Summary: Deshpande - Elizabeth Blake

In Shekhar Deshpande’s recent essay, “The Confident Gaze,” Deshpande explores the hidden meaning behind National Geographic and their article on India’s 50 year anniversary of freedom from Brittan, something our nations have in common. National Geographic, while being a non-profit organization has a very American view of the development of budding democracies. Deshpande asserts out that the magazine is dangerously close to being a “blatantly ethnocentric” magazine posing as objective journalism. Deshpande discusses the framework their photography provides for a sugar-coated idea of India’s overall well being. ”National Geographic has made an aethstetic of its own photography.” Deshpande insists. “It is slick, it is technically flawless or even adventurous, and it attempts to sanitize and universalize the uncomfortable as well as different elements of other cultures.” Thus creating a palatable story for a group of people who desire to feel socially and worldly conscious while not bringing themselves down.

Oops what year is it

Oops what year is it?
The Confident Gaze
by Shekhar Deshpanda
The National Geographic misty lens
Shekhar Deshpanda article the confident gaze is a call for vision, for its reader to wake up and see the photographic message depicted in The National Graphic magazine. Deshpanda is educating his readers on the deception or as in his words “While we admire the accomplishments of its photographers to bring us the rest of the world, we forget that the photographs and the contexts in which they are placed represent a very conscious effort by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happy place especially for the Western eye”(Deshpanda par 9). Deshpanda is leading his reader to discover the hidden message the glossing over of the truth, the real vision not the made up view. Despanda brings this out clearly stating “The pictures of the monsoon or the image of a woman cooking food on the pavements of Calcutta are devoid of their documentary contexts. They are great in providing excruciating detail of misery, the unpreparedness of a youngster in the rain or the paucity of food and water on the pavement. From the worn out bricks to the tobacco stains on the teeth, the photographs are rich in their content, but entirely dishonest in their relationship to the environment or the context. It is as if that world needs to be in appropriate way to Western observer, could he not see it in its bare essentialities” (Deshpanda par.13). Deshpanda views could hold water and probably does with people of the 1950s and early 1960s but in today’s world we are for more educated and understand that it is a money drive world and you must appeal to your audience. The National Geographic magazine doesn’t just materialize it all take money and the western eye is where it is. By the way back to Despanda article he talks about a photograph of the van and the white man and the three women and how this supports his argument. Reread it, this picture is from 1947 think about it. In 1947 photographic technology was adventurous it just wasn’t aim and shoot you didn’t just pull your camera out of your pocket. Taking a picture was a process and the one lady describe as if to be mesmerized by the camera, no doubt, India in 1947 I can safely say this was the first time she saw a camera and the two other woman where most likely afraid of it. Read what you want into photographs just don’t let people tell you what you should see.
Bobby Alstatt (Nihilist)

In the essay,” National Geographic’s Misty Lens”, By Shekhar Deshpande, Deshpande reminds the readers of this magazine of all of the priceless pictures that are on every page throughout the magazine. He also brings to our attention that the photos that are taken are not what we think they are and that there is more behind the beautiful photo than we think. He also reminds the audience that the magazines job is to sell magazines and to put things in magazines that people in the western eye wants to see. He states, "[W]e forget that the photographs and contexts in which they are placed represent a very conscious effort by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happy place especially for the Western eye" (pg. 2) This means that the photographs can be misleading along with the stories that go with them which overall gives the western eye a false understanding on how other cultures actually are. All throughout Deshpande’s essay he continues to talk about how the photographs in National Geographic are what attracts the audience and the stories behind them are not accurate to what is actually going on in the photo and in that culture. Deshpande states, "The primitive, often a focus of the magazine,... [Provide an image] of what 'would have been' if the West had not taken a march toward 'civilization'" (pg. 2). This means that the photos are used to meet and western eye and to sell, which means its job is to make money and to entertain. The problem with this is that it gives us a false idea of what other civilized cultures are like. And progress for a struggling country is ultimately trying to make other countries like western civilization.

National Geographic (Slavik S)

In the article “THE CONFIDENT GAZE” by DR.SHEKHAR DESHPANDE we read about the National Geographic magazine.
It is the magazine that is view by a lot of Americans and well-liked for its photographs and worlds explorations, ect.
“While we admire the accomplishments of its photographers to bring us the rest of the world, we forget that the photographs and the contexts in which they are placed represent a very conscious by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happy place especially for the western eye”. (page 2) The author tells us about the magazine and its values in America. The magazine shows Americans what they want to see. As we look at the pictures in the magazine we often compare ourselves and in the most, if not all pictures we see ourselves being lucky and having better life.

In another part of the article author states: “Human suffering becomes worth a good image.” This means that suffrage is valuable in this magazine. Also, Americans look at another part of the magazine, where Deshpande states: “The idea of progress is always in terms of weather the others have taken steps to be “Western.” (page3) Again we tend to compare ourselves to others while viewing the images from the magazine.

Taylor on Deshpande

In “The Confident gaze” by Shekhar Deshpande He talks about the way National Geographic takes their photos and how these pictures are sheltering us from the “real world”. He states:

“While we admire the accomplishments of its photographers to bring us the rest of the world, we forget that the photographs and the contexts in which they are placed represent a very conscious by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happy place especially for the western eye”.

This is saying that a lot of the time pictures are taken around the world in places that have a lot of poverty or violence, we do not see the real India, or Iraq, or wherever, because either we don’t want to see it or they don’t want us to see it. Then he says, “ While it covers or represents such issues or situations, it can sanitize and even beautify the blood and gore of the conflict. This means that even through all a countries issues National Geographic’s photographers can make the place look beautiful. Deshpande does not agree with the way that National Geographic captures other countries, he believes that their should be truth inside their photos.

Confident Gaze - Tim

Deschpande, author of "The Confident Gaze" describes the popular magazine, National Geographic, as a means to show the world to other people with some bias on their views as a nation. In his words, "What attracts a common reader is that the magazine provides a balance of images of both, once irreconcilable aspects of life in other cultures. That increases the comfort level of its readers. They get education through information that is "balanced" and they get entertained in the beauty of its representation, which denotes such an urge to give the reader his money's worth”. This means that people of certain nations or groups will not typically migrate towards the magazine issues unless there is a balance of bias, showing the subject of review in the light that the audience desires, but not too much. He furthers this when he says “While we admire the accomplishments of its photographers to bring us the rest of the world, we forget that the photographs and the contexts in which they are placed represent a very conscious effort by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happy place especially for the Western eye”. This suggests that Western people cannot fully grasp, or do not want to grasp, the world as it truly is. We would rather see things in a positive view rather than deal with the struggles and tribulations that are everyday life for the photographed people. In a sense it is much like the material that is censored for younger audiences. If a video game is deemed ‘too violent” then the violence and gore are tuned down, or removed all together.

Word Count: 275

Despande - Brandon

Shekhar Deshpande, in article "The Confident Gaze", he questions the ethics instituted by the National Geographic magazine. Deshpande states that some of the pictures in the magazine are only designed to make you happy, and not realize what is going on in the world. He claims "[i]t is as if that world needs to be posed in the appropriate way to the Western observer, he could not see it in its bare essentialities"(Deshpande), meaning that as Americans, or westerners in general, we aren't prepared to deal with the horrors of the third world. We do not want to see what is happening in the world, in its true form, and what we could be if he hadn't "marched" toward civilization. According to Deshpande, National Geographic believes "Human suffering becomes worth a good image", in that the poor living conditions of other countries, sometimes is only a money maker to them.

Deshpande Summary

In Shakhar Deshpande's essay 'The Confident Gaze' he describes National Graphic and its popularity. He goes on to describe a specific issue that was released in 1997 with the title 'India turning fifty'. On the cover of this issue is a close up on a thin child painted red. Deshpande comments on this stating that, "The "innocent" attractiveness of the photography of National Geographic, its ambiguous representation of the knower and the known...have made for the success of the magazine...it attempts to sanitize and universalize the uncomfortable as well as the different elements of other cultures." What I think this means is basically National Geographic success is based off information that is watered down for the 'Western eye'. focusing on the poverty of India and the country's progress on "catching up" with western society. Instead of focusing on more important issues as Deshpande points out "...the wars and the subsequent arms race since Independence. The regional conflicts are more important than the difficult conditions of people in keeping pace with their material wealth." What I think Despande means here is that Americans put an emphasis that the more stuff you have, the better off you are. He explains that a more important issue is the conflict that is experienced in India.

