Winged Purposes
Dean Young
Posts Tagged ‘awesome’
poem: Winged Purposes, by dean young
Friday quote bag
“The phrase, “technology and education” usually means inventing new gadgets to teach the same old stuff in a thinly disguised version of the same old way. Moreover, if the gadgets are computers, the same old teaching becomes incredibly more expensive and biased towards its dumbest parts, namely the kind of rote learning in which measurable results can be obtained by treating the children like pigeons in a skinner box.”
Papert S. (1980). Teaching Children Thinking in Taylor, R., Ed., The Computer in School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press. pp. 161 -176.
I’ll see you at DLM2011: “Designing Learning Futures”
I’m going to this year’s Digital Media and Learning Conference, March 3-5 in Long Beach, California! And I’m really hoping to see you guys there. I’m trying to schedule a meetup with all my virtual and offline buddies, so if you’re coming and are interested in joining in, shoot me an email by clicking here and I’ll fold you into the mix.
Also, please come to my panels! They will be about equity and learning and awesomeness!

I’m officially part of two presentations, described below. The third thing I’m joining in on is a HASTAC panel on “new collectives.” In the spirit of thinking freshly about new collectives, the organizers of this panel solicited input from all current HASTAC Scholars on the idea of new collectives. I’ve included a set of suggested questions sent out by the organizers of this panel below, followed by my contribution to this neat idea.
Panel 1: Designing for Participation and Learning with New Media
LOCATION: Intl Ballroom II
DAY: 3/3/2011
TIME: 11:30-1:30
ORGANIZERS: Daniel Hickey (Indiana University), Jenna McWilliams (Indiana University), Mary Beth Hines (Indiana University), Jennifer Conner (Indiana University /Purdue University Indianapolis), Adam Ingram-Goble (Indiana University), Rebecca Rupert (Bloomington New Tech High School)
THEME: Digital Media and Learning
KEYWORDS: assessment // design principles // innovation
Description: Attendees will learn to use Participation by Design (PBD) to support broad learning outcomes in a selected digital media learning context. PBD extends the widely used Understanding by Design (UBD) that Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe introduced in the 1990s. UBD uses cognitive and constructivist theories from the 1980s to design curricula that support individual understanding. PDB embeds UBD in a broader “participatory” approach that embraces newer situative theories of learning and design-based research methods. Attendees will learn to use the principles of PBD in design-based refinements to support participation in the practices that define a particular learning community. But they will learn to do so in ways that readily leave individuals with the enduring understanding of the knowledge associated with that community. Attendees can also learn to support the kinds of participation that lead to levels of achievement that are sometimes made necessary by formal school contexts.Attendees can work with any digital learning context, but they should have some general ideas of learning outcomes they want to support and document with PBD. The workshop is organized around five design principles: reframe knowledge (by transforming skills and concepts into disciplinary tools used in contexts), scaffold participation (by embedding reflections that foster increasingly sophisticated discourse about the relationship between those tools and contexts of use), assess reflections (by having learners reflect on their creations as evidence of engagement), control accountability (by downplaying scoring rubrics and individual assessments and obscuring external tests), and iteratively refine (by continually refining reflections and assessments to continually improve participation, understanding, and achievement).
The principles of PDB will be illustrated using networked “worked examples” from studies using (a) the Quest Atlantis immersive videogame for elementary science, (b) a Fan Fiction new media curriculum for secondary language arts, and (c) e-Learning Wikifolios for university instruction. These will be accessible as before, during, and after the workshop at www.workedexamples.org. Attendees will collaborate in teams organized around the worked examples and led by one of the facilitators. Given the limited time, the teams will focus on the third principle. Each attendee will define a typical project artifact (i.e., blog post, remix, essay, game, etc.) in their DML environment and generate artifact reflection for supporting engaged participation. This 60-minute segment will be preceded by 30 minutes on the first two principles and followed by 30 minutes on the last two. Our ultimate goal is fostering an ongoing informal network that continues around the worked examples and participates in a more formal collective via a course at Peer to Peer University.
