A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

1995 anthropology paper analyzing r.g.c postings



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th 03, 05:25 PM
zhenevsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 1995 anthropology paper analyzing r.g.c postings

Thought r.g.c.'ers might find this interesting:

http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue2/aycock.html


"Technologies of the Self:"
Foucault and Internet Discourse (1)
Alan Aycock
Department of Anthropology
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Introduction
Inner Substance
Degree and Kind of Commitment
Personal Routines or Disciplines
Goal of Personal Transformation
Conclusion: Implications for Research on Online Play
Footnotes
References

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Abstract
While some have argued that computing via the Internet offers a vision of
freedom and a shared humanity, others have claimed with equal vehemence that
it may become the instrument of global surveillance and personal alienation.
Foucault's notion of self-fashioning (souci de soi) exemplifies both sides
of this debate, since fashions may both be imposed and freely chosen. To
present a Foucauldian perspective on fashioning of self online I use
instances of recent postings to the Usenet news group rec.games.chess. Key
aspects of self-fashioning that I identify include romantic and modernist
images of interior experience, the importance of keeping your "cool," the
discussion of techniques designed to improve skill or strength, and the
purchase and use of chess computers as icons of mastery. Finally, I consider
some implications of this Foucauldian approach for future research on
Internet self-constructions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Introduction
As the media breathlessly remind us several times a day, the Internet is a
global computing network that makes it possible for people to talk to one
another over great distances very cheaply and quickly. Newsgroups, one of
the services available on the Internet, are electronic bulletin boards which
allow subscribers to read and post messages in thousands of specialized
areas. There are very few controls on postings to any newsgroup, which are
as a result frequently off topic, repetitive, vacuous, or offensive.
Newsgroup postings offer an opportunity for an anthropologist to do some
"lurking" without the usual costs of time, money, discomfort, or political
hassle associated with ordinary types of fieldwork. A disadvantage of
Internet ethnography of this sort is that it is much harder to figure out
what's going on when you can only observe what people say, and not what they
actually do. 2
As part of my continuing research on play and modernity, I have downloaded
several weeks of postings 3 to the Internet newsgroup rec.games.chess
(henceforth "r.g.c") and studied them carefully; the examples that I use
here are drawn from these postings, changed only to conceal individual
identities. 4; To interpret these postings, I have devised a model of the
online fashioning of personal identity. This model is based loosely upon
Michel Foucault's notion of %soi de souci%, the ethical care of self,
roughly equivalent to the idea of self-government which he addressed in his
last writings (Foucault, 1990: p. 32; 1991b: p. 93). The title of this paper
refers to Foucault's notion of "technologies of the self" as devices --
mechanical or otherwise -- which make possible the social construction of
personal identity (Foucault 1988b). I take the Internet to represent one
such technology of the self.

The model has four components: (a) the private "inner substance" that is
believed to be the ultimate source of personal identity; (b) the degree and
kind of commitment that is made to a given activity; (c) the personal
routines or disciplines that are adopted to reshape one's identity; (d) the
eventual goal of the personal transformation that has been undertaken. 5 I
shall show how each of these four components is aligned with a specific
theme on r.g.c, and give pertinent examples. I shall then discuss some
implications of this approach to understanding the fashioning of an Internet
identity.


Inner Substance
Inner substance may be discerned by the way people speak of themselves. A
nineteenth-century emphasis upon "romantic" imagery, associated with
mysterious inner passions and upwelling creativity, has been supplemented in
this century by "modernist" notions of advancement through reason, study,
and planning (Gergen, 1991, ch. 2). The posters on r.g.c use both romantic
and modern images, a blurring of styles fairly common in everyday life as
well, i.e., people often speak of themselves as being deep and authentic,
while nevertheless receptive to personal improvements and achievements that
reveal them "as they really are." On the basis of a qualitative content
analysis, I have identified the inner substance of r.g.c with a romantic
image of "strength" or a modernist image of "skill." I'll give some examples
of this mixed romantic/modernist style of speaking from r.g.c postings. In
the first, the thread is "how to advance from intermediate level:"

It's just a matter of gaining intuition as
to where your pieces belong so that they
work well together. Now that I've made some
progress in this area, I really
cringe when I see some B player put his
pieces on all the wrong squares and tie
himself in a knot.

