Nevertheless, I have noticed a group of movies and other cultural products where our digital and multimodal ways of being are finely weaved in. Here are some, for my own reference, and I will add more.
Would your football club be better run as a co-operative? (Dave Boyle, The Guardian, 9 May 2012)
How academia resembles a drug gang (Alexandre Afonso, LSE Impact Blog, 11 December 2013)
A degree of studying — Students who treat education as a commodity perform worse than their intrinsically motivated peers (Louise Bunce, LSE Impact Blog, 15 January 2020; see also Lee & Rofe, 2016)
Universities are more like sports clubs than businesses (Richard Oliver, Times Higher Education, 15 January 2020)
On two occasions I went on record and stated that digital technology has hit women and men so differently that South Korean women’s experience of being online has more commonalities with that of women at the other end of the world than that of South Korean men living next to them. I am mindful of how sweeping this statement could sound. As a researcher, I am also mindful of the possibility of everything looking like a nail to me because I have a hammer that is gender.
I have been pondering a lot about this and at least two things are certain to me. First, this hammer came to me – How Thor! – without me even seeking it out. Second, well, I stand by the statement.
For my own continuous pondering, here is a mini collection of studies and stories on gender, technology, and borders, which I have been gravitating towards lately.
# South Korea’s online trend: Paying to watch a pretty girl eat (Frances Cha, CNN, 3 February 2014; see also “새터민 먹방” and “탈북미녀 먹방”)
# The price of shame (Monika Lewinsky, TED, March 2015; see also trolling and cyberbullying particularly prolific against female politicians, journalists, and academics)
# My first virtual reality groping (Jordan Belamire, 20 October 2016)
# #ThanksForTyping spotlights unnamed women in literary acknowledgments (Cecilia Mazanec, NPR, 30 March 2017; see also Hadley Freeman, a woman who shed light on the issue a decade earlier)
# What Google bros have in common with medieval beer bros (David M. Perry, 22 August 2017; see also “life hacks”, “selfies”, “gossips”, and “nagging”)
# Thermostats, locks and lights: Digital tools of domestic abuse (Nellie Bowles, The New York Times, 23 June 2018)
# Donna Zuckerberg: ‘Social media has elevated misogyny to new levels of violence’ (Nosheen Iqbal, The Guardian, 11 November 2018)
# Online consequences of being offline: A gendered tale from South Korea (yours truly, r@w, 21 January 2019)
# Our incel problem: How a support group for the dateless became one of the internet’s most dangerous subcultures (Zack Beauchamp, Vox, 23 April 2019; see also Ilbe transgressions such as this)
# Female voice assistants fuel damaging gender stereotypes, says a UN study. (Charlotte Jee, MIT Technology Review, 22 May 2019)
# Apple made Siri deflect questions on feminism, leaked papers reveal (Alex Hern, 6 September 2019)
# The guy who made a tool to track women in porn videos is sorry (Angela Chen, MIT Technology Review, 31 May 2019)
# These North Korean defectors were sold into China as cybersex slaves. Then they escaped (Julie Zaugg, CNN, 10 June 2019)
# RT @JamieJBartlett Sadly I can well imagine that deep fakes will not be confined to famous figures & political disinformation – but a way for jealous co-workers & ex-partners to degrade women. (26 June 2019; already been happening! see also “지인능욕”)
# For recording her boss’s lewd call, she, not he, will go to jail (Richard C. Paddock & Muktita Suhartono, The New York Times, 5 July 2019)
# Protecting migrants at borders and beyond (Privacy International, 2019)
# A million refugees may soon lose their line to the outside world (Hannah Beech, The New York Times, 5 September 2019)
# Inside the secret border patrol Facebook group where agents joke about migrant deaths and post sexist memes (A. C. Thompson, Pro Publica, 1 July 2019)
# Race in the digital periphery: The new (old) politics of refugee representation (Matthew Sepehr Mahmoudi, The Sociological Review, 3 July 2019)
# ‘베트남 여성 폭행’ 반전…아내는 왜 3일만에 비난대상 됐나 (박사라, 중앙일보, 12 July 2019)
# Marriage immigrants in S. Korea meet with their family members online (Korea Bizwire, 19 July 2019)
# To learn about the far right, start with the ‘manosphere’ (Helen Lewis, The Atlantic, 7 August 2019)
# The misogyny of climate deniers (Martin Gelin, The New Republic, 28 August 2019)
# Attacked for gender, not views: Hong Kong women protesters facing troll army (Rose Troup Buchanan, AFP/The Jakarta Post, 2 September 2019)
Speaking of space and place, here is something that I have been following and meaning to document for a while: bodiless protests. I am afraid I can’t afford to write it up in a more synthesised manner at the moment, but I thought I’d at least put everything in one place.
