When I was your age…

So I’m taking an environmental science class meant for freshmen. I’m the only senior there. Yes, I’m that kid. So we can’t possibly have more than a 2-3 year difference. The class is on water. A natural resource that is slowly disappearing. You know, a class that often discusses how wars will be fought over water rather than oil in the future. We’re basically doing a lot of case-study work on different rivers and lakes and how we’re essentially killing ourselves off. Yay! So not a positive class.

I brought up the movie Waterworld. Anyone remember this movie? Totally relevant to the class! You know…only in 1995…not that long ago… No one got my reference in class. Not one kid.

My underclassman friend in the class of course had to poke fun at my age.

When I was your age…I knew my cult classics.

Even after the thrill

So the class is over.

I’m going to keep this blog up and running, I’ve just been MIA because of finals.

I’m trying to write a paper on “Can we save the world by shopping?”–a discussion of whether we as consumers or citizens can further the green movement. Well, that’s one part of it, I guess.

I’m glad I took the cyberpolitics class. It was very useful. I must say that my favourite book was ISpy. It was incredibly informative. I also liked the Digital Democracy book. Those two books really worked my brain.

I enjoyed the presentations on the last two days of classes. I love seeing how people tackle issues creatively. How they combine their videos. What the end result will be. I guess that’s the sociologist in me; where did it come from, what was the process like, what was cut out…I think the last one is the question that gets to me the most. What was cut out? Every thing had an infinite number of ways to look like in the end, yet somehow, it ended up looking as it does, and we hardly question the process. Yet, at the end, it feels like it could not have been any other way. It’s good to remember that things were cut out. The video could have been different. It could all have been different.

I’m happy people engaged themselves. I think a number of students took some life lessons from the class. A number of people surprised me with their progress, comments, and blog entries as time wore on. First impressions of people should never be static and permanent.

I’ve been debating whether or not I should mention this, but, hey, it’s my blog, right?

After presenting my group video, something we were all incredibly proud of, as we felt that we managed to touch on nearly every aspect of the class, without being fragmented and constantly presenting a clear message, and also, unlike other videos, we created an independent thesis that has not been highly discussed in class. Our thesis was that mashups are the conversation of Millennials, and thus the future. We demonstrated how mashups in entertainment (music) but also political and corporate mashups, were growing in significance, and if the Boomer generation would only listen, they would see the innumerable benefits to embracing this “Millennial conversation”. We constantly re-iterated themes of interactivity, connectivity, open-source. We felt that our topic was unique and multi-faceted. We thought, a final project, man that’s got to do a lot. The other projects were done well, they focused on a single-target; email surveillance at HWS, a beer company going through various social networks, a blog created around issues on campus. Don’t get me wrong, they were good topics and well-presented. They were clear in message and structure.

At the same time, I felt that because we went after a topic that was not discussed in class, was not so “safe”, or easy, or clear..that because we had to really make a creative, involved thesis that would sum up the class and take in major themes…I felt that when the professor chewed out one of my group partners and called our video “neat,” it was uncalled for.

So I’m a little hurt, and mainly confused.The group is planning on meeting with the professor, because all I know of the first meeting was an unhappy text, so I won’t be unfair. I’m sure some criticism might be fair, but if my group is compared to the efforts of other’s; I think ours was excellent in topic matter, and even execution.

As soon as I can get the video, I will put it on youtube.

So while I enjoyed the class, I thought the professor’s judgement was out of line. I won’t let it cloud what I have learned, but at the same time: uncool.

The thirst of many honesties (hah, so punny, get it?)

Dear blog, I made a fool of myself in class. True, this is a common occurrence, but I am hardly bothered by it.

I pretended to be some sleazy salesgirl (although not as bad as those Cricket Baby girls)  trying to sell rubber tubing to companies other than medical/industrial ones.

So our professor said to take risks. To be honest, she’s right. To be honest, the other students, the ones who want to play it safe, who posted replies in their blogs that when they do something not by-the-book they get scolded, and so they rather not take such a risk…are not wrong either. The problem, is that they’re not doing something different. They’re just taking the prescription wrong.

But enough of us will have bosses who make ridiculous demands of us. Yes, make an awesome PowerPoint in 5 minutes.  Impossible task that will likely result in failure. I treat this as prep. Hell, I did have a supervisor that made crazy demands of me this past summer. But I knew I wouldn’t get fired, because even if I couldn’t read her mind, I was one of the best, if not the best graphic designer intern they’ve had thus far. I know that my grade does not depend on the amount of scolding. So in way, I’m not worried about it. I calculate my risks. But I still take them.

