Digital Universalism and Culture

Chan's article thoroughly discusses the engaging conflict of culture and business. The natives of Chulucanas, a small town in Peru, were wonderful ceramics, each drenched in their culture and traditions. Their ceramics plays a large role in their society, and Chan looks into the introduction of what is essentially consumerism. One has to wonder how something as sacred as a tradition and culture can be marketed to be sold. A commodity rather than a part of a town's identity. The article shows the consequences of the newly added business model of consumerism. What had started off as the intention to encourage the artisans to create new, higher-quality, and better creations, had turned sour in the end.

What had come to be was the native artisans began focusing on profitability, where they were encouraged to sell their hard-worked products for cheap in the market. Something that was once part of their culture became shared to the world as goods for people who may just have an affinity for souvenirs from their trips. With consumerism, comes competition. Local artisans began to pit against each other to make the better profit, and their creativity ultimately backfired.

This new technology of communication and connection to the rest of the world brought cheapness to their culture. Many people will end up purchasing these long-held traditional ceramics at a cheap price, with possibly no in-depth regard to the people of the town themselves. However, I do know that Native American artists have remixed their traditional garb to newly inspired designs for fashion and accessories to purchase. However, the genuine products by Native Americans do not come cheap. This is because they are not approached by companies and people with business models on their mind. They do this because of passion and the want to use their culture for something new. Unfortunately cultures from natives or foreign countries (in regards to America) are easy targets for appropriation. Such as the "tribal" or "native" designs from popular department stores such as Forever 21 or H&M or Victoria's Secret. They held no regard to the original culture, just finding their designs aesthetically pleasing, despite the traditions held behind it.

Essentially this idea of connecting the native town of Chulucana to the rest of the world was approached incorrectly. The idea is enticing and sounds fair, however, it was not thought through. To truly connect a town with lesser technology, the person would have to talk to the people first, and understand how their community lives. The ceramics to the Chulucanas is important to their social identity, so it is best to understand that they know themselves what it is best for them.

On that thought, is it possible now to have technological imperialism (or a different word is more appropriate?) nowadays, where we, such as One Laptop Per Child is an example of, take what we believe is a "unfortunate" town with no technology and dump what we are used to, on them?

Chan's article raises many concerns on this idea of technology bringing a more negative side to places when incorporated with no thought to the natives of the place. The Chulucana artisans have been used by the consumerist tendencies of today's society. Unfortunately, they are but one of many countries being exploited.

Haraway's Manifesto for Cyborgs

Haraway's article is certainly a heavy read. It was difficult to follow at times, and she has a strong way of writing. What I mean by that is that she doesn't hold back her opinion of what she thinks about certain things. Such as making the connection of teaching modern students creationism can be considered child abuse! Wow, that's ballsy. I'm not sure if I can talk much in depth on the article since my ability to digest it is pathetic. However, I can add on to the discussions in class about her overall theory of cyborgs in relations to feminism.

One thing I'd like to get off my chest first though, is that in class I didn't get a chance to comment on examples of cyborgs. Haraway herself mentions animals. The example I found was the RoboRoach. Funded successfully on Kickstarter, this is claimed to be the "world's first commercially available cyborg". What happens is that you are able to control the cockroach wirelessly through your mobile device. Now... I'm not exactly a large sympathizer for something like cockroaches or any particular insects, but this seems kinda messed up. I mean, I'm not going to go PETA all over it. But still. This makes me wonder what cyborgs mean all of the sudden. When we make cyborgs like this, is it something meant to be controlled? Could this be applied to Haraway's idea of two contrasting elements that can combine to create a new thing that can be coined as a cyborg?

In a way, sure. I'd argue that to combine something technological to something organic certainly requires human interaction. Control too. While it's more daunting to think of someone else controlling the technological side of your cyborg body, it seems it's unethical to do that to a human. Feminism as a concept that ties in with cyborgs seem plausible.

She doesn't want the idea of feminism to be traditional. She says that traditional dualisms that we have today only contributes to the oppression of women, women of color, animals, etc. So with hybrids and cyborgs we can combine contrasting forces and create a new ideal that goes beyond traditional ideologies. Like gender. The idea of two genders, male and female is predominant in our society. However gender fluidity is a thing now, where the two genders can be combined so someone can identify with both genders without the boundaries they have with gender roles.

