Bowers (2000) argues that CMC should be viewed as a degraded form of symbolic interaction and pretty much calls computer-based education a delusion. What is your take on this perspective? Based on the CALL studies that we have seen so far and the many problems we identified with the current state of the field, are you as pessimistic as Bowers???
I am a facilitator this week. As many of you have realized, we are delving into *critical* views of CMC. Bower’s pieces (2 chapters) are particularly so. In order to replenish everyone’s response from wider angles, let me start with a few quotes from Bowers’s chapter 2 (which is related to Viktoria Driagina-Hasko’s question as well!)
Bower’s critiques center around cyberspace’s intrinsic features of “objectivity,” which is in stark contrast to real-life, face-to-face communication. Bower refers to such features as “reductionism” (p. 35), “decontextualized” (p. 36), and so forth.
Here’re some quotes from p. 36 that contains lots of critical and provoking questions.
“…our reliance on decontextualized data as the basis of our thinking futher strenghtens our sense of rational, autonomous individualism. Manipulating data, typing a message on a keyboard, and searching through web sites are essentially solitary activities, even when collaborating with colleagues over the Internet. Our sense of subjectivity further alters how we experience the flow of time.”
“…we are still reinforcing our autonomous individualism when deciding which aspects of past to activate electronically or when to turn off the computer in order to attend to other personal matters.”
(p. 36)
What Bower problematizes here is autonomous nature of “self.” So far in this course, we have read mostly optimistic and “promising” aspects of CMC (“Second Life” is one good example).
Again and again, as I have discussed several times in class, CMC is not REAL in essence. It is one form of expressing realism, which massacres “complexity of nuances and their intended implicit effect” (p. 38).
As you continue to work/teach using CMC, how would you address issues I (and Bowers) have raised as a whole?
Akira,
First, I would like to disagree with you on the nature of Bower’s claims for Computer-mediated thought and communication. I do not think they are provoking at all. Bowers’ criticisms of “data” surprised me, in fact, because his text reads as if it were randomly composed from a computer program that had been nourished by corpora of third-rate po-mo scholarship. I respect your efforts to dig deeper and recast Bowers’ observations in a light that is relevant to our study of CMC, since I could only make out a haze of non-sequitors in Bowers’ critique of computers/data/culturally dominant conceptions of individual autonomy.
To reply directly to your comment about CMC not being “REAL in essence,” I think that characterization is too severe. We are given to adapting into our daily lives the tools and media made available to us. CMC happens to count among them. There is no mandated either/or trade-off between Face to Face and CMC — each having their own specific utilities. As illustrated in Thurlow’s article, where he quotes in its entirety the 13-year-old’s “netspeak” essay about her summer vacation, CMC provides its own space for creativity, complexity and nuance. I don’t see why there is a need to develop a hierarchy of realities in our interactions, when we make decisions all the time according to what is functional or entertaining or best addresses our immediate needs.
While I believe that the imposition of a certain reactionary nostalgia is important for kids these days, merely as a means of cultural transmission — the experience of generational gap and resentment, I think, is an essential part of education (at least in the hegemonic Western paradigm) — it is nonetheless important to recognize and validate the inevitable role that technology plays in our lives and theirs. One can throw in many caveats about cultural decadence, but that would create a severe dissonance between observable reality and the experiences of our youth and they would probably end up by not trusting our teaching philosophy. So, I do not think it advances our purposes to question the Realness of CMC.
What is important for us is to know whether or not they can learn anything from CALL tools and media, and I think the majority of our readings have shown that they produce significant results in both focus-on-form, exploratory learning, and intercultural communications. The range of activities executed in the studies we have seen, from corpora-based modeling and self-correction to telecollaboration well surpasses the very limited types of activities that Bowers’ apparently had on his desk while drafting his pamphlet. Bowers’ does not really suggest an alternative path to integrating technology, and, in the end, the types of learning that the student subjects in the case studies have had access too can cultivate a critical consciousness and an appreciation of nuance that is likely to translate well into face-to-face environments, moreso, probably than any alternatives Bowers’ may propose. So, I guess this puts me firmly in the optimistic camp.
