David Gruber taking over this morning.
Eme Crawford from U. of South Carolina (10:45 am):
A new translation of the Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir is coming out. The early translation was done by a zoologist and deleted some of the text, making the book sexist, suppressing philosophical work about women–mistranslations of existence and alienation. This created impression of women as “fuzzy thinkers.”
(10:55): Crawford claims: But better translations may not always clarify the text. So how should we read this text? Should we blame Sartre for the parts we don’t like? Should we just beat it into submission? Crawford: the text asks us to read the contradictions–“the text performs the content–woman– it seeks to explain.”
(11:00): Simone de Beauvoir launches volleys against herself; she shows how woman becomes. We should read to experience the book’s becoming. The Second Sex text is contradiction and ambiguity. A new translation will not solve the rhetorical multiplicity of the text–that is the text.
Nicole McFarlane from Clemson (11:00 am):
How does race rhetoric frame multimodal pedagogies?
On visuality of race: We have an archive of racial visuality that “shows us what we know about the subject.” Thinking about color & appearance has become a basis of classification–“an exterior expression of a deeper organic truth”–origin & ancestry.
There is a historical visual rhetoric of race: Blackness is defined in relation to whiteness, and visual culture upholds these relations. Race is a social construct.
McFarlane wonders how can she rework this by challenging/re-thinking the cliche’ that “race is a social construction.” She turns to post-pedagogy and wonders if it can uncover the cliche’.
(11:10): How is this cliche’ cynical and “a stock item of what is real”? In our classroom, when we use multimodal stratgies, we encourage students to conduct rhetorical analysis that should increase sensitivity and multi-cultural knowledge–but while doing this, we can incite a re-entrenchment that “works against practices of freedom.” So how do we explore multimodal spaces that are supposed to meet outcomes of diversity–while bringing in music, film, photo, etc–in a way that is responsible that avoids racist or sexist compositions? She proposes this as a question for us.
Kevin Brock from North Carolina State U (11:20):
Critics tout liberating nature of cyberspace as we assume electronic identities. But few critics have examined Open Source environments critically.
The developers are assigning the limits on users for constructing E identity. So we need to look at developing communities to understand how users are being controlled in these environments & how much limitation they’re willing to accept.
(11:30): In Open Source, users can become developers, and a mega-community is formed, a stratified community–those who develop and those who want to be involved and those who watch. Brock looks at the SourceForge.net community. The users negotiate themselves in reference to other users–but these knowledges of users is limited by the site itself–the spaces provided in profiles and structures on the site. In this website, programming is primary and other identity info is trivial/irrelevant. Interesting, the layout of the profile pages are unimportant–contributions to the programming community are important.
The effort to see oneself (following from Massumi’s work here) is difficult–a user cannot see oneself or others in the community–this lack of knowledge & acceptance of identity boundaries produces “a self-castration.”
(11:40): Following from Baudrillard’s work in America–the SourceForge website acts as a sort of “hologram” where every part looks like every other part.
Open Source communities try to save users from the proprietary threat but draws on proprietary systems and defines itself in relation to those softwares. And OSS inscribes users’ need into the software as proprietary systems do and makes OSS for corporate operating systems–so as SourceForge bills itself as empowering developers, it develops systems for users who are not proprietary free.