Summary of National Geographic by Alexandria

Alexandria Perezchica
English 100
5/27/10

Summary of National Geographic by Alexandria


The article “The Confident Gaze” by Shekhar Deshpande is regarding how National Geographic may not be giving their viewers an accurate aspect of life in other cultures. Deshpande seems to think the magazine isn’t fairly representing cultures because of the Western Society’s inability to understand it, because it is so foreign to them. Deshpande states “It is slick, technically flawless or even adventurous, and it attempts to sanitize and universalize the uncomfortable as well as different elements of other cultures” (2). The essence of Deshpande’s argument is that the editors of the magazine are trying to put other cultures in a type of box, one that our American society can comprehend and relate to. They are basing other cultures to have some of our ideology when in fact theirs is almost the complete opposite. The magazine is doing this to “make the world a happy place and a happy place especially for the Western eye” (2). An for the world to be a happy place the magazine often illustrates these authentic cultures to some what resemble the American ideology and values. So not to distress what Western society believes is the correct way of living.
I can understand why Deshpande is saying that National Geographic is misrepresenting these cultures, but I don’t believe it is their entire fault because they are only fulfilling consumerist needs by giving them what they want to see and read about. It is also known that the magazine is valued for its wonderful photography and the articles are there to give their readers enough information to make them feel connected to these cultures, but not enough to demonstrate what the culture is like as a whole.
Some magazines give you the ability to feel powerful and at a higher level than other people, yet at the same time permit you to have compassion for the people that you are criticizing. Deshpande is firm that this is how National Geographic is selling their product. Deshpande states “[t]he primitive, often a focus of the magazine, serves the same function by providing images of what ‘would have been’ if the West had not taken a march toward civilization” (3). Basically, Deshpande is saying that Western society can look at the images displayed in National Geographic and in a sense feel better about their lives because they feel they have made more progress than these “Third world” countries.

The Confident Gaze - Emily M.

In our English 100 class on Tuesday afternoon we were asked to view a photograph from National Geographic. As students, we were just supposed to focus on the straight forward things that we noticed about the photograph. Things such as the colors being portrayed, basic things about the persons face, and shaping of the photo. Then we were asked to write down our thoughts about what each thing we noticed meant without reading the little excerpt about the photo. This was how we saw India for that day.
In Shakher Deshpande's article, "The Confident Gaze", this is sort of what he’s saying. That we put our own thoughts in a bowl and we pick out what we think, let’s say India, is about. We learn about their culture, and the people just from looking at a picture. We don’t see the pictures as hurt, pain, gore, or violence. We choose to see them as beautiful because that’s how the photographers from National Geographic pose them. Deshpande’s states, “We forget that photographs and the contexts in which they are placed represents a very conscious effort by the editors to make the world a happy place, and a happy place especially for the Western eye”(Deshpande- pg 2, paragraph 3). Here I believe that he’s saying we don’t want to think about the hardships that others are going through, when were millions of miles away from them to help. We look past the pain the picture is portraying and we focus on the beauty (India) is giving us.
I believe that Deshpande also leans on the idea that we, as the Western Culture, are the ones wanting to help everybody. We want to be able to view a people and say “wow”. That because a civilization is not like us, it is something to “Ah” over and view pictures of that we bring our own meaning to. National Geographic gives their readers what they want to see. But by this are they ignoring reality? National Geographic is meant to inform our culture of different societies, of different people. But are we really getting the whole picture through their photos, or are they simple covering up reality with beauty to allow us to continue living our lives without a care for those other civilizations?

Jim on; Deshpande

Dr. Shekhar Deshpande is an Associate Professor and Director of the Communications Program at Arcadia University. Born in India, he ha taught a variety of courses in media and film studies, visual culture and cultural studies. He continues to publish in the areas of identity, media criticism and film and cultural studies (Arcadia Univ. website).In his article, “ The Confident Gaze”, Deshpande makes the claim that National Geographic Magazine give their subscribers, “ But a simple equation of progress “on our terms” would make this magazine blatantly ethnocentric” (pg3, par.2), and, “What attracts a common reader is that the magazine provides a balance of image of both, once irreconcilable aspects of life in other cultures. That increases the comfort level of its readers” (pg.3, par.2). Just to be clear on the meaning of ethnocentric, The American Heritage Dictionary defines ethnocentric as, “1.Belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group. 2. Overriding concern with race” (pg.450).
The thought that Deshpande is putting out there, is that National Geographic is showing the American people the world though a rose colored lens. NG tends to show us the world with beautiful imagines that perhaps take something away from the real suffering that may go on behind the actual reality of life in the culture that NG is deplicting. That in an almost slight of hand sort of way, NG is pandering to American ethnocentrism by showing, as Deshpande states, “colorful images of temple, equally “exotic” designs of the saris, and the color of piety and devotion in Indian’s multifaceted religions”(pg3, par,2). Although Deshpande is revering to an article in NG regarding India’s 50th aniversary of independence form British rule in this statement, the template is the same for all the cultures that NG presents to its subscribers.
I myself can not disagree with what Deshpande is saying in this article. I would say that he is right in his assessment of what the magazine does. I would also say that NG does not portray itself as anything but what Deshpande claims. NG does not consider itself a news magazine; NG claims that it is an exploration magazine, dedicated to exploration, education and science. NG is a non profit organization that is dedicated to the development of these causes. NG is a business that has been very successful in all these aspects while consistently maintaining one of the highest subscription memberships in the USA. NG makes no excuses for the way they run their organization or how they present the information they offer their subscribers. NG is giving their subscribers what they are paying for.
Is NG giving the American people a skewed view of the world? Or are they just giving their consumer what they want?
When we were given this article in our English class, I was quite surprised at the responses that were given to the picture, we were asked to analyze. It is a picture of young Indian boy of perhaps 10 to 12 years of age. The picture shows him from the shoulder up, colored in the Holi colors. I would say the comment that I heard the most, was that the child looked under fed. The child is slender in build, but I have found this to be a common trait among the people of warmer climates. I thought how easily a nation who's children suffers obesity in now epidemic proportion; quickly see a slender child as on the verge of starvation. Deshpande himself, when describing this child states, “(T)the cover page featuring a photograph of the face of a child with red Holi colors, with clear, intense dark eyes gripping the lens of the camera and the beholder of the image is striking”(pg.1par.3). As I gazed on this picture myself, it was the clear, intense dark eyes that received my attention. I saw nothing in the child’s eyes that told of starvation, misery impending doom or even the sadness that I see in so many American children’s eyes these days.
I have to wonder if the American point of view has changed a bit in resent years. Do we want to see the worst, even in the soft NG version of the world? Are Americans to a point were not even the washed down version of life on this planet, that Deshpande’s idea of National Geographic portrays, is enough to keep Americans happy? Have Americans become so unhappy with their culture that they seek others misery, even when it is just not there?
What will National Geographic do now?

Summary of Deshpande - Darci Peterson

In his essay, "The National Geographic's Misty Lens", Shekhar Deshpande reminds the audience of the beautiful photography we see in National Geographic. The magazine is known for its brilliant photos. With that in mind, Deshpande brings to our attention that the photography is done to sell which means they take and present photos to appeal to the Western eye. He claims, "[W]e forget that the photographs and contexts in which they are placed represent a very conscious effort by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happy place especially for the Western eye" (pg. 2). This means that the Western eye, wants to see happy things and therefor, to sell magazines, National geographic sanatizes and shows the beauty of the world. There is some bias in the photography resulting in a misunderstanding of different cultures through dishonest visual stories.
Though out his essay Deshparde uses examples of stories that the pictures in National Geographic tell and what they have in common. As he explained before, a photo in their magazine shows only what the audience would like to see meaning that the information is censored or in a sense inaccurate. It is often the exotic people who are unlike our culture that draw our interest. Deshpante explains, "The primative, often a focus of the magazine,... [provide an image] of what 'would have been' if the West had not taken a march toward 'civilization'" (pg. 2). The West views the photos of other cultures that are different than the one we live in rather than civilized. This results in others using the West as an example. Social progress is considered to be change that brings a culture more like ours. The more cultures do this the more power we have to influence other cultures. Ultimately, Deshparde is claiming that the way we are shown the world by National Geographic is not completely true. The photography and techniques are used to both inform and sell, therefore there will be a balance of truth and entertainment. It is the world at a misted lens.

confident gaze Meagan Cronin

In an essay by Shekhar Deshpande “The Confident Gaze”, she describes a photograph that was taken by a National Geographic photographer of an Indian boy all covered in red dust, with these huge dark brown eyes staring back at you that almost tell you a story and are full of emotion. He then also begins to go on describing how the magazine National Geographic is a magazine that uses pictures to draw in the reader. It is almost like the magazine does it on purpose, to make it so that people can look at the amazing pictures and still be able to somewhat understand what is going on in the article. Deshpande states “Its impact is felt most in the photographic realm. That says a lot. It could appeal to the semi-literate as well as to the literate by providing an entry into a field that needs to be taken with caution and respect for the “other” world”. (3) What Deshpande is meaning to get across with this quote is how if people are not that good of readers, being able to look at the pictures will still help them understand the story. I know that when I am looking at a National Geographic magazine I usually tend to just look at the pictures. Deshpande believes that National Geographic almost sugar coats the articles that they put out with pictures, like even though there might be a war going on for example photographers will take pictures of women and their children smiling. Deshpande states “While we admire the accomplishments of its photographers to bring us the rest of the world, we forget that the photographers and the contexts in which they are placed represent a very conscious effort by the editors to make the world a happy place and a happy place especially for the Western eye”. (3) Basically what Deshpande is saying is how, many of the photographs are taken in a somewhat positive setting. “and it attempts to sanitize and universalize the uncomfortable as well as different elements of other cultures”. (3) As the essay goes on Deshpande describes how in the magazine article it talks about the life in India “without any references to the real troubles of the people or the global conditions in which the country is implicated in”. (4)