Well, I am an inactive 1711 player and I
wish to interject the notion of "nerve" to
ratings improvement. I have seen some lower
rated players who just have no
nerve to play an agressive move or even a
move that looks good to them but
where they cannot see the obvious lines. . .
Perhaps nerve can be learned by
getting comfortable with different positions
but some seem to have more of it than others.


The posting above combines the language of personal "progress" with the
vocabulary of deep inward feelings or dispositions ("intuition," "nerve").
The second example deals with the issue of creativity or "genius:"



What I want to investigate is the innovators
of the game. Those who played the game but
revolutionized the game due to their own
genius. . . Can anyone shed some light on these
geniuses and what makes them different from
the average player or even the average GM?

Here the romantic idea of "genius" and intrinsic "difference" or uniqueness
is juxtaposed to the modernist notion of progress ("revolutionized the
game") and the "laws of logic and science." Yet the "average GM" referred to
is a white male of Euro-American heritage: by implication, all are not
equally capable of improvement. 6


Degree and Kind of Commitment
An ideal commitment to chess adopts a demeanor which is neither too distant
nor too involved, a "cool" emotional style which requires the routine
expression of feelings in day to day public encounters, yet also constrains
such talk lest it cause embarrassment or public disturbance (Stearns, 1994,
p. 192). Posters to r.g.c use four devices to shape their sense of
commitment.

By far the most frequent such device, appearing in about three-quarters of
all postings on r.g.c according to my count of subject-headers, is the
posting of facts or techniques which display shared interest in a topic.
Here is a common example, which refers to an opening sequence known as the
Taimanov Benoni:



My experience with this line goes back to
1987 when ex-New Zealand player
David Flude played it against me in a
weekender in Melbourne. I responded with
18.Qf3,Qxf3 19.Nxf3,Rhe8 20.Kf2,c4?! (rather
than Shabalov's 20...Re4!) 21.Rd1
and eventually won. However I wasn't
convinced by my opening play, so took the
opportunity to ask David Norwood . . . He
offhandedly suggested 18.Qa4+,b5 (note
that this is why Black plays 14...Bxc3+, as
otherwise White could play Nxb5) 19.Qf4 ..


This sort of analysis has been greatly intensified by the outpouring of
chess literature since the 60's, the recent increase in the number of
international tournaments, and the proliferation of specialized chess
knowledge at every level of play. The emotional tenor of this posting is
what I would characterize as "impersonal, but friendly" (cf. Stearns, 1994:
ch. 7). There is much more that needs to be said about the use of factual or
technical postings on r.g.c, and I shall return to this theme in the
following section.
A second device that expresses an appropriate middle distance is the
"smiley" or "emoticon," which appear in 5-10% of all postings to r.g.c. The
smiley uses computer keystrokes to create an orthographic picture that can
be viewed only by cocking one's head to the left. Another device to express
emotionn places the word designating an appropriate gesture or feeling in
brackets. These are conventions which add emotional nuance to abstract
messages otherwise hard to interpret. In this context, it serves to report
the emotional standing of the poster just as if s/he had said "cool,"
"great," "boring," or another term of the current vocabulary of feeling. A
couple of examples will suffice:




Long time no talk.

You'll notice they haven't been developed
before castling kingside in BOTH games. ;-)


Emoticons and verbal representations of emotions are often used to take the
edge off confrontational postings, though some posters use them routinely
simply to enliven online talk.

A third device, apparent in approximately one-third of the postings to r.g.c
according to my subject-header count, is the "flame." Here is an extreme
example of an r.g.c flame:


Chess Clock: Mechanical
Yugoslavia made, working great. I am selling
this because I got a digital clock
and don't need it anymore. The only
problem is the glass of one of the clocks
is broken (just a little bit, not
entirely). $10 , firm + shipping. If you are
interested, please e-mail me.

(response)
You are stupid. If you are a girl I will
add this: You are a stupid bitch!!

The next flame is more typical, excerpted from a lengthy, vitriolic debate
that has continued for weeks on rgc concerning the financial probity of the
United States Chess Federation (USCF):

The Old Guard should say what's really on
their mind: We report news
that incommodes the powers-that-be and they
hate us for it.

It's certainly not obvious from these examples that flaming maintains an
appropriate personal distance, since there seems to be too much involvement
expressed. One way to interpret these flames would be to argue that flaming
defines the rule of emotional distance by transgressing it, and certainly
posters occasionally react to flames by reproaching the flamer for her/his
excess.

