bickford<\/a> by revisiting his own strong\/mild digital dualism\/augmented reality framework<\/a>, and briefly references Sacasas\u2019s response<\/a> 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\u2019s points.<\/p>\n

Jurgenson also responds (on his personal blog) to Baraniuk<\/a>, and takes issue with some of Baraniuk\u2019s framing both of the exchange with Carr and of Cyborgology\u2019s position on technology\u2014though he also feels these problems stem from Carr\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Alright, so now what?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

\"Ticket<\/a>
Ticket image from Donna Haraway’s retirement celebration, 28 January 2011.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In January of 2011, I was lucky enough to attend Donna Haraway\u2019s retirement celebration<\/a> 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<\/a>. What I remember most from that day, however, were the repeated references to Dr. Haraway\u2019s \u201cgenerous citation practices.\u201d 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\u2014both professionally and emotionally\u2014for the people she cited.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cMessing With Haraway\u201d was not only a deeper appreciation of an extraordinary scholar, but also an updated picture of the scholar I aspire to become.<\/p>\n

Citation matters, folks. Sure, we can\u2019t all read everything\u2014but when we don\u2019t 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\u2019ll point out how much work on digital dualism Carr overlooked).<\/p>\n

Yes, \u201cacademia is a feudal system\u201d (to quote the clich\u00e9 I\u2019m already sick of hearing). Yes, when tenure time comes, we\u2019ll 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 \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d terms. But my god, don\u2019t we want to change this? Aren\u2019t we committed to forging a mode of scholarship that\u2019s more just, that\u2019s 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\u2019ve 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?<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know about you, dear reader, but I want a different Academy\u2014and while I probably won\u2019t get one in my own lifetime, I remain committed to working toward that goal.<\/p>\n

\"reverse-racism-reading\"<\/a>
Yeah, no. That’s not how it works.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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.<\/b> I\u2019ve 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\u2019s been mentioned so far, so I\u2019m offering up the \u201ccomments\u201d section here. Like I said, we can\u2019t all read everything\u2014but I\u2019m willing to bet there\u2019s a fair amount of interesting, quality work on these topics that\u2019s being overlooked, and I want to start making it easier for all of us to find that work.<\/p>\n

No matter how brilliant someone\u2019s work is, you can\u2019t cite it if you don\u2019t know it exists\u2014so let\u2019s take that first step.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[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<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Like a lot of woman scholars, Whitney Erin Boesel also theorizes digital technologies on Twitter. She\u2019s @phenatypical<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

“No Girls Allowed” sign image from\u00a0http:\/\/guerillawomentn.blogspot.com\/2012\/04\/where-are-women-ny-times-ethicist-picks.html<\/a><\/em>
\n “No Women” sign from http:\/\/siliconvalleymamas.com\/2011\/06\/join-the-club-gender-discrimination-in-2011\/<\/a><\/em>
\n “Manarchist” meme image from http:\/\/www.theprecarious.com\/content\/manarchist-explosion<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n
[i]<\/a> This is also the post in which Sacasas coined \u201cThe Cyborgology School of Digital Criticism,\u201d a designation that I think has been woefully underutilized\u2014and one that is, at present, a more accurate description of what goes on here than \u201cJurgenson and his cohorts<\/a>\u201d (etc).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

[ii]<\/a> I absolutely cannot wait to return to this point in my next post. Watch this space.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019re a regular reader of Cyborgology, chances are good that you caught the most recent \u201cbrouLOL\u201d (yes, that\u2019s like a 21st century brouhaha) over digital dualism and augmented reality. If you\u2019re a careful reader of Cyborgology, chances are good you also caught (at least) one glaring omission in much of the writing featured in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1875,"featured_media":14522,"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":[9967,892,10055],"tags":[2324,19856,19859,19860,10796,10447,2635,55,10558,19855,3131,8991,19858,3256,12800,19857,10125,19813],"class_list":["post-14521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-essay","category-meta-cyborgology","tag-augmented-reality","tag-chris-baraniuk","tag-citation","tag-citation-practices","tag-david-banks","tag-digital-dualism","tag-donna-haraway","tag-gender","tag-jenny-davis","tag-michael-sacasas","tag-nathan-jurgenson","tag-nicholas-carr","tag-pissing-contests","tag-pj-rey","tag-sarah-wanenchak","tag-tyler-bickford","tag-visibility","tag-whitney-erin-boesel"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/files\/2013\/03\/no-girls-sign.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14521","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=14521"}],"version-history":[{"count":44,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14521\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14562,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14521\/revisions\/14562"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}