A Reminder

More than for this class or my colleagues, this post is for me. Today I gave a rant about how I've changed my perception about professorship in the last six months and what it means to be happy. Despite having pondered this a lot it was the first time that I gave form to all these thoughts and it was healthy and good. I am going to, more or less, rewrite what I said in class two hours ago (accompanied with some sources to consider because, hey, I'm a scholar). This is to give me something to come back to on those days when I'm thinking "What the hell am I doing with my life?"
So, Here goes:

Kyle, you want to be a professor because you love teaching, research, and collaborative environments and you think the university is an institution that makes the world a better place. For one to have that goal does not mean that he or she is locked into that path in their career or life forever, that altering one's course becomes a type of failure, or that your life will never be as good as it was if you had pursued that path and acquired that tenured position.

There are some potential downsides to pursuing this path too far:

• The academic landscape is changing: the job market is flooded and desirable positions are shrinking. Even if you were to get the job you want the way academia changes over the next ten years might turn the job you want into the job that you are okay with having.
• Getting that tenure position may very well mean leaving Saskatchewan, even Canada, behind for the majority of your adult life. You have to consider whether or not this conflicts with the perceptions you have had about having kids and raising a family in similar conditions to the ones you grew up in.
• The scariest version of this path that you can imagine is one where you chase after tenure track positions for over a decade while picking up sessional work to make ends meet. In this version of the future you never achieve job stability or a decent pay, you are forced to move frequently (along with your wife and kids), and you are so overworked that you never seem to have time for you friends, family, or other passions.

Here's the thing, your training and skill set make you a marketable employee: you are trained in effective communication (oral and written), research methods, and critical analysis. Your volunteer experiences have taught you how to collaborate with others and you are able to lead people in a way that uses their strengths to the benefit of the group. You also have basic programming skills, a foundational understanding of database creation and management, and will have accumulated various other tech-relevant skills by the end of this year. That last set of skills are particulars that you can use at the moment but, perhaps more important, the time that you have spent learning has made you into a quick learner able to grasp concepts rather quickly and you could efficiently (with some effort) acquire the programming skills required for a particular task because of that.

In short, you're an adaptable individual suited to many different careers and the most important thing you need to consider when pursuing any career is 'does it fulfill me and make me happy?'

If it does this while allowing you to provide for yourself and your family, then great!

If it doesn't, maybe you need to reevaluate the path you're on.

travel.path

if path == "bad":

    for i in job_opportunities:

        explore(i)

        if i == "good"

             path = i

travel.path

(a little python humour for you all).

Here are some articles to consider (some of which were readings) as well as some alt-ac and just plain alt careers to consider (I will continue to add over the course of the semester):

#alt-academy
A real possibility (article)
Humanities Unbound
Versatile PhD
Intelligence agencies are always looking for good researchers

Rhetorical Devices in (Multi)Media and the Danger of Uncritical Analysis

I've recently become much more aware of the rhetorical devices being used (on both sides) of the media:
The simplest way of describing a rhetorical device appears in the OED: a means of expressing an argument "in terms intended to persuade or impress; spec. composed or expressed in extravagant and grandiloquent language, as opposed to being soberly stated or argued."

Here are some examples:

News outlets such as Fox News are frequently guilty of using a tagline to implicate subjects in their newsreels while creating a slightly more subtle argument that might be conceived as credible under a different context. One instance, though not from Fox, I noted on my Facebook feed last week was this article, which features an interview with Muslim extremist Anjem Choudary. This interview in and of itself only proves that Anjem Choudary holds the extremist beliefs that many already knew him to have. Unfortunately, the website that features the video has the giant tagline "At least One Muslim is Telling the Truth..."

This is no less than a xenophobic suggestion that all muslims ascribe to Choudary's militant version of Islam and any who do not are only pretending so that they can better deceive you. That rhetorical device can change this video into hateful fear-mongering. So can qualifiers such as this (the Facebook status accompanying the video when I first saw it):

"This is not a hate post. This is not a racist post. This is not an ignorant post. And this is not a bigotry post. This is relaying a news article that shows some pretty scary stuff."