# Patent for “robots for picketing” (March 2013)
# World’s first hologram protest in Madrid against the country’s new “gag law” (April 2015)
# Amnesty “ghost rally” in Gwanghwamun (February 2016)
# Projection of “@jack is #complicit” on Twitter HQ (Jan 2018)
# Projection of “This is not normal” and “sh*thole” (with emojis!) on the Trump Hotel in Washington DC (Jan 2018)
# #WeAreWatching project against institutionalised racism (September 2016)
# The internet is mostly bots (December 2018)
And another one. I am on listing fire!
# On data linkage: interview with Joseph Sakshaug (Alexandru Cernat, 21 January 2019)
# How accurate are survey responses on social media and politics? (Guess, A. et al., Political Communication, 2018)
# Facebook digital traces for survey research: Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of a Facebook Ad–based procedure for recruiting online survey respondents in niche and difficult-to-reach populations (Iannelli, L. et al., Social Science Computer Review, 2018)
# How to sample networks using social media APIs (Coscia, M., 11 December 2018)
# Missing the target? Using surveys to validate social media ad targeting (Sances, Political Science Research and Methods, 2019)
Hmmm, looks like this is going to be the third post in a row that brings up North Korea. Coincidental, but also indicative of the amount of media attention they seem to be absorbing at the moment.
Anyway, today I have come across an interesting article by journalist Joo Seong-ha. As a defector from the country himself, he offers various “thick descriptions” of contemporary North Korean life. According to Joo, apparently Bollywood has been huge in North Korea this year.
The article reminds me of a couple of other articles that I read years ago about how people of Manipur in northeast India were hooked to Korean films and soap operas.
- Romance in Manipur gets a Korean twist (Hindustan Times, 14 July 2007)
- Manipur: A part of India where Korea rules (Al Jazeera, 17 February 2014)
I am a firm believer of the power of analogies. I rely a lot on them, not only when I am trying to explain something to others but also when I am trying to understand something myself. So, unsurprisingly, I do get a kick out of spotting a really good analogy while surfing online. I have been meaning to place all of them in one place, and am finally getting around to it today. I am on one day’s leave!
“Isn’t it great? We have to pay nothing for the barn.” (Geek & Poke, 21 December 2010; crossposted on 27 February 2012; see also “Facebook is basically designed like a lobster trap with your friends as bait” by Michael C. Gilbert, 2009, and “You are the product” by John Lanchester, August 2017, London Review of Books 39(16): 3-10)
“Consent, it’s simple as tea” (Blue Seat Studios, as part of a campaign by Thames Valley Police, 12 May 2015; crossposted on 8 January 2018)
“Same reasons why in Mario Kart you don’t get blue shells or lightning bolts when you’re already in first place, assbag.” (crossposted on 19 November 2016)
“Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!