The Confident Gaze - Corrina Brown

After reading Deshpande's roughly three page article you get a good idea about what he feels National Geographic Magazine does or rather what they don't do with their photographs. Deshpande feels that National Geographic magazine doesn't portray the truth in their photos but rather "beautifies" them to make them more viewable to the Westerner's eye. "It is as if that world needs to be posed in the appropriate way to the Western observer, he could not see it in its bare essentialities." Deshpande here is claiming that for some reason Americans could not handle the pain and suffering that is actually happening in the countries that National Geographic photographs. Of course we all are aware of the fact that most other countries viewed in National Geographic are struggling but Deshpande doesn't think we would be able to handle seeing this suffering with our own eyes. Deshpande also states "It is quite sensitive to trouble spots and trouble contexts; it does not pretend to evade such situations. But while it covers or represents such issues or situations, it can sanitize and even beautify the blood and gore of the conflict." Again I will say Deshpande is claiming that National Geographic is in areas where people are struggling on a daily basis, war is happening in the backyard of once family neighborhoods, but we don't see the entire truth of these happenings in the photos throughout the magazine. Desphande believes that photos show the "happy" part of what is going on in these places. Instead of photographing the bare truth the photos are edited and made to look more presentable to our Western eye.

Robert G. Brown-Summary of Deshpande

If ever there was a reason and a time to declare “That opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one”, this article entitled “The Confident Gaze” grants me that privilege to assert this declaration. Although Shekhar Deshpande attempts to support his claims that National Geographic’s primary attraction to it’s readers is the magazine’s ability to portray a balanced perspective when covering controversial issues to our Westernised World, sadly enough his attempts fail, due to a lack of illustrative evidence and a fixed personal perspective that is driven by subjective rather than objective interpretation of the material he presents. He claims “This power to transform the most repulsive results of human actions around the world into images that are digestible is what makes for the culture of National Geographic.” (pg. 2 par. 6) How does one do this without distorting the impact of the message that one is trying to convey? The point is, you can’t if you are attempting to bring the “truth” of the matter to the forefront. To hide or soften the matter related to arriving at the truth offers no benefits whatsoever to either side searching for the truth. Does offering more comfort to the issues surrounding homelessness generate stronger and more effective solutions to its eradication? I don’t think so. Does presenting a prettier picture concerning the realities of fetal abortion generate a more tolerable society responding to this ongoing matter? I don’t think so. Another claim he makes is “What attracts a common reader is that the magazine provides a balance of images of both, once irreconcilable aspects of life in other cultures. That increases the comfort level of its readers. They get education through information that is “balanced” and they get entertained in the beauty of its representation, which denotes such an urge to give the reader his money’s worth.” (par.2 pg.3) I feel that he presents a diminished capacity to the real meaning of balance in respect to the portrayal of content. If you’re going to talk about life in a balanced manner, you can’t just refer to all of its good while neglecting the bad; you have to include both. To try and edit the content and present it as balanced after the edit is a lie. In order to generate the kinds of real change that a person or culture need to make in order to achieve their intended goals, sometimes you need to shove their noses right into the “shit” in order for this realization to spring forth. One of the main reasons for National Geographic’s success is because of its demonstrated consistent ability to produce this unbiased information in pictorial and documentary form. A great example of this was when they were covering the Vietnam War and presenting to the public all of the atrocities of the war. The truthful impact that this material presented greatly influenced the war’s end, regardless of who won, and it wasn’t us. So, next time you decide to interpret what or how National Geographic Magazine is presenting its material, try and do it from a “clear lens” vs. a “misty lens” perspective and maybe you’ll arrive at the truth.

summary of Deshpande's article

After reading the text"India turns 50", i found that it was mainly focused on how we portray images of other countries. The text mainly focused on how we as americans see other countries thru the magazine "National Geographic" and how we portray them in our own minds. I understand what the writer is saying, specifically because he referred to terms as the people of India were possing for these pictures. Overall it was a description of NG's look at how we as society take a look at other countries. I find that he is saying that "Western Culture" is demonstrated as high and mighty, and we view other countries strictly through what we see in the magazine instead of what we see in person, and have an unfair judgement.
Accoridng to Deshpande," The "innocent" attractiveness of the photography of National Geographic, its ambiguous representation of the knower and the known as the most "natural" and inevitable parts of our world are what have made for the success of the magazine. " (Despande1) I see how Deshpande is taking the role and explaining why society is being judgemental especially " Western Culture" and as how the magazine has amazing success based on how we percieve the world, not how it actuallly is. I see Deshpande reffering to "Western Culture" as being better than, and supposed to feel self pity for other cultures, also giving us a false view of other countries cultures, which gives society a completely unfair view and judggement of other cultures. This is a major point is describing National Geographic, but also stays as a majorly controversial path. Following up later in the article, Despande says accordingly, "Power to transform the most repulsive results of human actions around the world into images that are digestible is what makes for the culture of National Geographic."(despande2) After reviewing the text, i see all the supporting evidence of how Despande is saying that national Geographic, is taking the worst situation, and ultimately making it look appealing to our eyes. This is very confusung to me, why he would come with different claims, but i can see his view. In my opinion, this article is very confusing. I understand his side, but taking a second look at the article, he touches on the subject of transfering grotesque images into reasonable images. I tis confusing, but at the same time I see his point of how National Geographic is based, and how they ultimatley are making their magazines, conversions of digital media, and forms of video text. Thats all folks.

SElfe Summary Corrina

In Selfe's essay she simply believes that the world of American advertisements is basically blinded by the reality of what America really is. America is believed to be the melting pot, the place for all races, all genders, everyone to come together and live happily. However most of our advertisements show "mighty white" as Selfe calls them. A happy white "perfect" family. In reality America is filled with people from all over the world. She also shows ads that have strict gender rules. The men leading there families, the women in the kitchen. Now a days it can be the complete opposite. While I feel that today many ads aren't as biast as they used to be, many times the hidden messages is still a little off of what reality is. All I say to that is we must be smarter than the ads. Or being the next generation to change things we must portray America truthfully.

Is Google Making us Stupid? Corrina Brown

How awesome is it to be sitting at home watching the news or some show that is trying to help educate you on certain things that happen in this world and when you have further questions you can just hop on the computer and research whatever it is you want? Instead of waiting for a free chance to squeeze some library time into your already busy schedule. Although the internet helps us all in many ways, it is making us a little bit lazier. We have virtually everything at our fingertips. We are constantly changing speeds and bouncing around subject to subject. I don't believe it is the computers fault that we are becoming so reliant on it and lazy but rather our new crave of having everything we want right away!

heck ya dude

Jordan Nicholes
5/17/10
Summary
After re- reading Cynthia Selfe’s essay over again I think that the message that Selfe is trying to get across is that that Americans are selfish people and don’t care for other people and only think about themselves. Although this may be a true fact I think that it is unreasonable to say that all Americans act this way or think this way. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave so Selfe is entitled to think what she wants but I can’t say that I agree with a lot of what she is saying. On page 304 Selfe states that, “ "Unfortunately, if Americans have no collective imaginary context for, or historical experience of, a real global village, nor do they have any real experience with an undifferentiated land of opportunity. Our cultural experience, indeed, tells us something very different-that America is the land of opportunity only for some people." I don’t think that Selfe should be able to generalize Americans in such ways. I think that she thinks that she is a lot better than the people in America and that Americans should think and be more like her. She also states on page 294,” "One of the most popular narratives Americans tell ourselves about computers is that technology will help us create a global village in which the people of the world are all connected-communicating with one another and cooperating for the commonweal....This story, as you can imagine, is appealing at a romantic level to many Americans. It is also, quite terrifying. Becoming just another member of the tribe, just another citizen of the global village, suggests the possibility that Americans could be asked to relinquish their current privileged status in the world." I don’t really understand this. We try to be as one and become united but it never works and never will work. Everyone and everything we always be different in some ways.

Continuing with Selfe

Continuing from last time, lets take a closer look at Selfe's essay.

She narrates and exposits on what the messages the advertisements are trying to convey. With Figures 5 and 6, she is saying that they are appealing to Americans on a romantic level because they say technology can remove all the problems that are addressed; namely the reconstruction of the Frauenkirche. The following figure claims that with the aid of technology problems like hunger and thirst can and will be eliminated if technology becomes more widespread.

