[Air-L] Virtual Ethnography and CyberAnthropology

[laetitia le chatton]

Hi Pearse (and others)
I am not sure the definition I gave is my definition but rather the one we
like to forget. Robert Wiener defined cybernetics ,as we know, as "the study
of control and communication in the animal and the machine"

In immediate post-WW2 years , part of the scientific research was focused on
the nervous system and its mechanisms. During the fifties, a real
micro-physiological revolution is leaded by the electronic and micro
electrodes advances highlighting nervous pathways, but scientists were still
unable to explain their unitary findings in more global theories of nervous
mechanisms. In other words, most of the brain activity couldn't be modeled
at that time. On the other side, some researchers were tending towards a
more global approach: mathematical theories constituted helpful tools in
their attempts, namely system theory by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, information
theory by Shannon, and Wiener's cybernetic. The last one was very productive
for research about nervous system and machines. Wiener collaborated with
biologists, neurophysiologists and psychologists. They finally end up with a
definition of the nervous system as a machine directed towards a goal,
emphasizing the underlying teleological principle of a regulated action,
potentially modified by feedbacks in order to achieve a goal.

Considering that cybernetics born with the Applied mathematic department and
system theories flourishing there,we should not forget that part while
focusing only on the human-machine aspect of cybernetics, but we should have
also a look at the network metaphor this field highlighted.

Thank you all for this ongoing discussion,
Laetitia

2009/2/5 Pearse Stokes <pearsestokes at gmail.com>

> Hi Everyone,
>
> Good to see the discussion is still ongoing!
>
> Mathias, you say:
>
> "I have however problems with the notion of "performed purely in the
> virtual arena". There are so few purely virtual arenas, almost everything
> seems to be augmented virtuality, mixed realities or augmented reality as
> Philippe Kerremans and others call it. Where would you look for pure
> virtuality?"
>
> You're 100% correct! In fact, I don't think there are ANY purely virtual
> spaces. As such, I don't 'do' virtual ethnography or even consider it a
> viable option for valid research. That's why I consider what I do 'cyber
> anthropology' but even that is problematic as Laetitia illuminates;
> "Does the cyber anthroppology assumes a "network" of interactions? Because
> cybernetic models (issued from WW2 and Coldwar) are based on the figure of
> networks.
> If it assumes such organisation, then cyber-anthropology fails to reevalute
> the distinction between virtual and real: The virtual as a field *born on
> this metaphor*...I thought on the contrary( according to the title) that
> cyber antropology would me much more emphasizing the distinction
> virtual/real before reading your mail!"
>
> Well I disagree with your notion of cybernetic systems. From "Soft
> Machines: Ana and the Internet"
>
> "Norbert Wiener's book, /Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the
> Animal and the Machine/. (Wiener 1965) introduces the term 'Cybernetics'. It
> is the science or study of control or regulation mechanisms in human/machine
> systems, the interface between human and technological artefacts.
>
> If we take the cyborg to represent the meshing of human with technological,
> then technologies, however rudimentary (the bicycle, the ball point pen, the
> bow and arrow) perfectly and elegantly make us cyborgs. We must conclude;
> that language, as a technology, as that key component of /being/ a human
> being, places us all inside the cyber, regardless of how wired in we are,
> how far off line or however long ago we existed. These symbolic worlds where
> humanity exists reduces, or produces us to cyber." (this of course raised
> further problematics like "what isn't cyber anthropology!?")
>
> What this whole discussion should illustrate is that we all operate on
> assumptions about what we are researching, we may have assumed a 'virtual
> space', assumed a 'boundary' to our 'virtually' ethnographic field site,
> assumed what 'cybernetic' means (based on Terminator films or other popular
> culture conceptions).
>
> All in all, the point of this whole discussion, and any discussion
> regarding methods of research should be that the methods should be reflexive
> and reflect the needs of the research site, problem or goal. The problem
> with 'virtual ethnography' as a recent phenomena is that often the starting
> point is the method, rather than the research.
>
> I'm really enjoying hearing what people have to say!!
>
> Pearse
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>