Panel 2: Participatory Culture Reconsidered: Moving Beyond Rainbows, Unicorns and Butterflies
LOCATION: Intl Ballroom I
DAY: 3/4/2011
TIME: 9:00-10:30
ORGANIZER: Rafi Santo(Indiana University – Learning Sciences Program)
PARTICIPANTS: Cassidy Puckett (Northwestern University – Sociology Department), Jenna McWilliams (Indiana University – Learning Sciences Program), Ugochi Acholonu (Stanford University – Learning Sciences & Technology Design Program), Rafi Santo (Indiana University – Learning Sciences Program)
THEME: Youth Digital Media and Empowerment
KEYWORDS: Participatory culture // Democracy // Digital adaptabilityDescription: Increased recent focus on learning through participatory cultures and digital tools has led to new frameworks for understanding how digital media can empower a new generation of learners. At the same time, new tensions complicate this process. How can we support learners to use new media while also empowering them to resist, revise and reconfigure problematic value systems embedded in those technologies? What dispositions do youth who are subject to the “participation gap” need in order to develop participatory literacies? How does the rhetoric of participatory cultures as bastions of democracy and transparency obscure equity issues that prevent full participation? In this panel conversation, emerging researchers will tackle questions that explore extensions to and limitations of the participatory culture paradigm.
On the question of developing a Literacy of Critical Participation: While educators have enthusiastically met the participatory culture paradigm as a means to empower youth, this embrace leaves behind an important critical lens found in more traditional media literacy approaches when encountering media. Rafi Santo, PhD student in Learning Sciences at Indiana University, will share his work on developing a Literacy of Critical Participation that allows for empowerment not only through new media, but also in relation to digital platforms
and tools.On the question of Defining and Measuring Differences in Digital Competency: Key to addressing disparity in technology use is defining and measuring digital competence and identifying how it is developed such that ‘tacit’ knowledge can be made transparent and accessible for all youth. Cassidy Puckett, PhD student in Sociology at Northwestern University, will share her work to define and measure one ‘disposition’ of competence called ‘digital adaptability’ or the ability to learn new technologies.
On the question of Power and ‘Democracy’: Though participatory cultures can feel empowering and liberating, they still carry with them the potential for silencing and marginalization. Jenna McWilliams, PhD student in Learning Sciences at Indiana University, will present research with high school English students highlighting ongoing challenges of
supporting truly ‘democratic’ membership in online participatory cultures.On the question of Designing for Participation: Technology activities can place students at a disadvantage, particularly if they dis-empower students or conflict with cultural dispositions. Ugochi Acholonu, PhD student in Learning Sciences and Technology Design at Stanford, will share findings on the relationship between dispositions, learning activities, and ways people seek opportunities with digital devices.
Panel 3: Modeling a new collective: HASTAC Scholars as Case Study
LOCATION: Intl Ballroom V
DATE: 3/5/2011
TIME: 3:00-4:30 PM
ORGANIZER
Sheryl Grant (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill/HASTAC)
Fiona Barnet (Director of HASTAC Scholars)
PARTICIPANTS: Dixie Ching (NYU/HASTAC Scholar), Cathy N. Davidson (Duke University/HASTAC), Jade E. Davis (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill/HASTAC Scholar)
THEME: New Collectives
KEYWORDS: scholars // virtual collectiveDescription: New collectives like the HASTAC Scholars function in the powerful tension that exists between traditional learning institutions and a collaborative, dispersed, virtual learning space. Two hundred HASTAC Scholars from 75 universities currently participate in this new collective, and represent a transformative model for the future of learning institutions. There is a mythology of technology that can obscure this tension, creating the illusion that new collectives are free, and that they run themselves without institutional support. In this panel, we address the “invisible” work and unusual realworld infrastructures that make a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary, decentralized virtual collective a credible and impactful learning space. We seek to address the following tensions: 1) what choices must be made about hierarchy and decentralization, 2) what unique elements must be in place, and what crucial technologies must exist, in order for the new collective to perform; 3) how do HASTAC Scholars use the new collective as part of their learning, and how does their institution support or constrain this learning; 4) what can this type of new collective achieve, and how
could this model transfer to other kinds of learning.
