Am I a Cyborg?

For this weeks reading, we studied a piece by Andy Clark entitled Natural Born Cyborgs. Although we only read the introduction, the argument Clark seemed to be trying to make was that we are "thinking and reasoning systems whose minds and selves are spread across biological brain and nonbiological circuitry" (p 3). Basically, his mission is to convince us, through a series of evidence, that we are a sort of natural-born cyborgs.

To be honest, when I was reading the introduction, I really didn't buy his argument, at least in the beginning. One of the first examples that he used to demonstrate his point that we are these natural born cyborgs was the fact that we use pen and pencil to figure out long-handed multiplication problems. Somehow, by acting in "concert with the pen and paper" and not being able to do such mathematical problems without these devices, our brain interacts with these external resources. In some sense then, I believe what Clark tries to do is connect this use of a pen and paper and the fact that we have evolved to not being able to do difficult math in our brain and are thus propelled to use external resources, makes us a sort of natural born cyborg. Is this true? I think it's quite a leap. Afterall, we don't really need a pen and paper for our survival, right?

But maybe I'm just mistaken on what the author means when he uses the term cyborg. In the first few pages of the introduction, he tries to make the point that we are becoming sort of highly-developed. We have an ability (one that is solely a human capability) to enter into "deep and complex relationships with nonbiological constructs, props, and aids" like a pen and paper. But even more than this, Clark makes the point that many of our tools are not just "external props and aids, but are deep and integral parts of the problem-solving systems we now identify as human intelligence." So I am a little confused. Have we always been cyborgs, unique to other species, or have we just recently became them, as our technology continues to grow and we become more dependent on it? It was hard to determine what he meant within the reading.

Lastly, Clark tries to make the connection of the cyborg issue with that of a "wired world" or the connection age.

Some More on Cool

Last week we never really got a chance to discuss the readings nor the cool hunt that we all went on, but I have my chance to develop my thoughts here. I think that Jeff Rice's next few chapters in his book about cool and the cool hunt are very interesting and thankfully, enjoyable to read. Never before did I think that cool played such an important part in not only business, but also our culture and Rice does a good job of this by not only laying out the criteria, but also making sure we are aware of it and that we beware of what it can do.

One of the key terms that Rice discusses in Chapter 5 of his book is this idea of interpellation-how we quickly 'identify our own attitudes with a product.' Learning and understanding this process is very important, because it pinpoints what will sell in a market and what won't sell. But as a customer, we must be aware of this, because if we are not we can easily be manipulated and taken advantage of. As Rice puts it on page 37, "they reduce cool to a ploy, a trick to convince youth to purchase items they might not necessarily need or want" ...I've been there before. It is hard to understand what this actually is though, and Rice simply states that it's a process that is very 'subtle.'

The next term that Rice makes important is that of "cultural jamming," which is the appropriation of advertising slogan and images for resistance purposes. This seems like it is a way to fight interpellation. As Rice states, it allows people like us to voice alternative ideas "regarding consumerism and governmental control." I think this is also what Rice was getting at when he used the term subvertise. This term is also a way to demonstrate the sponsors' true intentions of an advertisement. Subvertising can be used as a critique of specific advertising campaigns. Thus, subvertising is the first form of cultural jamming.

A second form of this cultural jamming concerns Adbusters. According to Rice, this site "specializes in spoof ads." (pg 40). Even more importantly, it targets the ad and advertisers who use the concept of cool for "commercial purposes." Some examples of these spoof ads would be those made to critique cigarette ads (like Kools) and other major trademarks.

But what's the point of this cultural jamming? As stated by Rice (and what I got out of the reading), the main point is that cultural jamming allows one to critique the use of cool in our culture and specifically the use of cool in advertising campaigns-those campaigns that are targeted at the most vulnerable age group. By allowing such critique, Rice suggests that this "opens up debate and new opinions can form." In the long run, this can have impacts on media itself and maybe even change the face of advertising.

Reading Notes: The Hunt for What's Cool

For this reading post, we were suppose to conduct a search of "what's up" just as Baysie and DeeDee did within Gladwell's piece The CoolHunt. To begin with, what I found interesting with Gladwell's piece was the emphasis that was placed on the concept that 'cool,' especially when it has to do with fashion, is not something that is a "trickle-down" phenomenon. What is cool is not determined by the designers and then moved into mainstream subcultures, but rather is a trickle-up activity. As Gladwell states, it is now about the chase and flight-designers picking up on the next 'big thing' and grabbing hold of it before it fades.

