Rather unsurprisingly, almost all of my blog posts reference or are centered around the social implications of our readings. Starting with the male gaze in The Exorcist and ending with issues of capitalism in how we consider dark tourism, I consistently turn to the humanities point of view when thinking about the death of technology. Some readings, however, got me out of my comfort zone and thinking about the more basic, moral implications of technology.

My second to last blog post focused not on any one injustice, but on my discomfort with a digital archive post-death, citing such “efforts as narcissism.” My post before that considered Zora Neale Hurston’s work in light of our discussion of anthropological sound. My post wasn’t overtly about sexism or racism, but I wrote it in response to the problem I had with Jonathan Sterne’s article, which I didn’t feel properly addressed either the implications of white anthropologists recording non-white subjects or the existence of non-white anthropologists, working with the same technology at the same time. By the time I got to my last blog post, I was able to directly speak on my own role in the phenomena we’ve read about. Though I believe we (as people, as Americans, as technology users) have been consistently implicated throughout the course, it took me until the last round to reference my own life and personal involvement in dark tourism.

My blog posts seem to mirror very well my comments in class as well as my interests beyond the class. The articles we’ve read have given me a lot of insight into issues surrounding technology, from reality TV zombies to repair culture, but I find them most useful when put into conversation with larger societal issues. What has been the point of these readings if not to apply them to our contemporary moment and the things we care about? That sentiment, I think, is what my blog posts are really trying to get at.

Leave a Reply