Here’s my contribution to the HASTAC panel on New Collectives:
Cee-Lo, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Muppets sing “fuck you”
Why? Because how often do you get to see Cee-Lo dressed as a muppet?
do it like a dude / affix spikes to our lips
Here is the video for a song called “Do it like a dude,” sung by Jessie J:
In case you scrolled past the video without watching it, I’ll just tell you that it’s an absolute celebration of gay ladies and the sex they have together. Here are some lyrics:
I can do it like a brother
Do it like a dude
Grab my crotch, wear my hat low like youDo it like a brother
Do it like a dude
Grab my crotch, wear my hat low like youWe can do it like the man’dem, man’dem
We can do it like the man’dem, man’dem
Sugar sugar sugar
We can do it like the man’dem, man’dem
We can do it like the man’dem, man’dem
Sugar sugar sugarBoom Boom, pull me a beer
No pretty drinks, I’m a guy out here
Rollin’ rollin’ rollin’ rollin’ money like a pimp
My B I T C H’s on my d*ck like thisDirty dirty dirty dirty dirty dirty sucka
You think I can’t get hurt like you, you motherf….I can do it like a brother
Do it like a dude
Grab my crotch, wear my hat low like you
Some have expressed concern about the message of this video. Over at the woman-slanted queer site Autostraddle, riese tells us that though her first response was “YES THIS YES THIS LIKE IT YES THIS!,” more careful consideration led her to conclude that “despite its genderfucking qualities, many might argue that ‘Do It Like a Dude’ paradoxically uses men/maleness as a golden standard by which to define itself.”
The gay male-targeted blog Manhunt suggests that “Do It Like a Dude” is about, er, penis envy. If that’s so, or if it’s a reasonable interpretation of the song or video, then this is an additional reason to think hard about whether it’s fair for the queerlady community to embrace it.
But I don’t, believe that it’s reasonable to interpret this song or its video as being about penis envy. First, this is a queerladies-only song–no straight men allowed. The video especially makes its hostility and righteous anger clear: The camera becomes the “you,” the “dude” of the song, and Jessie J lunges and menaces at it like this:


The jerkiness of the women’s bodies, the refusal to sexualize or to make palatable their limbs or breasts or lips or attraction to other women, that’s an outright “fuck you” to the male gaze.
There’s one quick juxtaposed shot that Autostraddle finds problematic: The only women in the video who actually kiss look like this:

Riese asks: “why do we have all these hot dykes of color dancing in wifebeaters but the only women who kiss in the video are these two, dropped in mid-frame like out of someone else’s music video?”
I think the reason is simple: the kissing women are a ‘fuck you’ to a male-dominated, heteronormative culture that likes its lesbians girly and wet dream-ready. They seem like they were dropped in from someone else’s music video because they really are absolutely out of place in this spike-lipped, sausage-butchering world. Since the rest of the video is so seamlessly hostile and angry, since there are no other instances of women touching in a heteroerotic way, it seems valid to assume that the clip was inserted, Tyler Durden-style, into the Fight Club world of Jessie J.
This is a smart, sassy video that’s probably only sexy to a subcategory of queerladies and maybe a few queergentlemen. I found it deeply sexy, FYI, and though god knows I like to be critical of stuff I find no solid foundation on which to critique this song or video as heteronormative or a product of penis envy.