The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.” (Reddit user GeekAesthete, cited in Kevin Roose, Splinter, 21 July 2015; crossposted on 11 July 2016)
RT @halfscholar My PhD dissertation plan and how it went illustrated. (22 November 2017)
“The referendum was like making a cup of peppermint tea. You had to decide whether to leave the teabag in or take it out. If you leave it in, the cup of tea as a whole is stronger. Even though it appears that the teabag itself is getting weaker, it’s still part of a strong cup of tea. But if you take the teabag out, the cup of tea as a whole is weaker — and the teabag itself goes directly in the bin.” (James Acaster, 2016; crossposted on 4 July 2018)
RT @anne_theriault I already have a cryptocurrency, it’s called Sephora Beauty Insider Points (20 January 2018)
RT @YankeeGunner Perfect analogy. Because that’s not a real target and you’ve put it there yourself. (26 January 2018)
“In real-world terms, a part of Facebook still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised when burglars struck.” (Kevin Roose, The New York Times, 19 February 2018; see also Clay Bennett‘s cartoon on “security versus privacy”, The Christian Science Monitor, 29 October 2001)
RT @Theophite imagine if keeping your car idling 24/7 produced solved Sudokus you could trade for heroin (16 August 2018; see also “Imagine a conveyor belt sushi restaurant where everyone can see what each plate contains but no one can actually eat any”, 14 February 2018)
“나는 그러지 못했다. 내 안의 광인을 봉인 해제하기는커녕, 언제나 그러했던 것처럼 충실하게 학생 역할을 수행했다. 그리고 시간이 한참 지나서야 그것이 수치의 순간이었다는 것을 깨달았다. 나는 그때 왜 웃는 돌처럼 다소곳이 앉아 있었던 것일까? 예정에 없이 징집되지 않기 위해서 일단 심사에 통과하고 봐야겠다는 계산을 순간적으로 해낸 것일까. 아니면, 저 사람들하고 원수지고 나면 평생 학계에서 밥 빌어먹기도 어렵겠다는 판단을 한 것일까. 선생님들이 논문을 읽지 않고 저 자리에 나와 앉아 있다는 것은 나 혼자의 판단에 그칠 뿐, 그 사실을 증명하기 어렵다는 것을 체득하고 있었던 것일까. 그도 아니라면, 논문을 제대로 읽지도 않고 심사에 임할 정도의 형편없는 교수의 학생이 되고 싶지 않다는 무의식이 작동한 것일까. 확실한 것은 그 어떤 생각도 그 현장에서 의식의 수면 위로 떠오르지는 않았다는 사실이다. 나는 그저 평소처럼 행동했다. 우리는 서로 맡은 역할을 수행하여, 논문심사라는 부실한 역할극을 완성했다. 위력이 왕성하게 작동할 때는, 인생이라는 극장 위의 배우들이 이처럼 별생각 없이 자기가 맡은 배역을 수행한다. 당시 교수들도 자신이 위력을 행사하고 있으리라고는 새삼 생각하지 않았으리라. 위력이 왕성하게 작동할 때, 위력은 자의식을 가질 필요가 없다. 위력은 그저 작동한다. 가장 잘 작동할 때는 직접 명령할 필요도 없다. 니코틴이 부족해 보이면, 누군가 알아서 담배를 사러 나간다.” (김영민, 경향신문, 24 August 2018)
RT @raulpacheco Is this the correct direction of my bracelet’s imprint? Or should it go the other way (upside down) (2 December 2018)
RT @KarlreMarks We’re basically switching our membership of the EU from contract to pay as you go. (5 April 2019)
Rt @riggaroo User Interface vs The Underlying Code #programming (30 June 2019)
이 편지가 번화가에 떨어져 나의 원수가 펴보더라도 내가 죄를 얻지 않을 것인가를 생각하면서 써야 하고, 또 이 편지가 수백 년 동안 전해져서 안목 있는 많은 사람들의 눈에 띄더라도 조롱받지 않을 만한 편지인가를 생각해야한다. (다산 정약용, 2009, 유배지에서 보낸 편지; crossposted 23 December 2013; see also Plato’s Phaedrus)
