Heavy and cold, I press against you until you budge. The light creeps in, until I can see the day. You snap back, and slam back against me. Closed. Locked. I pause, and let all the air drain from my lungs. I breathe in deeply. I clasp both hands around your handle and wrench the lock open. I am determined. I am strong. I let out a loud roar as I force you open, the steel rattling as it hits the stone wall behind. I have succeeded. I have pushed you open. But, then I see in front of me, another door. Red this time. The bar handle at waist height. As I walk toward it, the floor below my feet trembles. Caution: door may appear further than it actually is.

Since the release of Herself.com, I have been contemplating my own stance on feminism. Brave and collected, the blog has inspired me to crystalise my own thoughts on the subject. When I returned to work this week, I realised just that extra bit more vividly the allowances made to men in the workplace. Working in an industry which is dominated by the male gender (consisting of just 11% women, compared to a whopping 89% men), I have come to learn that places like this don’t change quickly, if at all. They don’t stray from the norm, because they simply don’t need to. In the workforce I have found that no matter how loud your voice, or how soft, you are not noticed in the right way.

You raise your voice once, and you’re a bitch. You wear a skirt just that bit shorter than the rest of them; you’re a slut. You make one mistake, no matter how small; you’re an idiot. If you shout or be stern once; you’re emotional. Yet, if a man in the workplace shouts, he’s a “gun!”, he’s firm.

And, all the while, your colleagues of the opposite sex stroll around playing games, toying with you and constantly overshadowing your work with complaint, contradiction and contempt.

I am woman; hear me roar. I am capable. I am brave. I am equal. I am shrewd.
I don’t hate men. In fact, quite the opposite. But, I’m going to get behind equality. Sure I don’t agree with everything in the book of feminism, but I am going to support no violence, no workplace, sexual, physical, mental or emotional discrimination.

I haven’t blogged for three months now, and have been thinking about how much I really need to get back into the swing of things.

I’ve decided to make a pact to myself, to follow a project for one year.

Twice a week I will post a photo of me in a different doorway. I’m attempting to explore the different pathways I will take this year, the different doors I come to.

I call it, the “Paint the Doors Red” project.

Starting…..today.

Likes, comments, shares, hits, reblogs… but do these really constitute whether something is a knockout or a flop?

In a world which is turning virtual, in which order becomes disorder and power laws are becoming extinct, how do we classify how much return an idea, song, product, service or thing has on online networks? Are classic and tangible results becoming a thing of a distant past?
In my opinion, online databases which hold our personal information, thoughts, disappointments and desires via blogs, Facebook, Pintrest, and email are increasing our self-organisation. Barabasi calls these platforms, “colorful and conceptually rich arena[s] of self-organization”. However, these platforms organise the material people input in a disorderly way. I say this because they have no apparent order to the way the information is organised. In fact, it is rather collated on one or many intersecting platforms, not organised in the traditional sense. The information is not stored according to characteristics however it is still brought together – which is the direct definition of ‘to organise’.
I would argue that the identity of the word ‘order’ is changing. To order something now is to bring together the entirety of a concept, event, or product and distribute and display it to the audience in a way that is flexible and completely accessible.

The doctrines as you could put it that provides the foundations for the traditional sense of order are Power Laws. A power law in this sense I’m discussing is a relationship between two hits, in hit X is directly proportional to a fixed power of hit Y. These laws dictate and control order and move disorder to order.

Often we think that for something to exist it has to be a hit. I was sitting next to my cousin last night while she played around on her Facebook profile. She changed her profile picture, but after it only received 7 likes in an hour, deleted it. She plucked it out of existence all because it didn’t make the quota. I know this is not directly related to what I am talking about, but it helps you to conceptualise how and why we choose whether something deserves to exist or not.

Aside from this, it’s been proved that ‘misses’ (as this photo was deemed to be, the term given to this that just don’t cut it or rank in views, likes or hits) can and do make money and views. This is because misses are still connections. Take Anaconda by Nicki Minaj. The song may be becoming popular now, but initially a lot of people were shocked, disgusted or just not fans of the song and its booty-flashing YouTube music video. Vann-Adit, alongside executives at iTunes, Amazon and Netflix worked out that misses make dosh too.

Sometimes I swear my mum’s family are just loud, connector-breeding eaters in society’s many circles.  (OK, I sort of used a Big Fat Greek Wedding quote there, but it just sounded so good in my head).  Connectors, as we can appreciate online, are nodes with (to quote Sophie – add wiki link here) “an anomalously large number of links”.  My family know everyone.  No, I’m not kidding… they literally know everyone.  We will be out with my mum or uncle, or grandpa, and they’ll meet up with at least 4 people they know.  Sometimes, my mum will think she knows someone, talk to them, make about 3 connections about how they should’ve already met but hadn’t, then continues on before meeting another person in the same way just an hour or two later.  It’s ridiculous the way this happens!  So, my mother is definitely a connector in society.