She goeso n to say that this is not true at all. Technology cannot be used to recreate the art mastery and skill that was put into the original design of the Frauenkirche. Nor can it remove decades of unrest, pain, and inequities caused by Apartheid. Frankly it is foolish to think that we can, and that if we allow technology to be given to the people those problems will in fact escalate.

"They say" on Selfes Essay

I find that in the essay of "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution" by Cynthia L. Selfe. I take the interpretation of this essay as Selfe taking a major look at how technologuy is changing in societys lives rtoday, and also how the roles of technogy are looked sat as aspects of men and women. My interpretation, is that the essay starts out talking about how we are starting to get connected to the internet, and it latter shows on how certain people are not connected, and such roles are females position in technology, and also mens roles in the work world. One of the claims that I will focus on is on P. 315 3rd paragraph down, says "In these ads, we see reflected the roles that our culture can imagine women playing in relation to technology. And they are familiar roles-the seductress, the beauty, the mother.." (Selfe) As I see this claim, it is fully supporting how the market for technology is having womens sexuality linking to technology, and used to sell products. Following right afyter, Selfe says "all relationships ratified by our historical experience, easily accessible to our collective imagination, and informed by traditionalsocial values." (selfe)315-316. As following for supporting evidence, I would have to say i am imagining Selfe taking a look at the big picture, and overall finding out that the video and media text plays directly into our brains, and is a repitition that we are so afraid to change (roles of men and womne in technology) that we keep on reproducing the same old stuff, time and time again.
Also, earlier on on page 298, Selfe says, "Instead, Americans are the canny and sophisticated minds behind the text, behind the image, behind the technology." (Selfe) 298-299.
I am understanding her point of view that we are the future, and through these ads and video texts, I can see that it is not only media alone creating alll of this, we the people are obviously the masterminds, using computers and media to our advantage. On page 298 before the quoute staed above, Selfe explains, "Americans, in these four ads, you'll notice, go almost unrepresented in terms of images." (Selfe) I forgot to expain, that throughout this essay, there has been plenty of video text. And in this section, the video text is showing people from different cultures and different countries expressing themselves. I am getting the interpretation that Selfe is saying that the world needs softweare in the images, but why are use Americans not represaented in any of the photos? Why don't we have our own photos of our culture? We are the funding for our countries technology, and overall, we should have our own representation. The question is, even if we do have a representation of Americans and technolgy as it is running today, is it a good one, or are we forced rto have a bad representastion due to media coverge. Ponder onthat.

Jim on Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution

In her essay, “Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution, Images of Technology and the Nature of Change”, Cynthia L. Selfe discusses the way that Americans use their rather unique point of view to use technology to once again claim world dominance over a world that they just do not understand, nor really care to.
Being a professor of English and related studies at Ohio State University as well as an author Selfe seems to have a very good grasp of how Americans think and act on the world around them. Being a teacher of English, she has come to realize the importance that educators can have on changing cultural views in this country.
In her essay Selfe tells of how Americans use their point of view and their technological dominance over the world to both force and of course sell the American idea to the rest of the world. Americans do this; yet seem to have a limited idea of who they are themselves.
Selfe writes about how the American people are using advertising to show the rest of the world and to show Americans themselves their technological advantage overall, and how the American way is really the best way. She uses three narratives to explain this, the first being the, “Global Village”, in which she points out that Americans fancy themselves as being the saviors of the world. Americans can do this because with knowing very little about the culture they are trying to make better, Americans can help fix problems with other cultures, by simply making them like Americans.
Americans have traditionally gone at other culture with the view that they are the best and no other way will do. Americans will pat themselves on the back, telling themselves that they have helped this or that culture with the American dream and not even see the damage they have done. When the very culture that the Americans have so-called helped, falls into deeper ruin than when Americans came to help, we look at how they did not appreciate American help. Americans never seem to look at how their ignorance of a culture may have contributed to the cultures down fall.
Selfe then brings in two more narratives, “Land of Equal Opportunity, Land of Difference”, and “The Un-Gendered Utopia, The Same Old Gendered Stuff”. In these narratives she tells of how the advertisers of technology use the antiquated American dream to sell their products and keep the people that have the dream believing in it. We use the good old days of the 1950’s, the glamour of days gone by, to keep us thinking that Americans have it all. In this way of thinking, Americans tell themselves the same lies as always; All are created equal and if you try, no one can fail in America. So do Americans really have the technological advantage? Like a student that has the latest laptop but plays games on it while in class, I think not.

Summary of Self's essay-Taylor

In Cynthia L. Self’s essay “lest we think the revolution is a revolution” I believe Self is saying that people believe technology can save us, and how we treat each other. Whether we are apart of some religion, sexuality, color of our skin, or gender. The reasons why people believe this is because technology has connected us all around the world and helped us to keep in contact and meet new people everyday. Then she goes on to tell her point of view that America is the land of opportunity but only for some people, by this she means Americans are self centered and only care about themselves. I believe this to be somewhat true. Also she talks about how America is completely based on gender roles, and how this is suppose to be the “melting pot” but how are we suppose to melt together as “one tribe” if still to this day we judge people by the color of their skin. Maybe what Self is saying is all one big generalization to some people but I agree with her. The times are changing America should change too.

Selfe - Brandon

In Cynthia Selfe's Paper, "Lest We Think A Revolution is A Revolution", she describes what the internet is supposed to do, and how that differs from its actual function. She describes the supposed land where everyone is equal as the "Global Village". The Global Village is a place where everyone is equal and free to share ideas. The "Electronic Colony", is where us, as Americans, are better than everyone else, and are sharing our technology with the "savage" people. The "Land of equal Opportunity" narrative is where, on the internet, everyone is the same, everyone is equal. The "Land of difference Narrative" is where bigger companies and more powerful people still have more say than the others. The final narrative, "The Un-Gendered Utopia" is described as men and women being the same on the internet, but the "Same Old Gendered Stuff" narrative describes how women are still expected to use technology for cooking and cleaning.
Selfe claims that "We cannot, indeed, even imagine, collectively, ways of relating to gender outside the context of our familiar historical and cultural set of experiences" (307), evidenced by the way women are still treated. They are still thought of as housewives and not members of society. Selfe also claims "Americans have no collective imaginary context for, or historical experience of a real global village, nor do they have any real experience with an undifferentiated land of opportunity"(304). She claims that the different graduation rates for black and white students, and the fences across the Mexican border show that we only want some people to prosper.

Summary on Cynthia L. Selfe's "Lest we think.." -emily

In Cynthia L. Selfe's "Lest we think the revolution is a revolution", I see Selfe as trying to explain that our recent technology is shaping how our world revolves. How we portray ourselves, and how we are portrayed or viewed. That with our technology we, men, women, black, white, are able to be equal, although the advertisements show a difference in this. Through the advertisements Selfe shows, we are reminded of an old America. An America where gender roles exist, where color matters. Women are sought out to be the homemaker, the sex. Men are the hard workers, the breadwinners, anything that they want to be. Cynthia also points out that the technology we have today is allowing us more freedom. Maybe to break away from the "old America". Students learn just as well by computers than sitting in a classroom. There is just as much or more that we can gain from the use of a computer. To me Cynthia Selfe's article is mostly about the way we are seen through this "revolution" and how we have grown as a society but to what extent?

She claims on page 304, "that America is the land of opportunity for only some people". Her reasoning behind this is the history of slavery, the graduation rates compared between blacks, whites, and Hispanics, the fact of never having a woman president, and the high security + barbed wire fences over the Rio Grande.
But Why should this be the case? Why should these be the reasons for why America is the land of opportunity for only some people?

Lia: a brief summary so far.

So, so far, I feel like Cynthia Selfe is really sending out this message that American's are these horrible people who only care about themselves and such. Which might be very well true, BUT at the same time that is a giant generalization because not all American's might feel this way. I know that this is her opinion of what the world is coming to but she should really be careful of what she is saying. Like when she says, "Unfortunately, if Americans have no collective imaginary context for, or historical experience of, a real global village, nor do they have any real experience with an undifferentiated land of opportunity. Our cultural experience, indeed, tells us something very different-that America is the land of opportunity only for some people." (page 304) Now, the last part of this super strong claim might as well be true, again though she is making these accusations at Americans. I feel like Selfe makes herself seem like she is better than everyone else, and I feel like she isn't. But I do condone her for her effort to make a point of the American persona. She also tends to contradict herself like for instance, "One of the most popular narratives Americans tell ourselves about computers is that technology will help us create a global village in which the people of the world are all connected-communicating with one another and cooperating for the commonweal....This story, as you can imagine, is appealing at a romantic level to many Americans. It is also, quite terrifying. Becoming just another member of the tribe, just another citizen of the global village, suggests the possibility that Americans could be asked to relinquish their current privileged status in the world." (page 294) What is this saying? We say that we want this united village, everyon live as one but it never happens. Because in all actuality that will never happen. I know that I am christian and I believe that ever since Adam and Eve bit from the forbidden fruit that any chance of world peace is demolished. The vision of this global village is an optimistic point of view and technology won't get us there no matter how much we try.