So overall, the idea seems sound. However there are a lot of things to consider when it comes to the definition or idea of cyborgs. The RoboRoach is an example of so. While her idea is abstract, it is frightening to see the first commercially available cyborg is an animal that is subjected to our entertainment and whims. Cockroaches are amazing creatures, by boyfriend told me. They are basically one of the sole survivors since the dinosaur ages, and we can learn a lot from them. How far can her idea go? With this new product to buy, does it say anything else about our idea of a cyborg? Would this take her idea to a new level?

Week 5 - Arola's Learning to See the Mixedblood

Professor Arola's proposition of using the concept of regalia for online identity, is quite interesting and I enjoyed reading some of her points. The idea of mixed-race people is something I cannot comment on personally myself. I never really had any friends who were biracial, except for now in college, I know... one person. It is definitely an insightful experience they have and a very conflicting one. Who is to say what race they really are? I'd say it's honestly up to them. However, there is the common issue of the want to identify as the "white" part of them (if the biracial person has a white parent), because it is considered in society to be "better". This is not to say every mixed-race person has this thought, though. I had read some stories online from mixed-race folks who said their siblings prefer to identify as white rather than their other race, simply because it's easier to fit in.

Anyways, to use this concept as an online identity is plausible. Online, we can be fluid as possible, but there is a fine line between someone who is obviously one race, who claim to be another race. Typically these arise from fetishistic/stereotypes of the race. Mixed-people definitely suffer from self-identification. Online it's fairly similar. How many times have we established personas? In fact, right now I seem all cordial and serious, but that is just one of my many personas, my educational one. If I had to use my true self (regalia) I'd be more passionate and perhaps even typing in caps right now.

Gender and sexuality are also a very important topics to talk about. It's primarily through online communities where people learn about the fluidity of these concepts. Hardly (if ever) through school we learn of asexuality, bisexuality, transgendered, genderfluid, etc. people. But online there are communities of people who identify as these. They use the platform of access to other people online to learn more about themselves and feel less lonely in the world.

One thing I would like to comment on is Arola's beginning statement that a regalia is NOT a costume. It takes time to make and it is culturally bound. It is, however, not limited to one race. This does NOT mean that everyone can wear it as they please because they find it "cool" or "pretty" and not understand the true meaning behind it.

For example, when I see someone wear a 旗袍 (qi pao), who is not of Chinese/Taiwanese descent, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe someone who is Chinese/Taiwanese gave it to them to wear because they want them to. A gift. Then that's totally cool. But sometimes you just see them wear it with no consideration for the people behind that iconic and culturally tied outfit.

To put it in one perspective. They call us Ching Chongs, slant eyed, chinky, and exotic. They made fun of us as people, but wear our clothes because it's pretty. It can also be seen as the ever trending "big butts", "large lips", and dreadlocks. Black women and men have historically be caricatured into unsightly people with animal-qualities. They poke fun at these futures. But now (mainly white women) plump their lips, draw lines outside their actual lips, go to the gym and get big butts, and white people get dreads even though their hair is not meant to be worn that way.

To take a race of people, stereotype them (Indians smell like curry, yet we love wearing bindis; Latino/Latinas are illegal immigrants, but we love their sugar skulls; Native Americans were savages and we committed genocide against them; but we love their headdresses), but then take their culture and wear it without meaning. It's awful.

Chen's Wired Article AKA An Inisight to America's Corporation of Shame

This was such a heart-breaking read. Honestly, I've read worst, but it's appalling to read that we outsource this traumatizing job to others outside this country. It's easy to forget where our products and services come from, since we cannot see them, and the corporations hide the truth from us. What is also disgusting is the fact that these things exist in the first place. This world is fucked up, man.

To imagine being exposed to that much pornography and acts of unspeakable nature is nothing but scarring. Like the woman in the end, she cannot forget the sight of a blindfolded, crying woman. I can't help but wonder what they think about us over seas. It explains a lot about our thoughts for overseas workers. We hide them behind our products and ignore them. It seems that we can't see them as human enough that we dump our unwanted garbage over there and pay them little for their work.

How do we solve something like this? I would safely say that the idea to put these sick fuckers to jail by reporting them to government officials. However, it is upsetting to say that it's more difficult than it seems to track these monsters down. Just like how the shadow web still exists, these people know how to conceal and hide their tracks. No bread crumbs to be found.

I don't like the fact we do this to people overseas, why should we not face our own faults? The more we hide our transgression, they will consistently exist and grow in numbers.

It's such an awful situation, this was just awful to read.

*But informative and I'm glad I read it. I had no idea this was another problem we have from reaping from other countries.

Link to the article.