Barabasi reflected in his work ‘Small Worlds’ that we are all linked to one another, to new ideas, opportunities, work and recreational activities by a few weak ties (AKA what we call acquaintances… those people who you know, but like, don’t really know.  You know those ones that you’re like, OMG I KNOW YOU…. Oh crap, what’s his name again?

We’ve all got our bubbles….

Mmmm bubbles… mmm networks

Anyway, so bubbles… we’re in one all the time… even if it’s just our own.  Another concept of bubble is essentially your close-knit group, whether the people you sit with at school, the people you always partner and group with at uni, your outside group of friends, family or flat mates.  In this ‘inner circle’ our relationships are BOLD LINES as Sophie and Barabasi (hyperink here to external material of Barabasi’s reading) explain.  In this inner circle there is not much room for meeting complete randoms and building connections with the outside world and other groups of friends.

I have some friends who move in the same group, generally our old school girl group, and our matching brother school group.  A few of us have tried our best to move away from this and make other connections, as things can get a bit stale after all those teenage years.  I guess, you would call us the group’s connectors, as we bring new people into the group and provide a linking arm to the outside world (or at least to RMIT and outer suburbs world).

But, at the same time, these ties I make outside my group are not always strong.  In fact many are just above acquaintances.  Because, you can’t have that many inner circle friends for the system to work properly.  The idea is that WEAK TIES play an essential part of communicating beyond our bubble.  These are the connector properties.

Social media helps us to build weak ties across an online platform.  As Sophie explains, properties of social media e.g. Facebook, such as the ability to ‘LIKE’, ‘TAG’, and ‘FOLLOW’ subtly push us to take part in “rhythmic applause”, coordinating links between many others not directly involved with us.

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and even dating sites like Tinder are weaving their way throughout society, publishing social ties/ acquaintances and “igniting” empty links (SEE WEEK TIES^).’

Sophie’s right – humans, we all love making connections, we can’t help it.  Unless you’re on the autism spectrum which CAN weaken this, humans have an extremely strong need to associate with others around them and beyond them.  My cousin’s girlfriend added me on Facebook the other day, and the first thing I thought was, ‘Man, I’ve only met her once and I don’t know her from a bar of soap! Why’she addin’ me?  But, here we are… a classic weak tie, but because her boyfriend is my cousin, she’s decided to add me.

I once had a thing for a guy in one of my classes and because I saw him out and we talked for all of 2 minutes I stupidly added him on Facebook, messaging him saying, ‘You’re in my ******* class right?? Omg small world!’  I think I’m more judging of myself that I actually wrote O M G more than the fake tie actually.

Once upon a time there was there was a society whose cultural sphere was led and from and fed meaning from narrative.  This lasted for many hundreds and thousands of years, until one day, Database was introduced to the society.  He challenged Narrative’s ways, and soon, before long, was running the show.

Are databases and their devices taking over narrative in our culture?

Novels and films have long since established narrative as the fundamental practice of cultural expression in the modern age.  However, many new media forms are contesting this, showing that cultural expression does not necessarily need to be tied down by a beginning, middle and end nor a developmental (whether theomatical, formal or sequence) structure.

Databases are and networks are now dominating social form and culture.  These “structured collection[s] of data” as Lev Manovich calls them operate in either a Hierarchical, Network, Relational or Object-oriented structure in organisation communications and information.

Jean-Francois Lyotard, a French philosopher, sociologist, and literary theorist guy called our evolving culture as a “computerized society”.  As databases progress, we see a world dominated by and characterised by a formless throng of images, texts and data records.

Jean-Francois Lyotard

Encyclopedias are essentially collections of recipes, quotes, photos and facts.

But, since the introduction of CD-ROMS in 1993, their use and identity has changed quite significantly.  They are no longer simply a storage device but a cultural form on their own.  They have the ability to generate a “virtual museum” which can be accessed through a multitude of pathways.  Whether categorically (by country, artist, writer, scientist) or chronologically, each viewer has the potential to access the information via a variety of different avenues.

Ilana Snyder from Monash University had a bit say on why our culture is moving from narrative in the direction of databases.  The work here echoes what Lev Manovich says about it, but gives you yet another few more explanations as to why and how the shift is moving.

New Media and Cultural Form: Narrative versus Database – Ilana Snyder

The Database Logic by Lev Manovich

In contrast, good old narrative only gives the viewer one road to information!  Therefore, one of the most attractive features of databases is that they give choice and power to whoever is driving the device in terms of how they want to access and understand imagery, information and communication.  Databases and CDROMS can be considered fertile and changeable, as they soak up and order information in a way that narratives would struggle or fail to do.

This week’s symposium particularly attracted my attention. We discussed the concept of mob behaviour, and the power it has over our societies in understanding collective networks.