But if this is true, then what is the difference between something that is cool and something that is simply a fad? Cool follows a series of rules. First of all, the first rule of cool is, "the quicker the chase, the quicker the flight." Once something is discovered as cool, what is cool moves on. Secondly, cool cannot be manufactured out of thin air. This is not to say that a company cannot interfere in a cool cycle though. Thus, a fad does not follow these rules. A fad is like a trend, that has a mass amount of followers but no real innovator, such as piercing your own belly button in middle school. A fad is not picked up by the market and manufactured on a large-scale, like Nike's Air Jordan.

So on my coolhunt, I went to a few different places. First, I went people watching in Memorial Library (right outside the computer lab). In my opinion, I did not see many people in fashion or items that could be considered as 'cool' (but, maybe I'm just not cool myself, so I can't point it out). Furthermore, I think it would have been easier to do this assignment if it were warm out, so I could actually see what people were wearing. But nonetheless, I did see some things that could be considered as 'cool,' or at least in the last stage of cool, the last majority. Some of these items that I saw almost everyone with were:

1. Northface Jacket
2. Jansport Backpack
   
3. Cell phone, especially flip phones/camera phones
4. Ipod
   
5. Tight-fitting winter cap

Almost every single individual that walked into the library had all of these things and the ones who didn't had at least a majority of the items. Other items that were noticeable were big sunglasses and even particular notebooks, like Fivestar or notebooks that looked like Fivestar.

If I were to interpret my findings using the readings, I do believe that these items I have listed could be considered as "cool" and were manufactured in this manner, especially to our age-group. But, I don't believe that I found anything, at least in these categories, as something new and cool nor did I see an innovator at the library. I believe all the cool items I observed were in fact in the final stages of cool, as many individuals have owned a Northface jacket, ipod, and cell-phone since they came to this campus. Thus, I believe that all I saw was at the final stages of cool, the last individuals to adopt it.

Lastly, I went to the King Club on Monday night (for Funky Mondays-live music) and saw some new and interesting things that I was not able to see in Memorial Library. I saw girls wearing big jewelery/big-beaded necklaces and noticed that when I go out, there are always a few girls sporting the same type (though slightly different) jewelery. Furthermore, I have noticed more and more girls getting back into the whole head-band thing, whether it be the thick plastic ones or scarves made into headbands. I think that some of these things that I have seen lately might be indicative of the "early-adopters," individuals that saw the style when they were traveling or at home over break, and brought it back here. I think it will be very interesting to see if this picks up more and more in the spring.

Reading Notes: Cool Advertising

For this week's reading notes, I chose to write my post on Chapter 3 of Rice's book Writing About Cool. So far, I've enjoyed this chapter the most and I feel that it puts a lot of the book that we've read so far, into perspective, at least for me.

First of all, Rice still starts out his chapter by pointing out the dichotomy between the use of the word 'cool.' As Rice states on page 23, Rice makes the point that "cool serves advertising's financial needs by providing an attractive forum for youth culture." But a sentence later, he also makes the point that "certain groups use cool in order to resist the lures of advertising." Thus, as he has suggested earlier in the book, the use of cool can be used in a good way or a way that's not as good-to make the money. Furthermore, he goes on to discuss in what ways cool is used in the area of advertising.

Rice suggests that terms familiar to us can be used in order to serve their own interests. In other words, terms familiar to "youth culture can be appropriated and redone in order to serve their own economic interests." So what is this concept of appropriation? Appropriation, according to Rice, means taking a concept out of its original context and redoing it in order to serve an individual's own interests. Basically, what comes to my mind here, is that it is simply taking something out of context purposely for individual gain. An instance of this idea of cool and advertising is that by attaching 'cool' to a product or action, an individual believes that by purchasing a product or partaking in that action, they too are cool. The advertisers persuade you of this and change your attitude to make one believe so. Furthermore, to help their cause, advertisers associate certain 'cool' actors or sports stars to solidify this idea of cool, which Rice explains through his example of Nike.

Alright. So this is basically easy to understand, because we have been growing up with major advertisers putting 'cool' in our faces not to mention a MTV culture. But does this concept of 'cool' actually work. Are advertisers responsible for starting trends like the ipod craze or clothing styles simply by their association of the word 'cool' with such items? Basically, does this advertising and appropriation work, especially when many of us grow up being told not to be a part of the crowd and to be an individual? Or do we simply follow the individual by jumping off the bridge right behind him?