Reading Response #6

5/16/2010

Cai Pencil

Reading Response # 6

In a article published in The Atlantic Magazine titled “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower”, Professor X, a part time English Teacher, claims that as the modern economy requires an education, people have “social optimism in a large scale, the sense of college as both a universal right and need, financial necessity on the part of colleges and students alike, the desire to maintain high academic standards while admitting marginal students”. The “marginal students” are being misplaced and or was ill prepared in previous education and remain uninterested because it is a requirement for the degree they want to gain financially in their career and there for a high 9 of 15 fail X’s English 101 and 102 class. The school staff doesn’t seem to mention anything about this progress report pattern to Professor X. This seems to me that this failure rate is becoming the norm and is expected or maybe just that this particular staff does not care too much for student success. So even with social optimism to have college available to everyone while maintaining a “high academic standard” most people just seem uncommitted, uninterested, and undereducated.
I myself was extremely uninterested in education or even obtaining a degree or certificate for years after high school, but never the less very interested now at the age of 22. Even though I am going to school to obtain a technical degree in Instrumentation and Control, I still am quite interested in further education, I just figured I might as well choose a stable career to receive financial stability so I can have a rewarding career and have the financial ability to further educate myself which I hope will extend well past my technical degree. I personally believe that it is your current goals in life that determines if you are more or less interested in education. I only have explored my academic interest in the recent years after what I realized has to change in this world and in my own life to succeed personally and as a whole with the world. The need for everyone to contribute their cognitive power gained through experience and education is what we need in order to figure out a restructuring of basic functions in society which has destroyed the earth in recent generations. And this would be my personal reason in my interest in education. This still does not mean that other people will be as interested at all. As far as placement goes, I have to agree that most people are being misplaced in these classes, the reason how I’m not so sure of. It might be possible that their scores in previous education was sufficient, but their current state of being inactive in education may contribute the underachievement of X’s students. If it was not for my recent interest in education and the fact that I have read several college level books and text books in recent years, I probably would not have placed as high as I did (not that it was that high). So after my answer in my own reason for my interest in education, and my personal experience of taking a placement test and the recent academics that allowed me to place in this class, it brings me to agree with X’s complaint of students that the lack of commitment, interest, and education because they are just there to drive their financial success.

Reading Response #6 CP

After graduating high school or achieving a G.E.D., everyone has their own reasons for attending college. Some people continue their education straight out of high school on their parent’s dime, while others work and raise a family for fifteen years and are just now returning back to college to try and raise their “work value” for means of more profit. Whatever walk of life, Professor X who is an introductory English teacher to college writing, suggests in his/her article “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” which was published in The Atlantic online newspaper, that there are people “unfit for college: that they lack the most-basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; that they are in some cases barely literate”. I agree with Professor X’s theory that some people may be unfit for college, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe is that even though some individuals do lack the fundamental skills of college, it is not necessarily that a student is incapable of learning a new concept or learning how to use the textbooks boiled down series of steps, but rather the teacher or college provide better ground work to help improve their skill level to an appropriate level.
In Professor X’s article he describes a situation between him/her self and another student to whom he/her refers to as Ms. L., who is a 40 year old woman with no experience with computers and apparently is a little rusty on her English, in which he/her has to give Ms. L a failing grade because she “lacked the fundamental skills”. Needless to say Professor X knowingly gives the assignment to the Ms.L, requiring skills that she has yet to even try to grasp; such as using the internet or even using a keyboard for that matter. Professor X sitting down after class with Ms. L to briefly go over concepts of “how to use a computer” seemed like a rather ludicrous proposal because if Ms. L is obviously lacking the basic computer skills let alone the basic fundamental skills to write a proper college level English paper. There are several different ways to go about adjusting this situation so that something productive is accomplished; in the situation of Ms.L it may have been beneficial to start with ways to develop ideas for her writing and rather than making her use a tool such as a computer, I propose that Ms. L would been better off sticking to the very basic skills of writing that she already had a grasp on. Any student in a similar situation to this would greater benefit from such systems as “placement test”. Using placement test to evaluate a student’s current thinking level would eliminate such situations where a student is displaced into a class that is requires fundamental skills beyond that of the student, but through the evaluation would put students into classes that are equivalent to the students’ abilities. Such systems like this have already taken place at certain colleges around the country.

Reading Response #6

Victor Volz
May 17, 2010

In Professor X’s treatise, “From the Basement of the Ivory Tower”, we are given a perception about how his or her students in a small private college and community college, so-called “colleges of last resort” come into either an Introduction to College Writing (English 101) or Introduction to College Literature (English 102) class that he or she teaches, as prior failures of the academic system and remain in that position throughout the time spent in the course. This can be attributed to either lack of motivation, too many additional duties, or, in the worst-case scenario, handicapped intellectual parameters. In any case, the professor’s initial glee of teaching the class inevitably turns sour with sorrow when he or she has to give, on an average term basis, a failing grade to most of the students due to the foregoing reasons. Professor X rationalizes from this outlook that university education and the operation of thinking that lies behind it is not intended to be assumed by everybody, especially for those who haven’t already experienced it.

In a sense, I do assent with the core assertion that college and university education is not oriented in favor for straightforward assimilation by everyone or even that formal academic education and obligatory schooling itself is geared toward being easily performed by everyone. Academia usually attempts to apply an explicit scientific and scholarly mode of thinking for its students to inherit that may not actually be considered optimal to the learning process, in this case, individual styles of learning which may be more beneficial to teaching could be, ‘defenestrated’ by conventional academics, so to speak. The consequence is that it could even have the chance to eventually kill creativity and perhaps even genius-hood that may or may not normally be bred within the classroom environment, but of course, I digress.

Professor X later asserts that, “We think of college professors as being profoundly indifferent to the grades they hand out.” “Professors can fail these young people with emotional impunity because many such failures are the students’ own fault: too much time spent texting, too little time with the textbooks.” He or she later goes on to talk about how pedagogues in other academic fields of study that are grounded on empirical evidence and absolute fact and knowledge have a much easier time grading other students since the answers don’t require a subjective perspective or platform to evaluate others on, the answers are either completely right or entirely wrong and how it is not so with classes like English.

First of all, Professor X’s assumption that college professors are “indifferent” to what grades they give others may not necessarily be correct, unless he or she were to give some sort of a questionnaire or survey to figure what his or her colleagues true opinions about the subject really were. In fact, evidence of the opposite is provided just by Professor X’s thoughts that he or she portrays in and of itself. He or she has become distraught by giving others failing grades, even if they were ‘trying their best'. This cites a definite example of caring and concern on the part of his or her interest in other student’s progression or regression in scholastic work, whether or not this is the genuine norm for other teachers and instructors alike to behave remains yet to be validated however. Professor X also directly blames cell phone use and lack of textbook browsing time to be the key causes of this issue. But once again, this isn’t necessarily the case, there could be many extenuated factors involved with this ineffective studying process, such as, under-explanation of a specific subject, too much extra work and responsibilities, or other distractions.

Professor X wants to see these students succeed but doesn’t want to delegitimize the grades being handed out in order give his or her students a false sense of accomplishment and triumph, which would denigrate and cheapen the successful grade for those few students who actually were able to conquer the college criteria with exceptional ability. Professor X proclaims that some students, if not most, “can’t” finish college with outstanding marks, meaning that it’d be nearly impossible to do so since if everyone did, then the marks wouldn’t be considered ‘outstanding’, they’d just be, ordinary.

In regards to Professor X’s previous remarks about the near impossibility of a majority of the student body being outstanding in education, I believe that it all depends on how the grading system works at those particular college courses, are the classes graded on a bell curve, or are they graded by pre-established criterions that aren’t to be reassessed based on the scores of measures of central tendency that students acquire? If it is the former, then yes, it would reasonably unattainable to have more than a few spectacular students in a class at any one time. But, if it is the latter, which it probably should be, and while the grades may not be ‘outstanding’ in the purest sense, then the grades are nonetheless, excellent.

All in all, while Professor X’s dreary viewpoint may be dismally enlightening, I think he has left a lot of information out about his or her profession that could be said as equally enchanting and gratifying. Granted, community colleges, technical colleges, and the like, may not necessarily bring the best of the brightest groups of people to engage in academic rigor and practice, but they certainly do lend a helping hand to those who are in dire need of academic assistance in an age where education and credentials is now becoming a paramount significance and facet in order to thrive in the occupational world.

