In America we celebrate global multicultural perspectives that have shaped our country’s values and beliefs. But what if there were no diverse perspectives, based on gender, age, race, or unique personal experiences? Would that be a utopian society? Lisa Nakamura writes that companies such as MCI, IBM, Compaq and other high-tech corporations that portray the internet as an Utopian democracy “founded upon disembodiment and uncontaminated by physical differences", would like you to think so.
"Where Do You Want to Go Today?"
One of the questions that comes to mind in reading her work is that if technology really levels the playing field by eradicating all cultural diversity, (because technology is homogeneous and devoid of cultural bias),is that this is an utopia world I personally would not want to live in. Nakamura claims that the ANTHEM ad MCI produced only camouflages its depiction of race using visual cues and does not address the diversity issues of multi-cultural perspectives. Race and cultural diversity is something that technology considers insignificant and unimportant which is at best misleading and at worse unethical.
In a virtual world, what you see is not necessarily true or factual. The visual ads depict pristine exotic environments and peoples that are brought together through technology. What you can’t experience through this virtual world though is reality. To market networking and personal computing, Nakamura says technology companies must convince its users that the world is without limits and you can safety surf it using the internet. The problem with this reality is that it is only a facimile of the real world designed by ad agencies and doesn’t really exist.
In a virtual world you can mask the culture and create new identitities.As the internet evolves, a new digital culture will be created. The new culture, though, is limited to those that can access it. People in third world countries, or who live in rural areas may never have access to the technology to visit or be part of the virtual world. Nakaramura points out the transnational tourists on the internet are those of us who have the technology and access to it to visit the virtual world and design it anyway we'd like. This does not make it "real" in the sense that you can touch and experience it like the experience of walking outside in your own backyard and touching, smelling and picking an apple, lets say, and eating it from your garden... well at least not yet.
-Jennifer Wheeler
5 comments:
You and I both had similiar points about the difference between the real world compared to a virtual world. You state that you would not want to live in a utopian society, why? Good point on not everyone having access to the internet and your comparison between that and the real world.
one more thing.. I was just wondering if you had watched any commercials from the Olympics and compared them to Nakamura's article?
I really agree with you on the point you made about the internet being a virtual culture. I think it will continue to grow into even more of a culture that some people will not have access to. Such as those in third world countries like you said in your blog. Good work!
-Chris
Its good to see you wouldn't want to live in the described utopia because I'm with you on that. The idea of the internet seems to have transformed to what it's become today. You made a great point when you said, "What you can’t experience through this virtual world though is reality". Well said.
I really like your point about the transnational tourists on the internet are those of us who have the technology and access to it to visit the virtual world and design it anyway we'd like. Pointing out that the internet is not the real world and nothing can substitute that.
Post a Comment