농담의 역학: 힘없는 사람이 힘있는 사람을 농담의 대상으로 삼는 것을 풍자(諷刺)라 말하고, 힘없는 사람이 힘없는 사람끼리 주고받는 농담을 해학(諧謔)이라 말하며, 힘없는 사람이 자신을 소재로 웃으며 농담을 던지는 것을 자조(自嘲)라 말한다. […] 힘있는 사람이 힘없는 사람을 상대로 던지는 농담을 희롱(戱弄)이라 하며, 힘있는 사람이 힘없는 사람의 이익을 탐하여 속이고 놀리는 것을 농락(籠絡)이라 하고, 힘있는 사람이 힘없는 사람을 비웃고 괴롭히는 것을 폭력(暴力)이라 한다. (@windshoes, 3 April 2014)
식당이나 길거리, 공원 등에서 셀카를 찍는 사람들의 표정이나 포즈, 행동이 과장되고 우스워 보이는 것은 그 사진이 궁극적으로 도착하게 될 가상의 공간과 그들이 현재 존재하는 현실공간이 만나는데서 생기는 불일치 때문이다. 여고생들이 입술을 삐죽이 내밀거나 우스꽝스러운 포즈를 취할 때 그들은 SNS라는 가상공간에 이미 들어가 있다. 같은 장면을 페이스북에서 보면 아무렇지도 않거나 오히려 재미있겠지만, 그런 촬영이 현실 세계에서 일어나는 장면을 목격하는 것은 어색하고 불편하다. (인문사회융합 동향, 2015년 9월, 통권 12호, p.57; see also the “heavily critiqued idea that selfies are frivolous/trivial, an assumption strongly linked w selfies being located within the terrain of young women”, @emvdn, 20 March 2018)
상호 악마화에 기여하지 않으면서도 서로 대화도 하고 논쟁도 하려면 어떻게 해야할지 고민해봤다. 상대가 이상한 말을 하면 그냥 지나치거나 댓글로 지적을 해서 이상한 말이라는걸 알리자. 적어도 자신과 다른 생각을 하는 사람이 있다는걸 알려주자. 다만 리트윗은 하지 않는다. 상대가 하는 가장 이상한 주장을 리트윗하여 내 지인들끼리 놀려먹고 악마화하는 대신, 상대가 하는 가장 똑똑하고 반박하기 어려워 보이는 주장을 퍼나른다. 그래야 내 지인들끼리 생산적인 고민을 할 수 있다. (뿅뿅이, 랟팸과 쓰까, 상호 악마화 하지 않고 대화하기, 23 June 2018)
Was reading about a recently released PS4 game called Detroit: Become Human, and was going to add it to my list of games ‘too close to the bone’. But then it struck me that there is another, even bigger category that would accommodate this new game perfectly – i.e. popular cultural products that question what it means to be human. In my mind, The Adventures of Pinocchio (1883) and The Wizard of Oz (1939) fall right into that category, so we are not talking only about the digital here.
At one point my social media timelines were peppered with the word ‘singularity’. I recall it was around the time when the films Her (2013) and Lucy (2014) came out. Sooooo, my compulsion for list-making kicks in! I am going to write down only the ones that I have seen (although not fully in some cases). I am sure there are more comprehensive, even ranked lists out there – like the time when a friend and I were talking about The Great Wall (2016) and The Last Samurai (2003) and we found there was a whole Wikipedia page dedicated to the “white saviour narrative” in films – but I will add on here as I find more myself. That would be more fun for me.
What distinguishes human beings from non-human beings? Could a non-human being become human? Would they want to, as frequently imagined in popular culture? Is there a moment where a human stops being human – with extensive technological interventions into body and mind, for example? Would one person become another with such interventions? Below are a few examples of posing these questions, intentionally or unwittingly.