As to the language of the lyrics, the “Boom Boom, pull me a beer / No pretty drinks, I’m a guy out here / Rollin’ rollin’ rollin’ rollin’ money like a pimp / My B I T C H’s on my d*ck like this”: It is a misconception and an enormous disservice to genderqueerladies and butches and drag kings to assume that women who perform ‘masculinity’ want to be ‘like men.’ Even when they say, for example, that they can ‘wear my hat low like you,’ they’re not imitating men–they’re (re)claiming ‘masculinity’ for their own purposes. When a (cisgendered) man dresses in drag, we don’t assume he wants to be just like a woman; we assume–and rightly so, in my view–that he is claiming a gender identity that crosses, transgresses, or transcends a gender binary.
That’s what the Jessie J video does, and nearly perfectly. And thank christ for it–we finally have a good reason to replace Katy Perry’s ridiculous, insipid, and problematically straight-friendly “I kissed a girl.”
if you care about equity in education, you should watch Summer Heights High
I was introduced to the Australian mockumentary “Summer Heights High” by my friend Steven Caldwell (who is also, by the way, the person who gave me the phrase ‘be the chainsaw you wish to see in the world‘). This show was apparently a raging hit when it aired in Australia, and Steven thought I would find its take on public education hilarious.
I didn’t find the show hilarious. I found it tragic and deeply moving and even a little bit beautiful. Most of all, I fell in love with Jonah, a Pacific Islander who disrupts class, fights with classmates, and struggles to read. If you care about equity in education, you should watch this show. If you care about social justice in education and you watch the series from beginning to end–there are only eight episodes–you will fall in love with Jonah too. It’s also highly likely that you will cry out of sadness and rage before the end.
The entire show is available via Netflix and in various places online. Here are a few clips to convince you.
film review: The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest
***spoiler alert***
***foul language alert***
If you’re keeping track, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest is the third in a series of mystery novels by the Swedish writer Stieg Larsson. It’s also the third in a series of film adaptations of the novels. I’ve written before about some of the feminist critiques of the books, though I haven’t read the books myself. I have seen all three films; I praised the first, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, for its feminist admiration of its hero, Lisbeth Salander. I took issue with the second, The Girl Who Played with Fire, for what felt like an anti-feminist exploitation of the bodies, desires, and impulses of all of the female characters.
I’m happy to announce that the series has righted itself with The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, a dark, dark courtroom drama that finally allows us entry into the world of the tiny, angry, brilliant, troubled woman whose very existence has been defined by the evil men who surround her.
Allows us entry, but begrudgingly and without a word of welcome. In this film, Lisbeth is the most sullen, defiantly silent, and unyielding we’ve ever seen her, even as the cruel details, the horrible cruelties, of her life are revealed to the world. If you’ve read or seen the first two parts of the series, you know that as a child Lisbeth Salander was committed against her will to a psychiatric hospital, where she was subjected to ‘treatments’ that may or may not have included electroshock therapy, sexual abuse by one or more male doctors, and near complete isolation from other patients. You know that she was declared mentally incompetent upon her eventual release from the hospital and handed off to a series of male guardians who did not always have her ‘care’ in mind. You know that one of her ‘guardians’ raped her, brutally. You know that her father tried, among other things, to have her killed. This third film opens with Lisbeth unconscious in a hospital bed, recovering from: being buried alive, being brutally beaten to the point of crushed bones by her half brother, and being shot in the head. She’s also under arrest for the attempted murder of her father.
There are people who want to help her, most notably the chivalrous Mikael Blomqvist, the intrepid journalist who in the novels apparently broke Lisbeth’s heart but who in the films seems sort of pathetically in love with her. He risks his life, and the lives of his employees, to secure documents that can exonerate Lisbeth at trial. He pressures his sister, an attorney, to take Lisbeth’s case; she is initially annoyed and frustrated with Lisbeth but comes around to Michael’s way of thinking before the end. There is also a kind male doctor who agrees to smuggle things into Lisbeth’s room and who holds the police at bay for as long as he can while Lisbeth recovers.
