Why so much hatred focused on the image? O’Gorman and Rice discuss the image as central to digital media, and part of the reason that academia rejects New Media. Academia distrusts the image. Rice explains this distrust as part of a hostile duality between print and image (149). O’Gorman views the image as a remainder, “the representational other of academic discourse” (11). These views connect academia to a Cartesian mode of thinking in which the visual might be opposite the written for literary studies. Yet, as much as the image is a visual sign system so is writing. It seems that academia also rejects the materiality of text. Could this be a side effect of new media’s privileging of the mind over body—an extension of the Cartesian binary? This mode of thinking influences everything within our culture including academics, new digital theorists, possibly everyone which views the intellect as superior over the body. It even has representation in our clichés, mind over matter. Could this philosophical binary hinder exploration of digital media by literary critics? Could it be this simple yet this diffuse?

O’Gorman and Rice’s discourse fascinated me from a pedagogical standpoint. I kept wondering if I could apply their theories in my class. What if all classes worked off of the puncept? What if all classes used experiential connections? But then these ideas are not necessarily new—I would say that they are remixed. For example, the known to new formula in writing and education uses experiential connections. Basically, the writer or educator places the known or familiar information in the subject position of a sentence and then goes on to add something new to it. In other words, you would connect new information to the old or familiar—something that the student may have experienced. Pulling from Chinese fables, you get the idea that you are closest to God or truth when you are having fun.

What struck me as most fascinating by O’Gorman was the concept of the remainder. What we hide from in our society, the monsters, as most clearly indicative of what our society values (4). O’Gorman represents the state of the crisis in the humanities as university sales pitches that are not based off of academic programs that tout forward-thinking English faculty and diversified Philosophy curriculum (106). These things don’t sell. Students do not look for interesting and challenging programs in English. The majority of them look in the science and medical field. The field of humanities takes a fifth or sixth choice behind medicine, science, mathematics, technology, and law. This might have occurred due to economics, after all students and universities follow a money trail. “Show me the money” isn’t just a catch phrase for athletes. We live in a capitalistic society. Everything we do needs funding. The green eyed monster seems apt as a description here. So what does academia do in a society that ignores basic human needs in favor of fiscal comforts? Can digital media and posthumanism be part of the answer?

Advertisements