Jurgenson and Rey’s response to Ford’s model of the public/private continuum encourages a conceptualization of publicity and privacy in terms of a dialectic. They refer to Baudrillard’s concept of obscenity and seduction to illustrate the dimension of knowledge/non-knowledge in the dialectic. ‘Obscenity’ is the drive to reveal all and expose things in full, whereas ‘seduction’ is the process of strategically withholding in order to create magical and enchanted interest (what he calls the ‘scene’ opposed to the ‘obscene’). That is, non-knowledge is the seductive and magical aspect of knowledge. Using Baudrillard’s metaphor, we might say that burlesque is ‘seductive’ because each layer removed reveals something new that is still concealed, whereas pornography is said to be obscene because it immediately reveals everything, often in close-up.”

As I read the above quote, I think about the concept of identity within the public/private theory. Regarding non-knowledge, Jurgenson and Rey inquire: “When posting a picture publicly, one is also, potentially, concealing information such as: Who took the picture? Who else was there? Where was this? How does this photo relate to the others in the album? Which photos were deleted/never posted? What wasn’t photographed in the first place?” It is very much a structuralist point of view, where the presentation is obscuring something hidden, which is what the “real” is. One can never uncover the façade and perceive the real, for once one rejects that which faces him or her, they enter into another construction of what is real, and reality alludes them

My own question to this concept is, how does identity factor into the idea of privacy and publicity? All three scholars, Jurgenson, Rey, and Ford, assume that the subjects they use as examples are the real deal. Ford refers to Carmen as an example of social steganography, an example to validate Ford’s point about meaning-management. Carmen posted song lyrics on Facebook to conceal her feelings from her mother. Carmen may have actually broken up, and may want to express her true feelings to her friends while hiding them from her mother (hence Ford’s point about private/public continuum). However, I want to know why Carmen chose to express herself at all in a public setting, how she wanted to construct her identity, not just to communicate her “true” feelings. Did she want to come off as the pathetic lonely-heart type? She may as well quoted the script from the movie Vanilla Sky: “Red dress, strappy shoes…she’s really staring at you. And she seems to be crying. I think she’s the saddest girl to ever hold a martini.”

Jurgenson and Rey acknowledge the concept of identity in their discussion of private/public, but they don’t explain it enough: “We might say that self-presentation on social media takes the form of a fan-dance, a space where we both reveal and conceal, never showing too much, else we have given it all away, but always enticing by strategically concealing the right ‘bits’ at the right time.” I’m interested in not just the “reveal and conceal” of the person’s behavior but the image they endeavored to construct. Instead of focusing on “fan dancing,” I’m also interested in the “fan dancer”—the motives and choices in which a person fan dances to create an image of themselves, which is NEVER the real.

When I think of collaboration, the first thing that comes to my mind is music. When I was in high school, *NSYNC (don’t forget the asterisk) was the bee’s knees. A few years later, they broke up and each member went his way. Justin Timberlake went on to be a Grammy-winning and billboard-topping solo artist, while JC Chasez went on to…you be the judge of his post-*NSYNC career. As a group, *NSYNC was powerful. Disbanded, minus Justin, they are nothing. This demonstrates the pros and cons of collaboration. For some people—Beyonce, Michael Jackson, Phil Collins—their solo careers are successful arguably because of the group that supported them, the group they first collaborated with. It could also be argued that the group carries a completely different identity to the person who would have been successful on his or her own (Chris Cornell, Jack White). However, other artists burn and peel after collaboration has ended. Billy Corgan (of Smashing Pumpkins), Scott Weiland (from Stone Temple Pilots), and Scott Stapp (from Creed) were much more successful with their group than their solo careers.

Does correlation help and hurt people, or is it an arbitrary argument? The question reflects other ideas about correlation, namely identity. Hyde et al discusses the nature of the “node” that produces something. What is the degree of someone’s control over how the negatively- or positively-generated benefits of a product affect that person as they collaborated with a group? Essentially, when someone collaborates, he or she adopts in part another identity. Could someone who was temporarily identified as a “group” end up competing against themselves as they assume their individual identity? The reason I pose this question is because I’ve been thinking about strategies in publishing. Would I as someone who wants to publish with professors be hurt in the future because I can’t produce anything at the level of the collaboration? Or would it propel me further than my own efforts? In other words, the immediate impulse grad students have is to jump on any publishing opportunity with a professor, an impulse that I would for sure respond to positively (*wink wink Dr. Markmann*). In fact, as students we are taught to take these kinds of opportunities. But could this backfire? Would you then be expected to publish at this level, or produce something better? Or what if what you were producing with a professor was based on precepts or research that you actually disagreed with?