To these people, Lisbeth offers not a single grateful word. She refuses to respond to any of the doctor’s gentle and curious inquiries into her life. She refuses to see or speak to Mikael. And she refuses to answer any of her attorney’s questions, even though it appears that she is working against her own best interest by doing so.
Lisbeth is so silent in this film that it’s squirm-inducing. When the psychiatrist who was responsible for most of her childhood’s torture arranges to meet with her, she refuses to speak. At least tell him what an enormous dickfuck he is, you want to yell at the screen, but you know that would be impolite. When brought in to the police station for question, she sits in complete defiance, without answering a single question, until everybody gives up and sends her away. For godsake cooperate with these people, you want to yell, because everyone knows that you’re supposed to cooperate with the authorities.
This is shadow feminism at its finest. The ‘authorities’ you’re supposed to cooperate with have abused, assaulted, and tortured Lisbeth. The men, even the ostensibly kindest ones, who want to ‘help’ her are part of an anti-woman regime that dismantles her, that disempowers her, that determines how fuckable and therefore how worthy of their assistance she is.
We can read Lisbeth’s sullenness and silence as a simple refusal to participate in a system that has literally fucked her up the ass.
It’s a silence that should lead all of us to consider our complicity in social structures designed to work against the best interests of the poor, the nonwhite, the nonmale, the undereducated. My discomfort at Lisbeth’s refusal to answer questions at her official interrogation–that comes from a lifetime of learning how to be a good girl, how to do what the nice men ask of me. Lisbeth’s days of being a good girl are long over, and this film respects her enough to grant her that silence, to love and admire her for it.
This film loves her, but true to form, Lisbeth never offers up her gratitude to the film, its camera, or its viewers. The biggest misstep of the second film in this series was its treatment of Lisbeth and her body as an object of sexual desire. She gets all naked with her girlfriend in front of the camera’s male gaze; she walks around in bathrobes and skimpy outfits for no apparent reason and in a complete mismatch with the story being told. This film’s greatest accomplishment is that it refuses to sexualize our hero in any way that might be recognizable to the general viewing public. There is one scene near the end when Lisbeth is interrupted during a bath; though the filmmakers could’ve snuck some skin in there, we never get a single glimpse of her body and, what’s more, she emerges from the bath looking not steamy and sexy but soaked and disheveled. And here’s the piece de resistance, in the form of Lisbeth’s clothing choice for her trial:

That’s right, motherfuckers. You won’t get a single glimpse of Lisbeth’s body. She’s done with your world and everything it represents to her. We (the poor, the nonwhite, the nonmale, the undereducated) may not have the courage to make such a decision for ourselves, may not have the courage to take that path, but we must respect a film that refuses to let us think that our path is the harder one to take.
a thought about twins and gender identity
I have a twin sister. We are identical twins, which means: same egg, same sperm, same DNA. She’s in a relationship with a biological male (for ease of discussion, let’s just call him a ‘man’) and appears to love him very much. I haven’t dated a a biological male (a ‘man’) in years and years and I don’t imagine I will ever date one again.
We’re mirror twins, which means that our biologies are organized as if we’re looking at each other in a mirror. I’m left-handed, she’s right-handed. When we were kids, we lost our baby teeth in mirror parallel: I’d lose a bottom left molar; she’d lose a bottom right molar.
It occurred to me this morning that our gender identities and sexual orientations might also reflect this ‘mirror effect.’ After I had this thought, my next thought was ‘if that’s true, then thank christ I got to be the queer one.’ Which means I’m comfortable and happy with my queerness. Which for a long time wasn’t the case.
That is all I wanted to say: That I’m thrilled to be inside of this body, with these feelings, with those impulses, with this set of needs. I hope my sister feels the same.
Rives ftw
I have a little Sunday morning gift for you: Two videos of the spoken-word poet Rives doing his thing.