I’d rather beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.

A personal motto, I suppose.

Thing is, I figured that for this class, unlike any other class, risks, no matter how foolish, would be rewarded in some fashion or another.  I mean, for this class, we were totally encouraged to take risks. Make the environment our own. There’s playing it safe, and there’s playing it scared. Again, what’s the worse that can happen? Some scolding? Pft. Whatever. No one can scold you better than your own family. So really, no one scares me in that respect. Sure, I don’t bite the hand that feeds me, gives me my grade, and gives me a paycheck. That doesn’t mean I sit in wait for the next command.

Dear blog, what makes a better blog? The blog on politics and culture, or the one…that..tells my story?

Cluetrain In-class notes

Group’s Summary of chapters

How many of you will make one million dollars?

You’re not your job.  You’re not how much money you have in the bank.  You’re not the car you drive.  You’re not the contents of your wallet.  You’re not your fucking khakis.  You’re the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.  ~Fight Club

Millenials in the Marketplace

I really agree with the Washington Post editorial ‘The Trophy Kids’ Go to Work. I wasn’t personally offended by the piece considering I had a really different upbringing (Russians don’t give compliments at all), and to be honest, sure, I commit some of the Millennial Sins. I feel it’s a fair assessment. I feel it’s right. Okay, so it was slightly doomsday…

Control the Millennials! The Ravenous Beasts! Give me the whip! Don’t let them loose!

Yet, here are some criticisms…

Come on, seriously. I wish the piece accented that teeny last paragraph. The one where we are the way we are because the baby boomers raised us like this. What is this duality between raising your kid one way, and expecting the children of others to act differently in your workplace? Yes, we should be treated with respect.

It was too patronizing to say we need scoobie snacks and little pats on the head. What we want is to be taken seriously. Yes, we want to know why we are doing something. We want to make sure we are being used properly. That we’re not doing something useless. We want to do meaningful work. Is that so wrong? So we ask, is this meaningful? If not, why am I doing this, or why should this be done at all? Being a coffee-fetching intern won’t get loyalty from me. I want my life and my work to have meaning and purpose. I understand my place in the food chain but that doesn’t mean I cannot be treated with respect and not be some menial subordinate.

Or, rather than seeing Millennials needing constant affirmation, perhaps we simply aim to please. We want to be your best worker that does right by you. An employee that wants nothing more than to please his/her employer? The affirmation is not for us, it’s for you to know that we aren’t not facebooking at every moment and going all “renegade” and trying to create a “revolution” and not doing the work…What we are doing is obeying the system and asking you, the boss, affirmation that we are doing the right thing for the structure. Were not trying to tear down the hierarchies. If we would, we would go all lone ranger. We wouldn’t ask for permission or opinion. We would do what we want. Isn’t it better that we ask to make sure we are doing what the boss wants.

Also, a point I heard in class, was that affirmation doesn’t feel good from our peers. Obviously praise from above is better.

We’re not some delicate bonsai fish that needed the exact food and temperature in order not to die. We’re human, and as mentioned before, we’re as well-trained to be tough as the boss’s kid. We like clear instructions. What’s the problem? We’re calling you out on your vague language. The language where you expect us to read your mind in what you want. Screw that. You should know what you want. Tell us, so we don’t waste your time and our time trying to figure out what you could possibly want. Pfft, you call use fickle. Treat us seriously and respectfully.

Now, there are a number of things that are fair enough.

Yes, we are a generation that is typically more rude. We blame others for our mistakes. We shirk responsibility (which works in tandem with my point about pleasing the boss (if we keep asking the boss all the time, if we mess up, it was their fault because they approved every step of the way) but it works with my contention that are sort of spineless and )

Conversations with 0% APR

Comments on the first few chapters of Cluetrain. The actual writing is less annoying than the Theses.

“Markets are conversations. Trade routes pave the storylines. Across the millennia in between, the human voice is the music we have always listened for, and still best understand.” (Chapter.1) The first line, which I bashed on before, makes sense when thinking of caravans and marketplaces. Yes, language did some interesting things there. Yet, the difference between then and now is that then was a production of goods that people need, at prices they can afford, as opposed to our current capitalism framework that produces secondary and artificial needs, because that is more profitable. Then, was an exchange between two parties. Without a systematic currency system, both parties needed something of equal value to trade. That’s the conversation. The exchange. The trading of mutual goods. We don’t have this trade system now with our market. It is a top-down (push-pull) imperative, and we as consumers are allowed to choose A,B,C,D without any ability to design the Scantron or what A,B,C,D actually are. “Thus Henry Ford’s attitude toward customer choice: “They can have any color they want as long as it’s black.”"