Marshall discusses new media cultures in terms of the technological apparatus. The technological apparatus “sets up a digital sensorium that ultimately operates in its normalcy as a loose ideology within the culture… The regularity of the use of the digital machines is that we have naturalized the expansive presence of the digital and the microchip in the way that we move through the world. The kinds of interaction that digital technology produces become second nature to our being and normalize ideal forms of interaction. Like the cinematic apparatus, the technological apparatus surrounds, mediates and becomes part of our identity and relationship to the world. The digital world produces us as technological subjects” (Marshall, 33).

It’s interesting to talk about this culture as one who is immersed in it, as one who is culturally constituted by a technological-apparatus society. In reading Marshall’s explanation of such a culture, I possess what Kenneth Burke would call a “trained incapacity” to understand what “normalcy” is and is not (Permanence and Change, 49). Our inherently ethnocentric cultures, particularly the new media culture in which we live, divides us from peoples that are not produced as technological subjects. This “digital divide” separates me from people like my grandparents much like I am separated by the traditions, daily routines, values, social practices, and Weltanschauung that foreign people maintain. My grandfather who is a 90-year old retired farmer—never owned a computer—once asked me why I had to use the internet for my job as an adjunct professor. After hearing my response, he made a face like he was swallowing vinegar.

The digital divide Marshall spoke of acknowledges the extent to which a new-media culture is separated by other cultures, but I wish Marshall would delve further into why such a divide is significant. One could look at North Korea as an example of seclusion from the rest of the world, a global divide that encompasses more than just a digital separation. The kind of divide, like self-exile, is important to note in a world that very much operates through things like trade exchanges and other forms of interactions with other countries. I don’t believe my grandfather or the countries that Marshall lists choose to be divided as such, but the divide can be economic (Marshall, 35).

As an American, I’ve had a great life. The values, beliefs, and culture that constitute my identity as an American are meaningful and valuable, but part of the respect I have for my American heritage is due to my own trained incapacity to see outside of my culture, to appreciate and value the heritage given to those who don’t share my culture. Thus, for cultures different from mine, can I objectively claim that such cultures need to submit to and adopt my own culture because it’s perhaps “more advanced,” “cutting edge,” or even “modern?” It reminds me of Tarzan, when he attempted to assimilate himself into the New World. If such a transition was successfully made, Phil Collins would have to rewrite his songs.

Marshall says, “Not all of the planet has access to these information flows and networks that have become second nature to many individuals. The technological apparatus thus must be seen as modalized around exclusion as much as access and inclusion” (35). Essentially, what I’m asking is, should such divides be bridged and why?

Hi everyone,

My 1-year anniversary living in Memphis occurred on the 15th of August, and it’s been great! I was born, raised, and have lived my whole life in Utah, which is very different to Memphis. If you like wakeboarding, mountain biking, skiing, snowboarding, hiking, river rafting, and other outdoor stuff, Utah is for you. I did gymnastics for 10 years of my life, and I try to stay pretty active. The rec center has become my friend. If any of you like to dance, we should go! Since coming to Memphis, I’ve been a part of the ultimate frisbee club on campus and have eaten at the best BBQ restaurant which is the BBQ Shop. I like getting together with friends and pigging out on delicious food. We like hosting international food nights and have done Russian, Italian, Brazilian, and an upcoming Indian food night. Speaking of Brazil, I lived there for two and a half years. I’ve spent a few months in Italy. Went to Mexico this summer. I love traveling when I can, and am in love with other cultures. Perhaps it is this passion that has influenced my decision to study immigration–within the realm of political and religious rhetoric and American public address. I’m a second-year communications PhD student, and boy oh boy is the comm department at the U of M a good fit for me! I’ve been really blessed to take part in the program.

For this class, I’d be interested to know more about copyright stuff, although it is an intimidating, messy, and LARGE area. I’m looking forward to this class because I believe it will prepare me to be a more qualified professor when I’m on the job market. Not only will it serve me well vita-wise, I believe the class will enable me to better connect to my students in class.