I'm still interested in Chun's use of space as example of her control/freedom discussion. In the second half of the book, she identifies the paranoia of bodily space as the point when "the boundary between self and other, self and self, freedom and control, begins to collapse" (245). In seems ironic that the Cartesian reason for separating the self from the other—gaining *truthful* knowledge—is the very division that is being troubled by the knowledge/information that was gained. Chun notes that this dissolving of boundaries occurs when "orienting the reader/viewer, enabling him or her to envision the world as data. This twinning sustains--barely--the dream of self-erasure and pure subjectivity" (195). Not only are we challenging the notion of spaces, but we are also challenging the notion of our body as space.
How far can you take this "self-erasure"? Erasing your body? Erasing cognitive synapses that constitute you? But doesn’t there always need to be some amount of filtering or designating? Otherwise there is only raw data, bits of us and our spaces that are unmoored. So, is she saying that one aspect of the paranoia is losing the conception of ourselves? I suppose that her idea of agoraphobia being not about spaces but about identity politics of public spaces means that the answer is, yes (247). I wonder how we will deal with this. Perhaps re-imagine the Cartesian model. Or, perhaps come up with some new, more fluid way of constructing the self. Is it the fact that we have physical bodies that we feel the need to spatialize and divide one space from another? But this is changing: "Significantly, the Orient is first and foremost a virtual space. Said contends that the Orient is not a 'real' space but rather a textual universe (that is, created by supposedly descriptive Orientalist texts)" (192); or, it's all in our heads. But can't this be said for all spaces? A place is nothing more than what we designate it to be, and because of this it function as much more than it physically is. Digital spaces solidify for us that to be some place is only to imagine it.
"Technological empowerment and the threat of being left behind are no longer benign" (255). Is this a new fear? How does this compare to how people felt post-WWI and industrialization when the machines that promised new and fantastic lives actually caused massive death. Then, people felt betrayed, but now? Her big argument here, the paranoia being left behind technologically is what drives us to acquire and master new tech. But she’s also saying, every technology has a dark side, don't be fooled by the sappy advertisements. I would be interest to explore contemporary feelings of technological betrayal, and how we are responding.
2 comments:
I think it's interesting that you are talking about erasure, specifically erasing the body as space and we are currently involved in exploring Second Life. I would say that my main argument against Second Life is this ignorance of the idea that our bodies are no longer in a tangible space. We are not interacting with others physically, only virtually. And while I recognize the time and place for this, I am also very disturbed by this! In being a big advocate for community, being WITH people physically is important to me. I think in not having that, we are missing something. Again, not to say that we can't virtually connect during certain times and places, only that it bothers me when virtual connection is the *only* connection.
Also, I think you used the term "bad" at one point (refering to technology... or something...) and I was wondering if you could expand more on that. Thanks!
Good thoughts on erasure. I wonder if/where bodily erasure intersects with the erasure of identity. Specifically, how do Chun's notions of bodily erasure jive with Nakamura's ideas on race and gender? It seems that the idea that the body can be erased in virtual spaces would have to weather the same arguments that race and gender did. Can we be free of body in spaces with avatars that have bodies? Or, are we simply trapped in different bodies by avatars? Wrt the latter, I'm thinking of the SL default avatars and their mostly conforming relation to "real" world standards of beauty in our popular cultures.
Post a Comment