Reading Response #6 In The Basement of The Ivory Tower

"In The Basment of The Ivory Tower," an article by Professor X, shows how there are more students in University these days, who don't have a clue what they're doing there.
In his essay, Professor X states, "Remarlably few of my students can do well in these classes, students routinely fail; some multiple times and some will never pass, because they cannot write a coherent sentence." Basically, Professor X is saying that college isn't for everyone.
Professor X is an adjunct instructor, and according to him, "The adjunct instructor, who by the nature of his job, teaches the worst students." He goes on to explain, "For I, who teach these low-level, must-pass, no-multiple-choice-test classes, am the one who ultimately delivers the news to those nonfit for college: that they lack the most-basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; that they are in some cases barely literate... They are not ready for high school, some of them much less than college."
Also, Professoor X seems to have human qualities, whereas he really wants to give students the grades they think they have earned, yet his job won't allow it. "I gave Ms. L. the F and slept poorly that night. Some of the failing grades I issue gnaw at me more than others... She had failed not, as ssome students do, by being absent too often or by blowing off assignments. She simply was not qualified for college. What exactly, I wondered, was I grading. I thought briefly of passing Ms. L., of slipping her the old gentleman's C-minus, but I couldn't do it..."
Some students are very happy that there even in college, they figure that because they're there, their work should be college material, even if it isn't. Alot of students only choose to go to college, because they can, not because of academics. And older students think that school will be a breeze, and then they realize, "Damn, I was wrong."
I agree that older students need to try harder, like the younger students do, because my experience shows me that I came in expecting a cake walk, or an easy time, and instead got in way over my head, which confirms it. I didn't realize being a full time student would be a large pain, welcome to college life, but on a more positve note, if 2 of my classes weren't English, I'd probably be doing much better.

Reading Response #6

Brittany Ross

At the 2006 TED conference, Sir Ken Robinson gave a speech titled “How Schools Kill Creativity”. In a lecture that is both funny and captivating, he proceeds to explain his theory that schools squash our creativity as we move through the education system. One of his central claims seems to be that “if you are not prepared to be wrong, you will never come up with anything original”. He explains that children are not naturally afraid of being wrong, yet we “stigmatize mistakes” and teach children a fear of being incorrect. Robinson explains that we do this by putting such an emphasis on the subjects like math and language, and then sticking the arts are at the bottom of the priority list, and states that this happens in nearly every education system on Earth. The whole education system was created to meet the needs of industrialism, where the most important subjects for getting a job are on top of a hierarchy, and the other, creative subjects are pushed to the bottom because we have the idea that jobs don’t come out of those subjects of study. This, is not the case anymore; Robinson states that world is in the middle of a revolution, and implies that jobs in these subjects are not impossible, which is the opposite of what is engraved into our minds from an early age. Robinson goes on the claim that “we are educating people out of their creative capacities.” He says, “Nobody has a clue what the world will look in five years time, and yet, we are meant to be educating them for it.” In closing his speech, he says that we need to reform our ideas about education, and build up the “richness of human capacity. This, Robinson says, is our only hope for the future.

Although I agree with most of Robinson’s points, my experience in school seems to have been a little different. Maybe the high school I went to was unique in the fact that it celebrated the arts. We had a plethora of art classes that varied from photography, to theater, to drawing, to dance, and included several others. Students who chose to take these classes were not looked down on or thought less of by the students who took advantage of the traditional “intellectual” studies and who participated in programs such as IB, let alone the teachers. Perhaps my high school is seeking to do what Ken Robinson spoke about in 2006, but it seemed to be as I described throughout the years I was there; there was no need to shift the focus. I realize that in most schools, it is as Robinson described, but I don’t think that I was exposed to it as some kids are. In high school, it honestly felt like I could succeed in area I wanted, no matter if that subject be math, or photography. I felt comfortable in my decision to take multiple art classes, and drop math. I pursued what I wanted, and that should be the case in every school around the globe.

killing creativity

Aaron Noice
English 100
Reading Response 6

Do schools dampen creativity? Do they teach you to think logically only without the slightest hint of being creative? Sir Ken Robinson thinks so, and in a funny but intriguing lecture, he believes that we are all born into creativity and schools squash it out of us. In his lecture he is advocating for a change in our schools, that they need to fuel the creative thoughts and not hide them away. As he so boldly puts it ‘all kids have tremendous talents, and we squander them, ruthlessly’ and that ‘creativity now is as important now in education as literacy and we should treat it as the same status.’ He pushes that we are born with creativity and as we go through our education it is silenced. That our world is now a place where you can’t be wrong, were that is not an option. Through this he claims that through school we learn not to be wrong, and that in order to be creative, you have to be willing to take that chance of being wrong, in order to think up something original. This is done through a global problem with schools, that every education system throughout the world has the same standards for education, that math, reading and science with arts at the very bottom, that even within the arts, only music and drawing as being important, with drama and dance at the lowest. He supports this by saying that ‘there were no public systems before the 19th century, the all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism’ and that the ‘most useful subjects for work were at the top’ so for most you would be turned away from what you liked, that the creative parts of life weren’t useful and there were no jobs for it.
This, is crazy, after hearing Ken Robinsons lecture, I was immediately brought back to my early school years, from kindergarten onwards. For me, what he says is surely right, my early years of education is where I can remember having the most creative classes, before 5th grade there was music and arts classes, a lot of drawing as a young kid, but as I got older, and my mind was able to comprehend math and reading and logic, it wasn’t long before I had forgotten all about art and music classes. The further into school the more time I had to spend with reading and writing, when Ken Robinson talked about how art classes were on the bottom of the education priority, it clicked with my own schooling. The only times I could have art classes were the few electives I got each year, which was maybe 2 at most, compared to 4 other classes of English, math and science. Each semester in high school I had one art class, and thinking back, I feel like, as Ken Robinson put it school has had my ‘talents’ and they were ‘squandered ruthlessly.’ Now I play music, but that wasn’t something I started until I was around 12, just getting into middle school where I opted out of the music classes already, I was persuaded to start playing by my friends, which is where I felt like I learned most of my ideas and creativity, which was far away from school.

Dylan Daugherty Selfe Summary

In Cythia Selfe's essay, "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution," The author reveals Americans are representing themselves incorrectly in advertisements, television, and internet ads. although generally America is believed to be a land of profit, economical steadiness, and pure power this is is not exactly true. america is not as beautiful as the ads generated in the public portray it. Selfe believes that Americans claim that technology will help us bring the world together and join the world's hands together in a "global village". As many people and sources have stated, 20 percent or less of the world consumes 80 percent of the resources gathered from earth. We try to portray an "electronic colony" that includes everyone and welcomes people to join. This colony is also exoctic and unknown. Ads use this device to entice people and gain a following. In a world of consumers where all the resources are being used up how can we be in an "equal Village?" This is an especially important fact to mention when the U.S. is only here today because of the settlers use of slaves in the begining of our country.
Also Selfe identifies another narrattive, the ungendered utopia. Through technology women are no longer subjected to certain careers and have the freedom to do any job. This narrative is also untrue because even today women make less per every dollar a man earns. Even though this fact is unmoral, and wrong it is true.
Selfe is concerned about the way we use media to portray images and archetypes through advertisement. Since we are bombarrded with so much of this propoganda are we just being brainwashed?

America is only a land of equal opportunity for some people. This is true because of the use of slavery in early america.

This landscape [Technology]americans like to believe is open to everybody, Is a romantic retelling of the american dream. She's saying that technology is being said to be equal and free just like immigrants were told america was equal and free.

Ads show people who are lesser than us, to exhibit a reaction. They use an ad of a person of the yoawani tribe to sell Cds.

Summary on Selfe's "Lest we think...." be Elizabeth Blake

A) In Cynthia L. Selfe's essay "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution: Images of Technology and the Nature of Change" Selfe tries to show the American public, and more specifically, students and teachers of English the effects of technology and communication in modern times and how it effects the field of English Studies. Selfe believes that we Americans hope that technology will fix everything, and we aren't entirely wrong: Lowering budgets in schools have been an issue for some time, but thanks to the versatility of technology students are still able to have access to almost all of the tools that would have been in a traditional classroom through the use of computers at a fraction of the cost to school districts. One more thing Selfe finds worth discussion is the impact of images, and the cultural connotations that they carry. Computers are helping to terminate long lived cultural issues like racism and xenophobia through the use of the internet and television programs. Selfe urges us to see the real life benefits of the new technologies, and she's got a damned good point.

B) Selfe points out that xenophobia is being eliminated through the use of "The Electronic Colonial Narrative in programs like Virgin Sound & Record's "One Tribe" which allows western culture to learn about other cultures from the safety of their own living rooms. Selfe's definition of The Electric Colonial narrative hits fearfully close to home.
Selfe claims that Americans toady would rather conform to some pre-determined idea of what a man or woman should be than explore new roles for their gender to play. Selfe insists that these ideas are re-enforced repetitively in magazines and advertisements, casting women as home-makers, the beauty, the seductress and men as the bread-winner, the athlete, the nerd, the biker. She supports this with advertisements that are cohesive to her claim.

