February 3 Class
Men in class: 25
Women in class: 3
Instances of male participation: 25
Instances of female participation: 4
Male participation ratio (# of male participations: # of men in class) = 1:1
Female participation ratio = 4:3
February 5 Class
Men in class: 25
Women in class: 1
Instances of male participation: 11
Instances of female participation: 2
Male participation ratio ~ 1:2
Female participation ratio = 2:1
Tuesday
Thursday
Interestingly, out of both day, there was only one person who ate something during class, which was the candy. Also, with the temperature increase from Tuesday to Thursday, less jackets were brought to class as there was a 12 percent decrease.
For Tuesday and Thursday’s classes, I logged when and from which table any student spoke up in class to answer a question, share a thought, etc. I arbitrarily assigned numbers to each table according to the diagram on the right.
The data appear below.
| Tuesday 2/3/15 | Thursday 2/5/15 | ||
| time | table | time | table |
| 1:42 | 3 | 1:42 | 8 |
| 1:44 | 3 | 2:10 | 4 |
| 1:44 | 5 | 2:22 | 1 |
| 1:45 | 2 | 2:25 | 3 |
| 1:46 | 8 | 2:32 | 8 |
| 1:46 | 3 | 2:33 | 7 |
| 1:53 | 3 | 2:34 | 7 |
| 1:54 | 5 | 2:35 | 3 |
| 1:55 | 5 | 2:39 | 8 |
| 2:04 | 4 | 2:43 | 1 |
| 2:05 | 1 | 2:44 | 8 |
| 2:07 | 4 | 2:52 | 2 |
| 2:08 | 3 | 2:53 | 7 |
| 2:09 | 3 | 2:54 | 7 |
| 2:10 | 8 | 2:55 | 8 |
| 2:10 | 2 | ||
| 2:10 | 6 | ||
| 2:10 | 7 | ||
| 2:11 | 5 | ||
| 2:12 | 8 | ||
| 2:13 | 4 | ||
| 2:28 | 7 | ||
| 2:30 | 6 | ||
| 2:30 | 3 | ||
| 2:32 | 7 | ||
| 2:32 | 4 | ||
| 2:33 | 8 | ||
| 2:34 | 2 | ||
| 2:36 | 4 | ||
| 2:36 | 3 | ||
Plus: It might be really interesting if observers keep track of how many times people speak up and how many people speak up per week, and make a chart in the end. Just a suggestion!
In his analysis of surveillance, The Electronic Eye, David Lyon begins by noting that computer scientists back in the 1970’s were already beginning to imagine how plausible Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four might be. An equal amount of time has passed since Lyon’s analysis, and time would seem to further confirm his suspicion that increasing computing capability is birthing an entirely new surveillance paradigm.
Lyon eludes to his thesis that a panoptic framework, derived practically from Foucault but originally from Bentham, goes further in articulating the modern multivalence of surveillance than an Orweillian one by noting that, “the old dichotomy between decentralization and centralization is itself now questionable”. On face, such an observation might soothe an Orwell, who feared the emergence of a massive state surveillance apparatus, but pulling the string of decentralization further unravels an arguably more terrifying ball of yarn.
Rather than being dominated by a carefully controlled and maintained surveillance state, society today is impelled “forward” (if we grant teleology to technology) by a hairy amalgam of economically coordinated actors that realize gains through strategic information gleaned from the firehose of data that humanity is pumping out. Google, FaceBook, and many others large and small thrive off of a business model that positions users as products for advertisers to consume. Indeed the state is more capable of surveilling, but so are its citizens. One shudders to think how well Orwell described the Microsoft Kinect, which in its second iteration is now capable of determining a user’s heart rate and mood by looking at their skin alone.
The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
Most tellingly of the prescience of the panopticon, the state doesn’t have to force citizens to have one of these boxes in their homes. Rather, in 2015, people willingly go out and spend $500 to set up surveillance boxes themselves.
Constantly, we are monitored and observed by the United States government. The government has a complex surveillance system that controls the flow of information and data through the usage of flagging people and intercepting communication messages through the internet or postal service. In Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, one can see a government have total control over a society through surveillance. The government utilizes electronic media to manipulate the citizens through the censoring of information. The censorship of information involved destroying knowledge that existed and creating new information to control the population. They eliminated any information that would disagree with the way the government rules, since it could fuel or potentially start a revolution. Also, the government “kept those watched subordinate by means of uncertainty” (Lyon 60). In other words, the citizens always had a possibility that someone was watching them or reading their minds. They had a certain pressure to be always be in line with the government because they never knew when Big Brother was watching.
Furthermore, the surveillance utilized in Orwell’s book is similar to how our government controls the flow of information today. The United States government utilizes the identification of code or key words that alerts the government of potential threats. Also, the government can listen in on phone calls and intercept text messages to get rid of potential threats. In addition, the government has a detailed account of every single citizen through the categorization of search engines. Clearly, the government in Orwell’s book is very similar to our government today.
David Lyon, “From Big Brother to the Electronic Panopticon” from The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society (1994)