- Adventures of Pinocchio (1883)
- The Wizard of Oz (1939)
- Planet of the Apes (1968)
- Blade Runner (1982)
- Robocop (1987)
- Alien Nation (1988)
- The Quality of Life, Star Trek: The Next Generation (1992)
- The Matrix (1999)
- Bicentennial Man (1999)
- A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
- I, Robot (2004)
- Avatar (2009)
- Dollhouse (2009 to 2010)
- Her (2013)
- Lucy (2014)
- Humans (2015 to present)
- Criminal (2016)
- Detroit: Become Human (2018)
Certain themes have started to emerge from random, commuting reads. I have never done one, but I am sure this is how Magic Eye puzzles feel.
1. Our urge to express
Why do we all feel compelled to tweet after a tragedy? (Jamie Bartlett, The Telegraph, 14 January 2015).
Why do we expose ourselves? (Astra Taylor, The Intercept, 23 January 2016).
One of the book’s more important chapters takes on the seemingly self-evident nature of the term “surveillance state,” which Harcourt argues is misleading. What we have, instead, is an “amalgam of the intelligence community, retailers, Silicon Valley, military interests, social media, the Inner Beltway, multinational corporations, midtown Manhattan, and Wall Street” that “forms an oligarchic concentration that defies any such reductionism.”
Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web (Joseph M. Reagle, Jr., 2015).
Uncovering Online Commenting Culture: Trolls, Fanboys and Lurkers (Renee Barnes, 2018)
2. Our urge to distract ourselves
Desperate times call for desperate measures (Y for Yenndetta, 15 January 2015).
Digital addiction (The World Weekly, 31 August 2017)
Today’s public anxiety over extreme technology use might therefore be more grounded in social issues rather than any genuine scientific consensus. “It is important to remember that every new media from writing and reading onwards has been associated with addiction,” says Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent. “Reading addiction in the 18th century was a veritable moral panic. Today, concern with people spending too much time on the net is also medicalised,” he says. “That individuals may have problems with digital technology is not in doubt – but the diagnosis of ‘digital addiction’ is a simplistic formula for condemning behaviours that we don’t like.”
Modern media is a DoS attack on your free will (Brian Gallagher, Nautilus, 21 September 2017)
‘Our minds can be hijacked’: The tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia (Paul Lewis, The Guardian, 6 October 2017)
Zeynep Tufekci: How is our attention packaged and sold as a commodity? (NPR, 25 May 2018)
Why your brain tricks you into doing less important tasks (Tim Herrera, The New York Times, 9 July 2018)
3. Our urge to click
Irresistible: Why We Can’t Stop Checking, Scrolling, Clicking and Watching (Adam Alter, 2017).
4. Our urge to share
Internet-Facilitated Political Mobilisation: A Case Study of Nosamo, the Supporters Network of the 16th President of South Korea (Y. Lee, PhD thesis, 2009).
In Korean cyberspace, however, the culturally encouraged collective sharing of digital content facilitates a cascade of messages that goes beyond the initial group of sources. Moreover, the act of participation itself in the process of distribution of (political) messages is valued on a par with the efforts of the initiators of the messages. In this sense, Hwang (2004: 129) even describes [content relay] as a 21st century version of smoke signal communication.
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (a.k.a. that Facebook study, Kramer et al., 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(24): 8788-8790)
5. Our ways of consuming information
Infographic: The optimal length for every social media update and more (Kevan Lee, Buffer, 21 October 2014).
The empty brain: Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short, your brain is not a computer (Robert Epstein, Aeon, 18 May 2016).
What the story of the niqab-wearing Welsh speaker tells us about what we want to hear (Sarah Ditum, The New Statesman, 21 June 2016).
10 percent is all you need (Y for Yenndetta, 21 July 2016).
Why facts don’t change our minds (Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker, 27 February 2017).
How people approach facts and information (Pew Research Center, 11 September 2017)
List Cultures: Knowledge and Poetics from Mesopotamia to BuzzFeed (Liam Young, 2017)