It wasn’t just the nature of commerce changing, the systematization  of…well…almost everything, from language to price to what is worthwhile, the way people communicate change.

What I did find interesting though was this question: “”Who gives you permission to read those books?” Who gives us permission to explore our world? The question implies that the world in fact belongs to someone else. Who gives us permission to communicate what we’ve experienced, what we believe, what we’ve discovered of that world for ourselves?“

What I find more interesting is to explore the question of ‘What gives us permission to be human?’ I expressed this question in class when we were reading Gamer Theory, that digitalization and the binary mindset makes chance, analog, chaos all regulated and doesn’t give us the capacity to be human. To err. To experiment without the only answers being pre-defined multiple choice.

In aswer we shrug. We don’t know who gave us permission, we’re pretty sure we have it…but then, why aren’t we doing anything? Why aren’t we experimenting? Learning all we can? Who told us ‘no’? and if no one did, then why do we still accept that command?

Are we simply killed by choice? By too much choice. Can there ever be such a thing?

In Chapter 2, Cluetrain goes into this whole thing about being “managed”.

Is this the new PC-neoliberal-free-market-euphemism for being controlled? For being herded? Does it just sound better and less sinister?

The idea that we can manage our world is uniquely twentieth-century and chiefly American. And there are tremendous advantages to believing one lives in a managed world:

• Risk avoidance. Nothing unexpected happens if you’re managing your world.
• Smoothness. Everything works in a managed environment simply because broken things are an embarrassment.
• Fairness. In earlier times, life was unfair. Now you’re guaranteed your three-score and ten and if something “goes wrong,” the managed system will compensate you, even if you have to sue the bastards.
• Discretionary attention. If you were out in the wild, your attention would be drawn to every creaking twig and night howl. But now that the risks have been mitigated, things work right, and you can manage your time so you have not just leisure time but also discretionary attention: you can decide what interests you. Why, you can even have hobbies.

This reminds me of Bejamin Barber’s book Consumed. As he discusses the infantalism ethos that covers our everday lives.

Professionalism goes far beyond acting according to a canon of ethics. Professionals dress like other professionals (one eccentricity per person is permitted — a garish tie, perhaps, or a funky necklace), decorate their cubicles with nothing more disturbing than a Dilbert (formerly Far Side) cartoon, sit up straight at committee meetings, tell carefully calibrated jokes, don’t undermine the authority of (that is, show they’re smarter than) their superiors, make idle chatter only about a narrow range of “safe” topics, don’t swear, don’t mention God, make absolutely no reference to being sexual (exceptions made for male executives after the hot new hire has left the room), and successfully “manage” their home life so that it never intrudes unexpectedly into their business life.

Nice, safe topics. No boo-boos. No problems. No confrontation. Everthing is super swell and everyone plays nicely in the sandbox.

Most of us don’t mind doing this. In fact, we actually sort of enjoy it. It’s like playing grownup.

Everything is secure and predictable. You know when snack-time is. You know it will always be cookies. Everyone loves cookies.

When Cluetrain talks about voice…does that have anything to do with our discussions on the importance of face-to-face interaction? Is “The Voice” that human ability to err? To express difference?

Is Cluetrain trying to be the vox populi?

We are so desperate to have our voices back that we are willing to leap into the void. We embrace the Web not knowing what it is, but hoping that it will burn the org chart — if not the organization — down to the ground. Released from the gray-flannel handcuffs, we say anything, curse like sailors, rhyme like bad poets, flame against our own values, just for the pure delight of having a voice.

And when the thrill of hearing ourselves speak again wears off, we will begin to build a new world.

A new world of….Second Life?

In-Class Notes Clue Train

Can companies have a human voice?

Communication is more than one way.

1. “Markets are conversations”

-Why do we care if companies have a human voice and are “genuine”? Isn’t the end result parting you with your money? If they can talk better, they can sell to you better. Why do we want them to be able to get to us easier?

So what, it feels nicer to be sold to? That’s it? The end result is selling…but that’s not a conversation. That’s the nice PC-corporate word. “We’re having a conversation”–it sounds so much nicer for everyone, it sounds less like business and more like they care. This type of rhetoric that plays on the pathos is dangerous.

Rather than saying that the group you are trying to “target”/hunt/get, businesses are encouraged to think about engaging this group and having a “conversation” with them. –Can you actually change the thinking? Is a rose by any other name…Are they thinking differently, treating consumers less like targets and more like individuals and people, or is that just nice and cuddly.