Summary of Carr's "Is google making us stupid?" by Elizabeth Blake

1) In Nicholas Carr's essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" expresses his deep concern of the use of the internet and how it is effecting his brain. Carr feels like he has built a habit of skimming articles for research online as a frequent user and essayist, he has built such a strong habit of this that he can now no longer have the patience to sit down and read an actual book, for it lacks the instant gratification he is so used to from using the internet. "The net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation." Carr confesses. The internet is changing the way it's users minds process information. Carr furthers this thought with the euphamisim "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski." Carr cautions readers to be weary of his speculations, stating that all through history change in technology has been thought of as a bad thing and now that we can look back and observe the effects of things like the printing press, which were thought in their time to be the end of intelect as they knew it, and how these discoveries have improved our society. With this said, Carr still feels the need to voice his concern, even if time will prove him wrong.
Carr uses internet giant, Google, to create a widely recognizable example of the effects of internet usage and the unperceived cost its users are paying. Carr decides to try to scare us in to opening our eyes by telling us that Google essetially wants to replace all of our brains with high functioning super computers, and that society would be better off for it. This comical take on the socialization of the internet is extreme, but not with out foundation. Google has been quoted that they beleive society would be better of with "supplimented" minds and that they are ligitimately working on artificial intellegence on a large scale. Though it's practical applications have yet to be revealed. Speculation reigns supreme in the mind of Carr, our resident doomsdayer once again confirming that fear of the unknown is alive and well.


2) There were a few points in Nicolas Carr's essay "Is Google making us stupid?" that really made me wary of his motives. Firstly, Carr brings up the idea of "knowledge as power" like it was his own original idea. He in no way addresses it's commonality even though it is something that I personally have heard since childhood. This seems a little off since Carr goes out of his way to cite multiple sources, but this is chump change, Carr also cites the works of Richard Foreman who believes we are being drained of our "inner repertory of dense cultural heritage." This statement really makes me wonder what Foreman and in turn Carr are trying to say about our society. It is my understanding that Christianity has played a heavy role in the history of our country, and if losing touch with a belief system that was so vastly intertwined with everything known before... I'm not so sure if this essay was written for people like me. I feel Carr could have made much better use of his quotations, not ended up playing the fool and alienating his readers.

Selfe Summary - Darci Peterson

In Cythia Selfe's essay, "Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution," she is claiming that we, as Americans, are representing ourselves inaccurately in our medias and advertisements. America is known to be a diverse land of opportunity where eveyone is equal, Selfe is saying that we reflect the opposite.

One of the things she talks about is Americans and their claim that technology will help us unite the world like one big village. Underprivledged people in the world could become more like Americans. We know this not to be true; Selfe brings to awarness, " twenty percent of the population uses up eighty percent of the resources" (par. 12). The way we display this global village is by creating what Selfe calls a electronic colony. It appears to unite the world but at the same time turns the unknown people into exotics, savages, and even objects. It grabs our interest and that is all that matters to companies.

Another thing Selfe brings to disscussion is that our land of equal opportunity is only equal for some people. Technology is suppose to be there for everyone regardless of race, gender, or class. She says, " Our cultral experience, indeed tells us something different-that America is the land of eqal opprtunity only for some people" (par. 41). Selfe explains the may differences America has offered between people as far as histoy goes back. America's history of slavery, woman's suffrage, labor unions, and current experience with poverty are to name a few. Due to the lack of colored people, family types, and class, we are setting ourselves up for a land of difference. Someone who did not know America supported those things would not know, to them it would appears as though America was a bunch of white families, well off, with a mother and a father and about two kids. Selfe believes this is an inaccurate reprsentation of America and if we want to make change so life is equal for everyone, we need to show people including Americans, what it looks like.

With that, Selfe says that the un-gendered utopia we claim to have created, does not exist for we still have gender based roles and traits and it is represented in the media. "Men use technolgy to accomplish things; women benfit from technology to enhance the ease of their lives or to benefit their family" (par. 51). This alone shows what a person on the computer does based upon gender in the eyes of America. It is show in adverisements as well. There is lack of single fathers or woman who work hard to name a couple. Gender roles are very defined as we claim otherwise.

Selfe is claiming through technology we are showing a misrepresetation of what America is claiming to be. If America wants to represent the qualities it claims, it needs to first show it though the media before Americans will began to further accept these changes. Maybe then America will think about a global village, a land of equal opportunity, or an un-gendered utopia.

Summary Cynthia Selfe Meagan Cronin

Part A: In Cynthia L. Selfe’s essay, “Least We Think the Revolution is a Revolution Images of Technology and the Nature of Change” she states how technology is becoming so used now of days. She also contradicts herself very much. Cynthia Selfe states “Quite simply put, like many Americans, we hope computers can help us make the world a better place in which to live.”(pg293) Basically she is saying how Americans rely on computers so much to help us in our daily lives, but also to help other countries get better medicine or giving a computer to a less privileged child in Africa. She then begins to describe how even though we use technology so much and we love almost everything that it does we cannot be too careful in fully trusting computers. “This optimism about technology often masks in a peculiar way, however a contrasting set of extremely potent fears.” (pg 293) In her next chapter Cynthia describes how Americans tell each other how we hope that “technology will help create a global village in which the peoples of the world are all connected-communicating with one another and cooperating for the commonweal.” (pg 294) Basically what Selfe is saying is that things like mountains and ocarinas will not be in the way for people to communicate in other countries. The internet is going “to erase meaningless geographical borders, eliminate racial and ethnical differences, re- establish a historical family which binds people together…”(pg 294) As Selfe goes on she brings up pictures of advertising and she analyzes them. What most of the companies are doing are trying to related to the consumer. In this essay Cynthia is contradicting almost everything that she says. She feels that many women are taken advantage of and there is a certain stereo type about some women, that does not include gays or people of color. “To enrich the lives of their family and to meet their responsibilities at home…” (pg 307) What Selfe is trying to get across when she says this is that women are “supposed” to be able to have dinner on the table by 5:00 and take care of the house and the children while the husband it at work. Well now of days there is so many single parents both mothers and fathers that advertising is getting to the point where they need to sell to those certain people.
Part B: “We believe strongly in the beneficial ways that technology promises to improve our lives. At other levels, we fear the effects of technology, and the potent changes that it introduces into familiar systems.” (pg 292) Selfe uses evidence like when she is explaining how we use technology so much, and we think it is such a great thing that we are afraid to let it totally take over.
“They are laden with cultural information, shot through with the values, ideological positions, and social understandings that comprise our shared experience.” (pg 294) The evidence that Selfe uses is how when we watch a commercial Americans can break down the commercial to the point where they completely understand what it is saying. “..because we commonly construct meaning with and through them, because they are so loaded with social significance to us….” (pg 294)

Do Schools Kill Creativity? Sir Ken Robinson

Sir Ken Robinson’s talk, entitled “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” was not only entertaining, it was mesmerizing. He speaks exactly how I think, what I call “A.D.D. ing out” Our students really need more adversaries like him. Every time we turn around, we hear about some form of creativity being yanked from our public schools, primarily the art and music programs. Locally we are hearing that children have to pay money to participate in after school sports, which could definitely create a negative down spiral. Those who can’t afford may end up spending that time and energy doing things they shouldn’t.

Ken reminds us how important it is to not be frightened of being wrong, how vital it is to take chances, “if you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.” We would live in a different world if people like the Wright brothers had been afraid to be wrong. Our fasted mode of transportation might be trains!

The claim of his talk was that, we are really hurting the future by making academics the focus of education, while creativity is either dead last or extinct in the school systems. This doesn’t apply exclusively to children who have ADHD, this applies to all students. Every student needs balance in their curriculum, to not only exercise their brains, but to also have an outlet for stress and expression. This is similar to the idea of taking small breaks at an office job and doing stretches. This helps you to stay alert and present.

I felt that he was dead on when he speaks of educating for a time that we can’t predict. “If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue…..what the world will look like in five years’ time. And yet we’re meant to be educating them for it. So the unpredictability…. is extraordinary.” Basically, Ken is asking, how can we know what education experiences children really need, who are going to live in a world we can’t even foresee?

I completely agree with Ken’s opinions, because of the experience my daughter Susan has had. She started out in a Montessori school in Hawaii, where creativity leads. She was the model student and excelled until we had to switch to a public school system here in Bellingham. Even though she maintained her A status, her best work was anything she could put her creative spin on. Her work was used as examples by the teachers who marveled at how far she pushed the art portion of the assignments. When she got into high school, she started to tumble down the slippery slope. She exited high school mid junior year and got her GED. She is now a full time graphic design student @ WCC and loves school. It wasn’t that she couldn’t do the math or English, it was that there wasn’t any balance for her. Sitting idle through four 90 minute classes a day, with minimal stimuli didn’t work for her. She is completely involved and valued in her art classes.