I have a strong impression, however, that the "flame" is also a kind of
ritualized confrontation that expresses formulaic anger much as televised
sports may express formulaic masculinity (Duncan, Messner, and Aycock,
1994). I will not attempt to demonstrate in this paper that "flames" are
indeed formulaic, since that would be a major research direction in itself,
but I will point to the standardization of verbal cues ("bitch," the
"powers-that-be") which is characteristic of other more familiar
confrontations such as bar fights, exchanges between motorists, letters to
the editor, and abusive phone calls.

The fourth device to shape commitment to chess is the purchase, use, and
discussion online of commercial chess products and services (see Jackson
Lears, 1994: pp. 46ff., and Miller, 1994: pp. 76ff. on romantic/modernist
impulses in consumer culture). A formal methodology would offer a more
reliable figure for the frequency of commodity-oriented postings on rgc, but
my estimate of the content of such postings is over 50%. Postings about
commodities are similar to factual postings because they demonstrate a
shared interest in the discussions of rgc. As a financial commitment,
commodities exhibit owners' personal involvement in online chess discourse.
The good or service purchased shows that the owner maintains an appropriate
distance, e.g., buying an book on the Taimanov Benoni, playing the opening
in tournament games, and chatting about it online is a reasonable thing for
a middle-class hobbyist to do. By contrast, spending many thousands of
dollars on books and equipment might not be quite so reasonable, suggesting
too great an involvement with the game (cf. Aycock, 1988a and Aycock, 1995
on the use of commodities in chess "over the board").

Here is a simple example, which suggests the importance of commodification
as a form of commitment to chess:



I'm trying to complete my set of British
Chess Magazine and would like to purchase three
volumes if anyone has them. They are 1881 (vol 1),
1882 (vol 2) and 1891 (vol 11).

It is implicit in this posting that the personal ownership of a chess
archive is in some sense equivalent to the mastery of chess knowledge
(Foucault, 1989: p. 45).


Personal Routines or Disciplines
Routines or disciplines on the Internet consist of the use of "words without
things," in which the words themselves become resources for self- fashioning
(Poster, 1990: p. 17; cf. Foucault, 1973: pp. 312ff.). Most of these words
are offered online as "facts" or "techniques." I mentioned above that
two-thirds of rgc postings were about "facts," but I haven't yet said what I
think "facts" are. For purposes of this paper, I define a "fact" as an
utterance which produces an effect of apparently simple referentiality,
e.g., "the sun rises in the east," or "this is a picture of my child." This
discursive effect of factual innocence usually reduces or eliminates
altogether the opportunity for further explanation. The social stereotype of
a bore or an ivory-towered intellectual would be someone who attempts to
interpret things which appear to be factually transparent. It is intriguing
that in a situation such as the Internet where referentiality is more or
less impossible to determine, the majority of postings claim factual
referentiality as their main source of legitimacy; I'll return to this in my
conclusion.

Factual talk is produced by a discursive purification which strips
statements of their particular personal, institutional, and historical
contexts, presenting them instead as universals. Information expressed as
objectively true may be used to sustain global claims of rationality or
common sense. When facts have been removed from an easily recognizable
context and formalized in some way, I refer to them as "technique." 7 In
addition to the legitimation lent by factual talk, discussion of technique
gives an impression of being "in the know." 8 I'll give some examples of
postings to illustrate how this important impression is produced on rgc.

First, a request for information about the rules of play. This request is
especially significant because it pertains to "blitz," a variety of chess
that became popular in the 70's and 80's when chess clocks became more
accurate and players' demands for increased tempo of play were formally
registered by chess organizations (cf. Aycock, 1988b on the role of chess
organizations in instutionalizing play at all levels).



I am curious about some freak cases that can
come about in blitz games
I have the USCF Rulebook (3rd edition, not
4th) which has FIDE 5-minute
chess rules in it, but these cases are not
clearly covered...


Second, here is some "techie talk" which is peculiar to the computerization
of chess in the last ten years, and to the development of the Internet:


Hi. I have just discovered the Internet
Chess Server and would like to ask for
some advice. I run X-windows on a Sun
Sparc1, connect to an internet-connected
site via 14.4 kB modem, and telnet to the
ICS from there. I am currently observing
games using the ASCII graphics provided by ICS,
but I do have Xboard on my machine.