Except that when one visits the page this website comes from the video is clearly part of a hate post.

These rhetorical devices are not used by any one political alignment either. Everybody implements rhetoric to make their points more persuasive.

A problematic argument used in the last few weeks by many on the other side of the political spectrum is the comparisons of Syrian refugees to Jewish people fleeing the holocaust. This syllogism to operate on the premises that both of these groups of refugees exist/existed in similar circumstances. Fair enough, but when somebody introduces this comparison into an argument as a meme that cannot encapsulate the complexity needed to navigate such a comparison far too much of the point is lost (Right, Left). Furthermore, by making the Jewish people the symbolic centre of such an argument we lose sight of the fact that these refugees are human beings caught up in circumstances requiring humanitarian aid in their own right. This crisis does not need its severity weighed against the Holocaust to be given legitimacy.

US Jul ’38: What’s your attitude towards allowing German, Austrian & other political refugees to come into the US? pic.twitter.com/7hMfLbXWFE

— Historical Opinion (@HistOpinion) November 16, 2015

Understand that I do not believe that these two examples are the 'same' on any grounds other than that they are rhetorical devices employed where real discussion needs to take place.

The problem is that when people use these cheap devices in an argument we end up discussing the particulars of these problematic statements or devices and diffusing either ignorant or deliberate misinformation rather than actual issues such as how we carry out this humanitarian work safely and effectively for all those involved. Just as we cannot responsibly present data as scholars without context and critical interpretation, we cannot consume this material without engaging with it critically and there is an obligation to debunk and unpack unfair or simplified statements.

The point is, when David Cameron refers to refugees as a swarm, when Fox news offers a video of people on a Train yelling 'Allahu Akbar' with the caption Terrorists inbound, or an argument prefaces itself with the ideas that we live in free a country and everybody has their own opinion before spewing a hateful message, we need to recognize that these are varying degrees of rhetoric that are somewhat easier to conceal within media that appeal to multiple senses at once. In this age of information overload we are susceptible to these techniques and may end up passively absorbing them if we don't make a point of outing them. This goes doubly so for blatantly ignorant or hateful speech (on both sides of the political spectrum) in social media. We have an obligation to voice our dissatisfaction with speeches of this nature.

John Oliver on Fox's refugee coverage 

We cannot stop rhetoric, nor should we want to. But we can point out when rhetoric is being abused for an agenda and we have an obligation to. It is understandable to want to be able to deliver one's argument in a single, pithy punchline. But in an age where the kernel of evidence that we seek can be filtered through layers of these rhetorical devices we have to be conscious of them. As digital humanists we have to ensure that we can discuss the issues themselves rather than merely getting sidetracked by the particulars of rhetoric and we need to be conscious how new media allows people to implement it in new ways.

Finally, a treat for reading the serious content this week.

Anonymous Intervention

I love how the internet quickly proposed alt. flag filters.

(Source)

(Source)

In the first half of class we talked a lot about the Paris attacks and the digital expressions of empathy for victims of the attack and how non-Western tragedies tend to be left out of such social media trends, sometimes by  those controlling social media and not just the people using it. I think that these are important lessons to learn and that our empathy for Beirut and other places in the world that suffer terrorist attacks on a more regular basis only should only increase our understanding of the dire situations many people live in and strengthen our resolve to help refugees after an event such as the attacks that took place in Paris last Friday.