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower Premise Analysis

Aaron, Amanda, Brittany, Victor
May 14, 2010

Professor X makes a large amount of assumptions and premises throughout the course of the essay. A few of the most notable are the following: First off, Professor X claims that for many of his students, college was not a goal they spent years preparing for, and also adds that those he teaches don’t come up in the debates about adolescent overachievers and cutthroat college admissions and further on added that they take course like English 101 or English 102 because they were coerced to do so, and not simply out of enjoyment. This necessarily isn’t a premise but could be purely factual if he or she had verified or pre-determined the information by giving a student questionnaire or survey about their enthusiasm, commitment, and whether or not they chose the class, not out of necessity, but purely pleasure.

Another questionable presumption made by Professor X is when he states that, “We think of college professors as being profoundly indifferent to the grades they hand out.” “Professors can fail these young people with emotional impunity because many such failures are the students’ own fault: too much time spent texting, too little time with the textbooks.” Again, unless Professor X actually had continuous, scrupulous correspondence with other academic professors’ thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and as well understands the underlying causes respective of this issue, he or she is only trying to predicate their supposed ideas that could be completely untrue as far as we concerned.

Amber
Martin
Kai
Joey

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower

One of his premises is that some of the students are there to go further on their work environment. They are going to night school because they have day jobs. Municipal employers require college level certification to advance in the work force. He talks about teaching young men who have to acquire a certain number of credits before they can get a job, such as police officers. He implies that students go to college not because they feel the need to get a higher education, but simply because they want to be able to get jobs that require a certain amount of college education. Some students go back to school to get better jobs but they only work to do well because they wanted to get their tuition reimbursed. Also, some people only go back to school to better themselves and to prove to themselves that they can actually do it. But as it turns out some people go back and fail. He gives an example of how he graded Ms. L. He states, “I thought of slipping her the old gentle women’s C-minus, but I couldn’t do it. I would be eroding the standards of the school for which I worked.” Also, he assumes that most of his students are only going back to college simply because they want to be able to feel secure for the future. The students don’t want to be financially insecure, thus they feel going back to school and getting a diploma will act as a safety net for them in the future. In a nut shell, he believes his students go to school for economical reasons.

Reasoning Back to Premises

“In the Basement of the Ivory Tower”
Group #5 Premise
Cai, Christian, Hannah, and Ellie


We gather that what Professor X is saying is that basically students are, for the most part, uninterested in the education that is required for vocational training. Also those students are being placed incorrectly in classes and therefore are being far too challenged to perform well. It is not that the students aren’t trying to perform well, but rather that they are confused about what is required of them. We believe that he could be arguing that college may not be for everyone. This may be due in part to the structure of the classes. In biology, for example, you are evaluated on a “what is right and wrong” standard such as multiple answer questions. On the other hand an English class must grade you a bit differently because we all write uniquely and someone must be the judge of our prose. This is a pressure for teachers because they must qualify the value of your writing and this can be a burden for them. Students are required to take English courses 101 as well as 102, and not always because they want to. In fact you could be attending college in order to become a police officer, but you still have to take these required courses. Many students are so pressured in college that they simply boil over. Professor X writes, “The colleges and the students and I are bobbing up and down in a great wave of societal forces—social optimism on a large scale, the sense of college as both a universal right and a need, financial necessity on the part of the colleges and the students alike, the desire to maintain high academic standards while admitting marginal students—that have coalesced into a mini-tsunami of difficulty.” Basically what Professor X is saying is that we are surrounded by difficulties pressured by societal optimism. These pressures do not allow us to properly achieve our goals for our lives in the future. Professor X assumes that most people are in school because they are tied to it economically. If they did not have to strive to get ahead in this world and in our society they would much rather spend their time, and their money doing something else. But since our society does not allow us the freedom to do as we desire we must go on with our day to day lives of educating ourselves in order to be a step ahead of the ones that are walking behind us.

In the Basement of the Ivory tower

From the Basement of the Ivory Tower, Professor X
Sheila, Kelly & Chris
“ Our textbook boils effectively writing down to a few steps. It devotes pages and pages to the composition of a compare-and-contrast with lots of examples and tips and checklists.” How do you grade a writing assignment? Then it was graded by punctuation, grammar, sentence structure. Now it is graded on thought and how you addressed the assignment. Now you need to use your own thought and not just summarize the subject.
Premise that everyone had read several books that should have been read in high school, but actually the only one everyone knew of was Wizard of Oz. They know the jist of the story. “The intellectually ambitious scarecrow proudly mangles the Pyhtagorean theorem and is awarded a questionable diploma in a dreamland for removed from reality.”

Professor X Premises

Professor X assumes that college students in community colleges doesn’t have good grades and doesn’t have extracurricular actives on their transcripts and that many students don’t turn in their assignments because they are busy texting. He believes that his students aren’t interested in the topic or class and are only there because they need the class to graduate or as a prerequisite. When referring to biology teachers, he believes that it easier for them to grade papers because they only give out multiple choice tests, where as for English teachers, its harder to grade papers. Professor X assumes his audience is going to has read all of the books that he refers to such as Malcolm X, Steinbach, and the Invisible Man. He also assumes that older people take night classes because they work all day and have hectic lives during the day and night classes might be the only time to take night classes. He assumes that people in night classes are only there for economic reasons and that they are there because they screwed up in life.

Andrea
Chandra
David
Pinky

Lest we Think the Revolution is a Revolution Imgages of Tecnology and Nature of Change

In Selfe’s essay,” Lest we think that Revolution is Revolution” from pages 309 – 322 she discusses the role of woman in society and how they are portrayed. The roles of women reflect the historical background for women. For example, women are used for their beauty to sell things instead of being the one that actually created them. In paragraph two on page 15 she states that, “ Finally, the 1990’s retro series offers Americans the role of seductress – also traditionally defined role for women, and one that has retained enormous strength even in cyberspace where change is expected to affect so many areas of our lives.” To me this quote means that women are the only ones used by sexual means to sell items. They are the ones wearing a black dress and jewels to show beauty to attract an audience and have people remember the product, when really what they are wearing has nothing to do with what they are selling. Along with the women being portrayed so are the men. The men are seen more as a business man and a worker with their suits and ties looking professional. Occasionally men will be viewed sexually as a mechanic, nerd, biker or professional. In most cases men are viewed as the money making CEO of a major company. With men being portrayed as the business man it infers that men are more successful than women are in the work place. On page 321 first paragraph it states that,” It is far easier and more comfortable simply to re-construct for ourselves those traditional narratives that tell the same old gender stories over and over again, and that re-create the status quo every more clearly in their re-telling.” From my point of view this means that people who are in charge of advertisements take the easy way out and put the women in their advertisements as the sexual object or like in the past where they are portrayed as housewives that clean and cook.

Selfe Review (so far)

Having read through most of Selfe’s Essay, I can safely say that it touches on a lot of subject matter that is relevant to today, even though it was written in in the 90’s. For one it touches on the duality of man regarding technology. On half of any group of people can and probably will say both technology is a godsend and that it is a curse, making people lazy and more dependant on today’s advances.

She also talks about how contrary to the mass media’s belief; technology will not bring us together in a digital utopia. Bringing people together from across the globe will not magically make all our problems disappear; it will only magnify the issues. Plus, by bringing people together in a “global Village” we are merely exchanging geographic distances for moral and psychological distances.

Hopefully I will have time to further post on this blog as I read.

Technological Revolution p. 292-294 Slavik Shportko

1. Teachers have to update class technology in order to keep students interested.
2. Technology us becoming more expensive. Also, teachers have to reform their curriculum in order to introduce the technology. In addition, teachers must educate students to use the new technology.
3. Americans believe that technology is very helpful and convenient. However, there are thoughts about computers being dangerous for our future. The question that rises is: will we regret later?
4. Over the decade from 1990-2000 the technology became a large part of the English curriculum, which provided students enthusiasm to study English.
5. Al Gore (Vice President) realized that technology is able to provide people communication with foreigners. In addition, many businesses and government are accessed easier through technology.
6. Americans are frightened about the reformation into the technological world. In fact, some people are putting quite of effort to prevent the transition. Furthermore, reactions of those who are not willing to transition are something to look at.
7. The technology for us Americans provides so much, that we are just amazed at our technology. Technology is all about what we Americans value, and think. In addition, we realize that technology is something that we are in need of. Advertisements in this article are reflecting how technology is truly our.

American today feel undecided about technological reformation.

Author states “At one level, we believe in the pairing; we believe in the computer’s power, and we believe strongly in the beneficial ways that technology promises to improve our lives.” (292) Cynthia L. Selfe
The author sates that we think that technology is assisting us. However, is there any part of technology that is brings us any disadvantage?