At one level of analysis, this posting is nothing but an invitation for
enthusiasts on rgc to exchange abstruse technical information. At another,
however, such exchanges construct a hierarchy of expertise and personal
legitimation. The final series of examples shows how factual and technical
talk becomes routinized through "political arithmetic" (Foucault, 1988b: p.
151) on rgc:

(first example)
My 2 bits are that I have never liked the
BHB. I think the numbers are too small
and it is hard to tell how much time you
have left in sudden death.

(second example)
I am teaching 7- and 8- year olds to play
chess. What would be a good clock
setting for children at this age?

(third example)
Why doesn't someone just sit down with a
january issue of chess-life and the
current FIDE rating list and post the
difference in ratings for a dozen or so US
players? then we can get an accurate
picture, rather than debating about
this flat 150 pt rating discrepancy hogwash.

These examples are about the intensity of personal routines. Time controls
and statistical ratings define how players are to discipline themselves for
"serious" play, and how they are to be ranked against one another (Hacking,
1990; Aycock, 1992a). Both are commodified, since to be rated, one must pay
tournament fees to participate in timed play under the auspices of a formal
chess organization. Time and ratings are subject to long and passionate
dispute on rgc and elsewhere, leading to identification of calculable
artifacts such as "sudden death," "an accurate picture," "discrepancy," or
"good clock setting."


Goal of Personal Transformation
For most of those who post to rgc, the goal of personal transformation is
the formal mastery of chess.9 Postings to the Internet differ from other
popular chess literature, however, in that there is far more attention lent
to the mastery of chess by computers. Speaking of computer technology on rgc
promotes notions of solidarity and empowerment (Nye, 1994, pp. 172, 277).

An initial example of the goal of personal transformation, as I have
described it, is a posting about a computer program that plays chess.


Grandmaster Sagalchik returns to UMBC to
play one slow, rated game against a CM-5
Supercomputer running the MIT Star Socrates
chess program. . . .Kuszmaul (MIT) will
deliver a technical lecture on massively
parallel search and its application to computer
chess. . . Star Socrates is one of the best computer
chess programs in the world and plays at the
grandmaster level.

The notion of chess programs which play "at the grandmaster level" is
especially fascinating for rgc posters, who debate endlessly whether a
computer will ever be world champion, whether computers signal the "death"
of chess, and whether the published ratings of computers are equivalent to
those of human players. In this instance the chess program has been
constructed discursively as a competent agent, the precise analog of human
players (Aycock 1990).

A second example is one of human play mediated by Internet computer
linkages.

Some of you might like to play "live" chess
on the internet, and may not be aware
of the Internet Chess Server! . . . It's a
fun, club-like atmosphere, with people talking
about chess, kibitzing during games,
shouting greetings to each other, discussing
sports, arguing politics, etc.

The sense of community 10 is explicit here ("a fun, club-like atmosphere,"
etc.), and it is interesting to note that by contrast with the instance of
the computer which plays chess "at a grandmaster level," here the computer
linkage has become effectively transparent, a mere facilitator of the human
agents who use it.

My model of the online fashioning of personal identity has helped me to
identify some interesting aspects of online discourses. In particular, I
have drawn attention to the significance of romantic and modernist images of
inner substance, the importance of maintaining a middle distance or "cool"
commitment to chess, the value of factual and technical postings as personal
routine or discipline designed to improve skill or strength, and the intense
rgc interest in chess computers as icons of mastery.


Conclusion: Implications for Research on Online Play
One of the most common themes in popular computing literature is that
computers and the Internet are making us strong, smart, fast, and free. 11
Yet this is what fills my screen every time I sign on to the university
mainframe that serves as my gateway to the Internet:

***********************************************
USE OF THIS SYSTEM BY UNAUTHORIZED
USERS IS PROHIBITED

***********************************************

INDIVIDUALS USING THIS COMPUTER SYSTEM
WITHOUT AUTHORITY, OR
IN EXCESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY, ARE SUBJECT TO
HAVING ALL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ON THIS SYSTEM
MONITORED AND RECORDED BY SYSTEM PERSONNEL.