(Source)

(Source)

(Source)

Then we moved into somewhat murkier territory: online terrorism, Anonymous (which I am more inclined to consider a loose association of hackers as opposed to an actual organization), and what it means to be a criminal (though this seemed to be more of an undercurrent to me). I contemplated this topic for some time that day and, later this week, it was reported that Anonymous shut down as many as 5500 ISIS-associated Twitter accounts. This is the kind of  news that causes one to immediately smirk and think good things about Anonymous. They're actually doing something! But then I started to think "What, exactly, is Anonymous doing?" First, let's admit we were operating on some assumptions on Monday. People were saying that ISIS doesn't use Twitter and other social media. If that's true, then what did Anonymous do exactly? Something pretty superficial at best. But this isn't the case. The bad news is that what Anonymous did is still probably a poor judgment call. Let's work from the assumption that ISIS and their supporters uses Twitter and other social media, as with the accused in this case in America. Now let us also assume the American and other national intelligence agencies have sound surveillance on social media, which they do. These agencies also probably have the means to do what Anonymous did (even though some may want to argue that they cannot do so as efficiently). Why wouldn't they do it then? 

I think Alan Turing has the answer:

When the Germans' infamous Enigma code was finally cracked by Turing and his team in 1941 (with considerable help from Polish codebreakers) British Intelligence did not immediately start thwarting every plan the Nazi armies put into motion. Uncovered intel was used sparingly in order to not let on that the source of Allied intelligence was a broken Enigma code.

If terrorists were openly distributing information of any kind over social media, media vulnerable to surveillance efforts, why would someone destroy that means of communication and force them to use less easily observed modes of communicating? How are those 5500 Twitter users going to communicate now?

Anonymous, in its show of force, may have just complicated many security agencies' abilities to observe ISIS communication. 

This is a potential problem of vigilantism, especially in a global, digital age. Vigilantes frequently have less information readily available to them and make small decisions that can have greater ramifications, winning a battle but damaging a war effort. Moreover, Anonymous's actions are at best a misguided emotional response meant to 'scratch an itch' (Stephen Colbert has used this phrase as a bad reason for air-strikes in retaliation) and at worst a publicity stunt in the face of real tragedy. 

And this is where I enter a line of questioning on criminality. 

Anonymous has taken credit for activity which is considered criminal under national laws. Yet they appear to choose targets in a socially conscious way that corresponds to some sort of code of ethics. So like Batman or any other vigilante before them, what do you think should be done about such an organization? I don't like the idea of anyone being above the law, but then that timeless phrase of Juvenal "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" (Better known by most as "Who watches the Watchmen") enters my mind and the thought that there are people really paying attention to what's going on in cyberspace in a way I can't doesn't seem so bad, as long as their observing doesn't turn into being judge, jury, and executioner on moral issues (at that point I like to elect people for that). Members of Anonymous don't just watch and report, they act. And sometimes they act in ways I don't agree with and that don't follow the law. What do you guys think? Anonymous = "good/bad" Is my analysis of their actions fair or a misguided simplification? Post in the comments.

(Source)

Prosperity, Monopoly, Misogyny, Hypocrisy

Last week I changed my thesis in order to be able to explore subjects and practices that I have always been passionate about but have never found an excuse to pursue in an academic context. My project explores 'game as argument' and the potential of the video game as a medium in a neo-print age. At the core of this project is the attempt to create a proof of theory, a game that delivers an argument in a  fundamentally different but equally effective way than a printed text. Then last week I found out that a Maryland woman beat me to the punch over a hundred years ago. 

 'Lizzie' Magie, Single-Taxer and Hardcore Gamer
(Source)

"Lizzie" Elizabeth Magie was a passionate feminist, an economic activist, inventor, actress, and writer who promoted the Single-Tax theory also known as Georgism by inventing what some consider America's most popular board game, Monopoly.

She didn't just want people to have fun though. The game, called Prosperity or The Land Renter's Game at the time, demonstrated two different economic systems. The first version, the rules of which we would be completely unfamiliar with today, resulted in prosperity as the players would practice the core tenets of Georgism: every player would benefit from the value of land as rent was paid. In other words under the prosperity model all players would gain money as each player progressed because rent was redistributed among the group rather than being awarded to the land holder. The game was 'won' when the player with the least money had twice as much as he or she started with at the beginning of the game. The alternative 'monopoly' set of rules is much closer to the game we know today where each player attempts to acquire monopolies on properties,railroads, and utilities in order to force his or her fellow magnates into bankruptcy.