When we observe mob behaviour, we also often analyse the pack mentality. It is incredible how, when in a collective, larger group, an individual’s behaviour may be altered directly and dramatically. This is where we run into mobs or groups acting out in their respective communities and it being picked up on!

Adventure Time gets chaotic. Pack mentality takes over.

Lumpy Space Princess
Adventure Time

Duncan Watts asks us to reflect on individual behaviour and to think about how it cultivates and links to collective behaviour.

The notion of the pack mentality constitutes a ‘synchronised state’, where the actions and behaviours of many individuals aggregate to a group behaviour. Where individuals abilities and ideals are more closely aligned and they begin their behaviour together, the more likely they are to remain synchronized. This is generally not affected by the way in which individuals group or couple. Essentially, the pack mentality provides a stronger force than individual or couple behaviours.

If their distribution of abilities is great, such as in the final sprint of a ten-thousand-meter race, then no matter how much they want to stay together, the pack will disintegrate and synchrony will be lost.

Acting Out

As simple a model as this is, it turns out to be a nice representation of many interesting systems in biology, ranging from pacemaker cells to fireflies flashing to crickets chirping. Strogatz also studied the mathematics of physical systems, like arrays of super-conducting Josephson junctions extremely fast switches that might one day form the basis of a new generation of computers. (pp. 32-33.)

Duncan also puts this question to us: How is it that assembling a large collection of components into a system results in something altogether different from just a disassociated collection of components?

When we’re in a group, our behaviour from stray so far from where we would otherwise be as an individual. This can happen online too. We can see many examples of pack mentality – the most recent being the ALS ice bucket challenge. In the end, there were many people who didn’t even know why they were doing it – they just were… because EVERYBODY ELSE WAS.

After reflecting on this week’s reading from Duncan J. Watts, I got to thinking… How connected are we?  Which networks am I a part of and how do they survive and thrive?  How does the behaviour of individuals aggregate to a collective behaviour?  And, just like power and transport networks, how do the social networks deal with a failure in the system?  How do they resume their place in society?  At what stage is the evolution of networks too advanced… or can they be too advanced?  And, when is too much technology too much?

Some would argue that as long as something is changing in a way that assists us, it is evolving.  I would argue that we are heading in an astronically technological direction, where our otherwise tangible networks are being virtual.  In this sense, is there a point where inventiveness is excessive?
Watts argues that “no amount of inventiveness or energy is excessive if it results in the creation of leisure, the increase of personal freedom or the provision of physical comfort”.  But, at the point where we are couch potatos sitting idly with phones glued to our palms with supposed networks at our fingertips, are we really taking part in networks?  Or, is this taking part?

Technology is the produce of a “relentless engine of civilization”, constantly searching for meaning, for innovative solutions to everyday tasks, and for efficiency.

The power system is said to be the most critical resource in the world today.  It enables the use of things like aircon, computers, phones, power tools and television.

Watts says that “electricity is a fact of life so basic that we cannot imagine being without it”.  In the morning when I get ready, I wake up to an alarm set on my iPhone, run a hot shower (made hot with an electric water heater), put on my clothes, eat breakfast (toast from an electric toaster because I don’t like cereal) and grab my charged phone, charged iPod and my phone charger and set off to work.  Even stripping my day down the basic movements during morning, the steps I take to get ready, the things I put in my handbag… electricity is present in almost all of these steps.

Watts also said that “if we are forced to [be with out electricity], it can be so tremendously destructive [that we act] in the most primal fashion”.

The other day, I was sitting on the train, when a particularly frantic woman got on.  She threw her bags down and began pulling her bag apart looking for something.  She was breathing aggressively and stomped her feet loudly, muttering a series of swear words under her breath and began hyperventilating.  Confused, I looked away to try and give her some privacy.  But, out of the corner of my eye, I saw her pull a small black item from her bag which she clutched so tightly I thought she’d break its screen.  She sat back, her bag’s contents splayed around her and nestled her smart phone.

WOW.  And, you don’t call that primal?  Tell me we’re not going too far again.  I dare you.

Studies have shown that through our ability to remember tasks and facts with our original network carriers (our brains) are being replaced by phones.

Wow. Just wow. Galant, lean, just the right amount of muscle. Suave. Ooooh. Nerves are kicking in. The gorgeous man looks deep into your eyes and you literally melt. His muscles glean as the sunlight hits each contour. There’s a little flirtation as you look away and resume this chemistry between you both. So, in one swift movement, without thinking twice, you swipe right. Oh, it’s a match! Thank god.