In the process of monitoring individuals
improperly using this system, the activities
of authorized users *may* also be monitored.
Anyone using this system without
authorization or in excess of their
authorization expressly consents to such
monitoring and is advised that if such
monitoring reveals possible evidence of
criminal activity, system personnel may
provide the evidence of such monitoring
to law enforcement officials.


This panoptic regulation raises a variety of important issues such as
freedom, power, technique, and privacy, and links them closely in Internet
practice: in only four sentences, some variation of the word "authority" is
used six times, "monitor" or its variants are used another six times, "use"
appears five times, and the word "system" is used seven times. The message
is that authorities monitor users on behalf of the system; authorities are
aligned with law enforcement, users with impropriety or criminal activity.
Perhaps this is an extreme example of Internet surveillance, but much
Internet discourse is at least covertly normative despite the overt emphasis
that Internet practitioners place upon its factual or technical nature
(e.g., "monitor" is both a physical object and a kind of surveillance). By
the same token, the Internet is largely a domain of words without things,
which nevertheless are represented by those who post there as being utterly
referential (e.g., a "system" is both a hardware arrangement and an image of
a self-governing organism). The agents of discourse themselves are unequal
irrespective of their technical prowess (e.g., in computing jargon,
authorities have "privileges" that users do not). These contradictions
permeate the discourse of self fashioning on the Internet in general and, as
I have shown, on rgc in particular. What broad strategies of self fashioning
are available under these circumstances? I'll suggest three possibilities,
all of which tread the narrow line between constraint and freedom.

One rgc poster, for instance, turns romantic images against modern ones:


Computers are tools that we have created
to assist us improve in chess. The
fact that [computers offer] the illusion
of a well-played game of chess are irrelevent,
because there is no player. My
chessmaster 3000 can beat me all the time, but
I have not forsworn the game: the game is
fun. I use the computer as an opponent toD
improve my skill. But I play the game
against other human's for the fun and
competition of it. We just need to be
philosophically clear: computers are tools.
Humans are sentient creatures, worthy opponents.

And if some day we humans become
universally bored with chess because we have
exhausted the possibilities of it . . .
change the rules a little. It is our game, we
created it... Chess can still evolve if we grow
bored with it. But in the meantime, it is still fun
to play, fun to learn, and fun to compete. I can't
drive in a nail with my fist: does that mean I
should make my hammer out of nerf to
preserve my ego? I can't lift my car off the
ground: does that mean I should thrown
away my hydraulic jack? No body builder
will ever be able to lift as much weight
as a motorized winch. So why do they bother?
To improve themselves, and to compete
against humans.

As the Internet moves rapidly to a private enterprise model, the limits and
possibilities of self-fashioning proliferate. This poster suggests that the
self fashioning of play can be much more diverse than "the illusion of a
well- played game of chess" by a computer. Here "worthy" "sentience"
supplements strength or skill as the inner substance to be worked upon,
while fun as well as mastery is a goal of play. Although the poster argues
that personal disciplines should include competition against other humans
and the use of computers to "improve," he has carefully referred to them as
mere "tools" and compared them to lesser, utilitarian objects such as the
"hammer," the "motorized winch," and the "hydraulic jack." Most
interestingly, the poster recommends that commitment to chess include not
only buying the tools of play, but also altering the rules of the game at
will to diminish the effects of those tools.
Another debate on rgc suggests a modernist, rather than a romantic solution:



Let me compare the human limit to the
computer limit: ... The exponential complexity
of chess is such that increases in speed are
becoming incredibly ineffective at
furthering . . . depth... .So what are GM's
limits? All it takes to beat the best
computers is to follow strong strategic plans
that don't produce a win until 20-30+ moves down
the pike. . .

The strongest programs and the best humans
are playing two different games. The
strength of the strongest programs is in
killer tactics, and the strength of the
strongest humans is in killer strategy.. .
It's not obvious to me that the program will
have to play the human's game in order to
achieve dominance; but it obvious
that the human has to play the program's
game to retain dominance, since he has to
survive the near term in order to cash in on
the long term.

If it's "easy" to avoid deep tactical
blunders while building a long-range strategic
plan, the human GM can continue to win or
draw. If not, then not. It all depends
on the shape of the chess draw/win space.
If there is a broad flat plain of
draws/wins out there for the first player,
then it's a GM game. If it's a narrow
knife-edge of variations leading to co-
optimal play, then it's a program game, in the
limit.