(Source)

At first this game was hugely popular and people made their own boards, tweaking the games here and there. It became particularly popular among Atlantic-City Quakers who adapted the rules for children so that they were even simpler and named the properties after famous Atlantic City streets.

It was this version of the game that Charles Darrow eventually took and sold by the thousands until he licensed it to Parker Bros, a company that perpetuated that game's creation as a rags-to-riches story: the claimed Darrow dreamed up the game during the depression era and it saved him and Parker Bros.

This was the official history until Monopoly filed a lawsuit against economist and game-designer Ralph Anspach, who created the game Anti-Monopoly as a commentary on the problems of capitalism taken to such extremes as in the game.

In the trial, Anspach's lawyers were ultimately defeated as Parker Bros. purchased the rights from Magie after selling Monopoly for years, but they were still able to uncover the true history of the game and its Georgist origins.

What's fascinating is that this history has so many correlations to the issues we've talked about surrounding DH. First off, it seems highly unlikely that Magie would not have been able to successfully contest Monopoly's patent rather than merely settling for selling her own patent to Parker Bros. for $500 had she been a man. She also wouldn't have been forgotten by the history books. Moreover, the history of the situation seems to suggest that Magie was content to let this game flourish as an educative tool in the form of a folk game. Much like Disney and other corporations, Parker Bros. snatched up this public IP and made it subject to copyright so that others were prevented from doing exactly what the company itself did. The irony of course, is that this happened to a game meant to demonstrate a means of more evenly distributing wealth and that the game was twisted into its most strictly capitalist form in Monopoly.

The good news of all this? I finally found out why we all hate Monopoly.

(Source)

The Social Function

(Source)

There seems to be a common vein running through the projects that we have examined over the last few weeks that I want to address. We have talked about how collaborative and diverse they can be, as in the Digital Archimedes and Perseus projects. We've also seen how they can involve people from varying levels of academia or non-academic amateur savants as in a project such as Transcribe Bentham. As we encounter all these people of various backgrounds and project hierarchies one facet of DH that merits exploring is how, much more so than the traditional academic pursuits we have our backgrounds in, Digital Humanities has a social element that we need to be conscious of on a level of  Project Management, among other things. 

(Source)

Which will your DH projects look like? (Source)

 This program is, in theory, preparing us for environments and projects that are as collaborative as they are digital. One of the ways the program does this is by allowing for and encouraging group projects within its classes. This may seem like a novelty or trivial element, but I have not participated in a group project as part of a class in the last five years of my university education. Just think on that for a moment: almost all of my post-secondary education up to this point has consisted of solitary work. I think many of us are so acclimatized to this traditional structure that we're unused to blogs (and commenting on them), group projects and other efforts that are less formal or more collaborative. Yet I am really excited by the prospects that many of these new forms of communication hold, and want to take part in them and explore how traditional practices might be augmented to incorporate these ideals.
One such example I have heard of is the way people are changing the conference format.The director of the U of S's Digital Research Centre (DRC) once explained to me the collaborative quality of his discipline's paper presentations. Rather than give a twenty minute talk, the presenter gave his paper to the audience well in advance, presented the broad concept again in five minutes or so, and the rest of the session consisted of suggestions and collaborative feedback which the presenter could use to improve his or her project or paper. How fitting does such a format sound to DH? This is just one example of how we might tweak things to better fit our content and context.

Many of us entered this program wanting to leave it with nothing more than the ability to incorporate digital tools in our work. I, at least, now have a sense that there is more to DH, a socio-collaborative facet that I want to be able to engage with when I'm done this degree. The question that arises from such a desire is "Just how do we as students engage with this program to promote the collaborative elements of DH so that we may benefit from it?"

For a start we could probably leave a few more comments, what do you guys think?