If part of the relationship involves marketing can that really be a conversation? Marketing is trying to get someone to do something. That’s not the same as communication. What if all communication is marketing? Once markets are conversations, people are commodities. If conversations are markets, then who is having the conversation, obviously, the commodities (the people/consumers).

If corporations are starting to talk like people, do people start to sound more corporate. “You need to think outside the box”…”What are your target projections for this month?”

Either the Cluetrain guys are naive, or the big companies are outmoded dinosaurs which are waiting to die out.

Is the public really looking to talk to the companies?

What of companies like Google or Ben&Jerry’s, who treat their employees well, give free ice cream for voting, have slides ..

Marketing and trust problems. 1999-a lot of anxiety, can’t trust government, even till now. It’s more than just “We dont like our government” but more of a deep-seated paranoia that “nothing govt does is good for people”. There is the distrust of media -rush to war on Iraq. It doesn’t matter where you are on the political spectrum – you suffered from distrust.

Social networking was a response to trust. It’s not a part of government or media. You build it from the ground up. Can they be solutions to economic distrust? Ebay, has technical solutions to trust factors. Social networks reinforce different trust netwroks from the bottom up. Any company who tries to install this, will fail. We have to be in trust relations. Old model of markets – buying and selling in a local market – you weren’t treating them as consumers – You buy my apples, I buy your corn. I know your family and kids. Build trust from the bottom up.

Cluetrain guys thinks that now markets will build themselves this way.

Blahblah market blah blah conversations blah blah please hold blah

72. We like this new marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it.

73. You’re invited, but it’s our world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter with us, get down off that camel!

74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.

False prophet of the internet age. Deluded in the idea of the meek inheriting cyberspace.

What do you mean we are creating it? What about digital enclosure? What about websites tracking your interests and selling them to companies? What about Facebook owning everything you put on there, even if you take it off? What about warrantless electronic wiretapping? The Patriot Acts? We’re helping big corporations get more out of us, sure…but creating it?

“Immune to Advertising”? Check out Emotional Branding or how about Born to Buy. Sure, maybe you are immune when you are an adult that was not brought up around advertisements or markets, but not when you’re young and you’re getting a very expensive education from companies.

(CBS) In 1983, companies spent $100 million marketing to kids. Today, they’re spending nearly $17 billion annually. That’s more than double what it was in 1992.

Marketing firms and advertisers are looking to a younger demographic, increasingly targeting tweens and even younger children. And these kids have huge control over the flow of parents’ spending, statistics show — 8- to 12-year-olds spend $30 billion of their own money each year and influence another $150 billion of their parents’ spending.

Sure, you as an adult can be immune to advertising…but if children were so immune why would the companies spend so much money on making these children loyal from such a young age? They’re investing in their future consumers.

Markets aren’t really conversations. I don’t really know what ClueTrain means by this. That the CEO is talking to his consumers? That WalMart is treating their employees right? It seems like going through the internet is the best way to ignore conversation, considering you don’t have to see someone. It’s not like someone coming into your office demandning answers. Demanding discourse.

I think it’s important for our class to move into the direction of the market perspective. It is unavoidable as somehow it seems to me that everything on cyberspace is commodified. Everything is for sale, and everything is an object.

In-class notes Gamer Theory

Lukacs  – you can tell a lot about society by looking at their art.

Deluze – cinematic – thinking and affect are arranged in mass-cultural societies. In movies things are cut and spliced, in ways that we don’t experience them, but after seeing them, we experience that cutting in our lives.

Wark – videogames do this too. We can form social criticism without high art, we can do it with the cultural form of games. Not a theory of videogames. Rather, videogames as a theory of society. Videogames to approach society.

It doesn’t matter if most people play or play games. Without the society, video games would not be possible. Thus, the games shed light onto the ecosystem that made them possible. They illuminate the world that gave rise to their possibility.

Game theory has a long history in political theory. Military and strategy games. “War games” WWII. Econimics too is modelled in games; rational choice scenarios. Modern movies, “check” and “mate” without a chess board.

Society as created by the military entertainment complex.

Social theory of technological and social relations configured in the time of the dominance of the military entertainment complex.

Topology and digitization.

Wouldn’t different games give us different windows into the world?

Boredom is productive. Boredom creates designers. We need to go back to the game.

Boredom is connected with surplus.

Protocol is more important than law.

We’re just not used to looking at life topologically.