I would find it an amazing coincidence if
world championship level chess were
forever almost but not quite within reach of
the best possible program on the best
possible hardware.


The "limits" of play are defined by the GM (always a "he") and by the "best
possible program on the best possible hardware," both presented as social
agents who in romantic images attempt to perfect their "complexity" and
"depth," and in modernist terms, must "plan" 20-30+ moves ahead, "cash in on
the long term," use "killer" tactics and strategy, "retain dominance," and
avoid "blunders." The poster uses mathematical analogs drawn from geometry
and game theory to display a "cool" distance toward the fate of the game and
those who play it: the "shape of chess space" is studied by ideal social
agents, super-computer and super-GM, who search for "co-optimal play." The
conclusion is that unless there is "an amazing coincidence" computers will
achieve "world championship level chess," the triumph of the modern (Adas,
1989; Segal, 1985, 1994).
Finally, Foucault himself offered, in quite another context, a problematique
of the Internet that might be neither romantic nor modernist. I'll cite it
without comment:


So many things, in their language, have
already escaped them; they do not mean to lose,
in addition, what they say, that little
fragment of discourse . . . whose frail and
uncertain existence is necessary to prolong their
life in time and space. . .
In each sentence that you
pronounce -- and very precisely in the one
that you are busy writing at this moment, you who
have been so intent, for so many pages, on
answering a question in which you felt
yourself personally concerned and who are going
to sign this text with your name -- in every
sentence there reigns the nameless
law, the blank indifference: 'What matter
who is speaking; someone has said:
what matter who is speaking' (Foucault,
1991a, pp. 71-72).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Footnotes
A substantially different version of this paper was originally presented on
February 22, 1995, during my tenure as Visiting Fellow at the Center for
Twentieth Century Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. I would
like to thank Kathy Woodward for inviting me to join the Center during the
1994-95 year. I would also like to thank Carol Tennessen, Cathy Egan, and
Nigel Rothfels for their continuing administrative and collegial support
during the year. Paul Brodwin made some valuable suggestions that led me to
reconsider the conclusion of my paper, as did the reviewers for the _Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication_. I especially thank Margaret Carlisle
Duncan for her critical reading of several versions of this essay. [back]
Cf. Aycock, 1989, 1992b on issues arising from discursive approaches to the
ethnography of play; see also Aycock, 1993a, 1993b, and Aycock and
Buchignani, 1995, on Internet ethnography. [back]
In all, I downloaded about a megabyte of information. [back]
I have not corrected spelling, grammar, or typos, as the examples themselves
make evident. [back]
The corresponding Foucauldian categories are (a) the identification of an
individual's ethical component, or substance, which s/he must develop; (b) a
mode of subjection which establishes an individual's relationship to the
ethical rule or discipline in question; (c) an ethical labor that transforms
the individual's substance; and (d) a goal of self-care (Foucault, 1990, pp.
26-28). [back]
A perennial favorite of rgc posters is gender disproportion in chess, where
male masters outnumber females manyfold. This is often attributed to
"natural" causes, i.e., different brain structures. It's interesting that
although the white-black disproportion is far greater, there is no
comparable debate about that, because it is taken as given that
blacks'social disadvantages prevent them from participating fully. [back]
I'll not deal here with the difficult question of how "facts" and
"techniques" are linked as practices. [back]
The term "pure technique" that is so often used in ordinary parlance on rgc
or elsewhere seems exactly right, since it suggests both the exalted,
refined essence of those who share this understanding, and as well the
process of definition that is associated with purification (Douglas, 1992;
Zerubavel, 1991; Lamont and Fournier, 1992). [back]
For those very few who have already become masters, achievement of an
international title is the next step. [back]
Though not necessarily a substance shared by everyone, since solidary talk
about "sports" and "politics" seem to focus on stereotypically male
interests. [back]
For instance, Nelson, 1987; Naisbitt, 1990, 1994; Tapscott and Caston, 1993;
Kehoe, 1994; and Toffler, 1990. [back]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
References Cited
Adas, M. (1989). Machines as the measure of men: science, technology, and
ideologies of Western dominance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Aycock, A. (1995). Owning up: Commodifications of play. In Duncan, M.,
Chick, G., and Aycock, A. (Eds.), Play Writes: Diversions and Divergences in
Fields of Play. Milwaukee, WI: TASP Press.