Just recently I started dating my very own Flynn Rider (Tangled love interest… duh!). He started off exactly how I thought a guy should: flirty, handsome, cheeky, rebellious, and the perfect dash of naughtiness. It all started on New Years Eve, when I spotted him at an old friend’s place, casually smoking a cigarette and flashing girl passersby sexy pout eye-tilts (you know when a guy pouts a little and his eyebrows raise just slightly and you just know he’s thinking about what you’d look like naked). But, some seven months later, I’ve been there, done that, and am still looking for my Charming. Where is he?

Today, everything’s about physicality, shock, being picky, and getting what we want when we want. But all the while being laced with fairytale ideologies, we get caught up trying to find our prince charming. Melbourne… welcome to Tinder.

After all the heartbreak, tears, conversations with girlfriends and relationships… is it time to ask the obvious question: Are we brought up to look for the best guy for us, or the best guy? Are we so obsessed trying to find ‘the one’ that we get callously misguided by fairytale endings being the only one true happy ending for ourselves?

Of what I’ve learnt, there is no best guy, at least not in general. If Samantha Jones has taught us anything about sex, cities and relationships it’s that the ideal guy is an illusion, and it’s time to start living our lives.

When I was little I would wrap my bright red skivvy around my head, put on one of my mother’s bras and lay on a pretend rock of clean laundry and wait for my Eric to come rescue me from deep below the ocean. Or so I thought anyway. I was convinced that Ariel had the most glamourous, wonderful life and that without a tail, true love’s first kiss and a sea witch, I was never going to make it.

Well, I don’t know about you, but my first kiss was a lot less than glamourous. We had the under-the-sea part right – or at least the lack of oxygen and litre of saliva made it feel like that.

And, really, what’s so amazing about trading your identity, changing yourself into a completely different organism, ditching your family and promising to never return to the sea… all for a guy?! Be yourself ladies. If there’s one thing Ariel doesn’t teach us, it’s this, you are amazing the way you are.

We all know that we live in a physical world. Spaces like Tinder, Facebook and Instagram are incredibly influencial and encourage this concept. Guys are brutal sometimes, from commenting on a girls’ looks in front of others to not giving you the time of day or even smiling or saying hi if they don’t find you the most attractive in the room.

But what we have to realise is that guys are really just as lost as we are. They are convinced that either they deserve a “princess” or that they are never good enough for most of us and hence comes the “screw-over” (when you’re seeing a guy for a little while, who then decides when it’s time to work out what you are, he “isn’t good enough for you or for anything”).

Let’s face it, guys have their own fairytale complexes which they’ve been fed. But if we don’t strive to be a princess and fairytale ideals then men will have to face reality and won’t look for princesses. E.g. eric never had to change himself to be with Ariel. Their relationship would have been stronger had they both compromised, maybe he should have taken on a few scales.

If a girl is brought up to believe she’s a princess, then she forms the idea that she’s entitled to a royal life… a fairytale. It’s when she gets lost in the forest of reality that she confuses disney romance for real romance.

Us girls get caught up in these fairytale idologies associated with what a man should be, that we get let down by guys because they perceive that they’ve got the prince thing down-pat by either going out shooting things, being tough and silent about their true feelings, or being in love with their vehicles (whether horse, motorbike, skateboard or car).

I think what we need to remember is, we’re not entitled to a prince… just as guys are not entitled to a princess.  Relationships are about living in reality, patience, understanding and most of all COMPROMISE GUYS.  For all Ariel goes through, I mean having to split your tail into legs just sounds painful… Perhaps Eric could’ve taken on a few scales.

In my previous post I dealt with the issues around technological communication and human technologies and their relationship with art and culture.

Another area from the symposium that interested me (although confused me at the same time), was the idea of an alternate interweb.  Ted Nelson is an American philosopher and sociologist who is a pioneer in the set up and structure of communication technology.  In 1960, he founded Project Xanadu and in turn came to question the future validity and currency of the World Wide Web.  He challenged the concept behind the World Wide Web under the following reasoning:

“Today’s popular software simulates paper. The World Wide Web (another imitation of paper) trivialises our original hypertext model with one-way ever-breaking links and no management of version or contents.”

Project Xanadu Wikipedia page

Although he’s getting on a bit now, his theories and thought processes are still incredibly current and (despite us thinking we have a fluid and flexible internet), have yet to penetrate the rigid information technology of today.

Ted envisioned a two-way or multi-way online network and actually came up with an alternative interweb.  Even though we do not use his concept, it is interesting to analyse what makes his point so innovative in the world of information technology.

Ted looked into creating a “docuverse”, which stored all data once, without deletions and where all information was accessible via a link from anywhere else.  He believed that the linear representation of linking and finding connecting information on the web interrupted how we find this content, and that it followed the footsteps of how we view a book, rather than an interactive hypertext web network.  He envisioned a network which was non-linear, which depended on an individual’s choice of links, rather than a specific pathway in which to find this information.

His developments continued to form what is now referred to as a “high-performance hypertext system” which ensures the identity of references to objects and solves configuration management and copyright governance issues.