Now, having vaguely addressed those two questions, I would just like to express some issues I had while reading Bowers. Given the hysterical tone of his writing, I think I can allow myself to reply in a visceral manner to his writing here in this blogspace. I haven’t been so infuriated by a text since reading some French pop philosophy for a class about ten years ago. This is an appalling, morally bankrupt, irresponsible, unreflective, pompous and intellectually lazy tract. The margins of my printout are riddled with tame expletives. In a weekend that has been dominated with talk of “elitism” and “patronizing language”, this reading seriously wins top prize. At first, my impression was that this must be someone who has never left the United States which allows him to paint other cultures as ponds of socially intertwined eco-conscious noble savages… but then I found his Vitae (why he would have a Website is beyond me) and it appears that he has actually been overseas.
For one thing, every thing he said about technology-based communication seemed to apply equally to the printed word or writing in general. (pp. 35-37) I mean seriously, to introduce printing as the basis for individual perspective is a huge and erroneous leap. In fact, where is there anything solid in this entire piece? It is all built around some enormous straw person extrapolated from a few overenthusiastic statements from techhies (Thurlow does a good job pointing out the laziness and errors inherent in all hyperbole attached to CMD). His portrayal of non-Western cultures, their worldviews, their needs, their societies is incredibly simplistic and divorced from reality.
My favorite moment, though, is his scathing indictment (p. 30) of Francis Crick: “Within the context of our own Western way of understanding, we can ask why Crick does not consider the influence of culture on the language and thought processes[.]” Sure we can, but that’s not really his job. He’s… um… a scientist.
It is very unlikely that I will be less upset by this reading at tomorrow’s class meeting. I just don’t have time — nor would it be polite — to vent all my complaints with Bowers’ tract on this blog.
Well, I do have to say, I enjoyed Jonathan’s comments quite a bit.
Two things I thing Jonathan said that I agree with
1)”For one thing, every thing he said about technology-based communication seemed to apply equally to the printed word or writing in general.” Bowers’ own sense of subjective individualism did not prevent him from writing this book, not only for personal career development (after all he seems to have made emeritus, which I assume presupposes full professorship…) as well as book sales (commodification of knowledge
) Furthermore, his arguments against using computers as communication apply just as well to the media of book authorship and publication, of which he is well integrated (consider how many books he read).
2)”Bowers’ does not really suggest an alternative path to integrating technology.” There is nothing I can stand less than people who merely provide critiques of existing systems without proposing alternatives. There is nothing easier than finding fault in something (I mean look how easy it is for us to critique his article). I agree that there are many problems with current educational technology, foremost is the lack of cultural understanding. But has Bowers ever created and educational learning environment? Does he know the ecological negotiation that goes into development (and we’re not just talking about costs)? Does he think we should all move into the woods of Oregon, cutting off contact with the current ecology that, for better or worse includes computers? Or should we try and do something with the system we have, rather than just find all the worst cases to write up in a book? Needless to say, Educational Technology has done many amazing things over the past couple decades, which he did not include.
But he does have a point in saying we need to focus more on the cultural ramifications of technology in the classroom. From Gabrielle and my experience last year, where this was the focus of the class, I’d venture to say it’s a lot harder than it sounds. No one, Bowers included, is an expert at communicating in EVERY culture and language, and with the worldwide reach of many forms of communication, that would be the only possible solution (according to him), right?
So, about halfway through the second chapter I had to stop fretting and take bowers’ writing for what it is. Bowers’ ecology consists only of the need to communicate with the 3 or so people (for peer-review an article), and the tenure & promotion board. Beyond that, he can say or do whatever he wants without economic consequence to him. So, I think he says some interesting things, but I wouldn’t put too much stock into his dire prophecies of societies downfall due to computers. Afterall, it was because of educational technology that I was able to read his piece (thanks WebCT!).
Jonathan,
Thanks for your comment. I will take up your arguments during our discussion tonight.
akira
I need a writing group that enjoys Bower’s perspectives
David writes:
>So, I think he says some interesting things, but I wouldn’t
>put too much stock into his dire prophecies of societies
>downfall due to computers. Afterall, it was because of
>educational technology that I was able to read his piece
>(thanks WebCT!).
I agree with you.. it’s not computers per se that destroy our society, but…
yes… this discussion goes on and on…