---- (1993b). Derri-da, Fort-Da: Deconstructing the scenes of play.
Postmodern Culture 3(1).

---- (1993a). Virtual Play: Baudrillard online. In Electronic Journal of
Virtual Culture,1(7). Available online as
ftp://byrd.mu.wvnet.edu/pub/ejvc/Aycock.v1n7

---- (1992b). Three assumptions in search of an author: Some textual
problems in the study of play. Play and Culture 5(3).

---- (1992a). Finite reason: A construction of desperate play. Play and
Culture 5(2).

---- (1990). Play without players, players without play: The world computer
chess championship. Play and Culture 3(2): 133-145.

---- (1989). "The check is in the mail": A preliminary view of play as
discourse. Play and Culture 2(2): 142-157.

---- (1988b). "Gens una sumus": Play as metaculture. Play and Culture 1(2):
124-137.

---- (1988a). The anthropology of play equipment. Newsletter of The
Association for the Study of Play 14(1).

Aycock, A. and Buchignani, N. (1995). The e-mail murders: reflections on
dead letters. In S. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety: computer-mediated
communication and community, pp. 184-231. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.

Duncan, M., Messner, M., and Aycock, A. (1994). Engendering the Language of
Sport: NCAA Basketball, Foucault, and Formulas of Exclusion. Paper delivered
to Annual Conference of North American Society for Sociology of Sport
(NASSS), November, Savannah, GA.

Foucault, M. (1991a) Politics and the Study of Discourse. In G. Burchell,
C.Gordon, and P.Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect, studies in
governmentality, pp. 53-72. London: Harvester.

---- (1991b) Governmentality. In G. Burchell;, C.Gordon, and P. Miller
(Eds.)., The Foucault effect, studies in governmentality, pp. 87-104.
London: Harvester.

---- (1990). The Use of Pleasure (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 2), New
York: Random House.

---- (1989). Foucault Live: Interviews, 1966- 1984. New York: Semiotext(e).

---- (1988b). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault.
(L.H.Martin, H. Gutman, P.H. Hutton, Eds.). Amherst, Mass.: University of
Massachusetts Press.

---- (1973). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New
York: Random House.

Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: dilemmas of identity in contemporary
life. New York: Basic Books.

Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Jackson Lears, T. (1994). Fables of abundance: a cultural history of
advertising in America. New York: Basic Books.

Kehoe, B. (1994). Zen and the art of the internet: a beginner's guide 3rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Lamont, M. and Fournier, M. (Eds.). (1992). Cultivating differences:
symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Miller, D. (1994). Modernity, an ethnographic approach: dualism and mass
consumption in Trinidad. Providence, RI: Berg.

Naisbitt, J. (1994). Global paradox: the bigger the world economy, the more
powerful its smallest players. New York: W. Morrow.

Naisbitt, J. and Aburdene, P. (1990). Megatrends 2000: ten new directions
for the 1990's. New York: Morrow.

Nelson, T. (1987). Computer lib ; dream machines (Rev. ed.). Redmond, Wash.
Tempus Books of Microsoft Press.

Nye, D. (1994). American technological sublime. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Poster, M. (1990). The mode of information: poststructuralism and social
context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sale, K. (1995). Rebels against the futu The luddites and their war on
the industrial revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Segal, H. (1985). Technological utopianism in American culture.
Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

---- (1994). Future imperfect: the mixed blessings of technology in America.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Stearns, P. (1994). American cool: constructing a twentieth-century
emotional style. New York: New York University Press.

Tapscott, D. and Caston, A. (1993). Paradigm shift: the new promise of
information technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Toffler, A. (1991). Powershift: knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge
of the 21st century. New York: Bantam Books.

Zerubavel, E. (1991). The fine line: making distinctions in everyday life.
New York: Free Press.



  #2  
Old November 4th 03, 10:48 PM
Derek Wildstar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 1995 anthropology paper analyzing r.g.c postings


"zhenevsky" wrote in message
news
Thought r.g.c.'ers might find this interesting:

http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue2/aycock.html


"Technologies of the Self:"
Foucault and Internet Discourse (1)
Alan Aycock
Department of Anthropology
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee


What a formal piece of crap, it shall serve as an exhibit in my argument
against tenure!

Thanks much for that random link. Uh-oh, I'm about to be codified!


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.