What does Premier Berejiklian mean when she dubs the NSW curriculum review as “back to basics” reform?
I am writing this essay to complicate the idea of academic use of social media by considering it in terms of digital labour. I do not wish to discourage academics from using social media. If academics stopped using it, I wouldn’t have anything to research. Please don’t! However, if use of social media is considered part of academic impact, then the labour involved must be given greater attention.
Social media research is not pop-cultural. It is a mechanism for understanding the very real performativity in platform education.
If you were to walk to the top of the tallest tower and look down on the network of roads and people, it might look planned, straight, considered. Plenty of people have taken that path and many know where to go. You can tell by the structures. But when you get down to ground level, the steps people are taking are not all in unison. They wander, stop, turn around, bump into things.
I have thought about digital pedagogies before, but only ever as a part of a wider discussion of pedagogy. I had never really thought about the intracies.
The five models have me reflecting upon what models I have used in the past and within what context. It then has me considering what models work best in my current context, working with teachers.
Naomi Barnes, Amanda Heffernan and Shirley Steinberg are calling for abstracts for an edited book, tentatively titled Would Foucault have read Harry Potter? Unlocking social theory with popular culture. The book is intended for Palgrave Publications.
Barnes has taken this a different way and developed a hashtag to collect all her readings (#NBNotes), but rather than tagging each subsequent post, this is just saved for the initial Tweet.
I really like Barnes’ intent to share. I just wonder if there is a means of owning these notes. Ideally, taking a POSSE approach, she might live blog and post this to Twitter. I vaguely remember Chris Aldrich sharing something about this recently, but the reference escapes me. This is also limited with her blog being located at WP.com. I therefore wondered about the option of pasting the content of the tweets into a blog as an archive.
Clearly, you can embed Tweets, often by adding the URL. However, there are more and more people deleting their Tweets and if you embed something that is deleted, this content is then lost. (Not sure where this leaves Storify etc.) Another approach is to use Martin Hawksey’s TAGS to create an archive and then use this data to paste into a post. I have documented the steps with gifs here. If each of the tweets included the unique hashtag, the archive could be created using this, however as it is not, the easiest way of capturing the tweets would be to search for ‘@DrNomyn’.
The problem then is that the archive includes all tweets. Although I could query this, it is easy enough to use the Filter option in the Data menu of Sheets to focus only on tweets from @DrNomyn (Column B) and to organise Tweets in chronological order (Column E). The quickest way to get these Tweets into a post is to highlight the cells in question and copy them.
Then just paste this text into the post. I would then add blockquotes, but this maybe a personal preference. I guess there are other things that could be done, such as adding blockquotes via the sheets and even removing links to the actual Tweets (if desired), but I think that this offers a start.
_I just realised that TAGS only captures 140 characters, not the extended length. I guess this solution may not work_ I realised that I needed to downloaded a new copy of TAGS. Here then is a copy of the tweets:
The current challenge to 2nd wave feminism is what to critique.
Which understanding of androcentrism?
Which interpretations of gender justice?
Which modes of feminist theorising should be incorporated into the current political imaginary?
Fraser urges feminist to ‘break that unholy alliance’ between feminism and marketisation and forge new ones between ’emancipation’ and ‘social protection’
The personal became political.
Boundaries of contestation became more than just the socio-economic
What happened in homes and was attached to bodies were thrust into the public sphere in order to politicise
The first issue the New Left focused on was the Vietnam War and the role capitalism was taking in supporting neo-colonialism to support the West.
Soon attention was turned to other core features of capitalism that had become ‘naturalised’
Materialism, consumerism, social control, sexual repression, sexism, heteronormativity were all normalised under capitalism.
Social activists began to organise to break through these normative political routines
Fraser argues that feminism can no longer ignore economic inequality if it wants to be taken seriously as a politically transformative force. Revive Act1 (redistribution) with the cultural insights of Act2 (recognition)
Act2 – the feminist imagination turned from redistribution of power/economy to recognition of difference – identity/cultural politics dominated
Feminism [and I’m going to add on the shoulders of the Civil/Indigenous Rights, LGBTIQ, and independence movements to which it should be eternally thankful] began questioning the exclusions of social democracy
Attention turned to the politics of recognition.
Unable to transformatively address the androcentrism of capitalism, feminists began targeting the harms capitalism caused in an effort to transform culture
Feminism must also integrate transnationalism into its agenda.
How might feminism foster equal participation transnationally across entrenched power asymmetries and divergent world views?
Feminism MUST be intersectional if it wants to address the inequalities of capitalism
The history of 2nd wave feminism:
Western Europe and North America saw unprecedented prosperity after WW2.
Keynesian economics showed how to incorporate the unions and built welfare states
Mass consumption had apparently tamed social conflict
But the ‘success’ of Keynesian economics ignored the exclusion from the labour market of women and people of colour.
The ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’ was shattered by the New Left – the radical youth who took to the streets
Fraser suggests that instead of synergy between redistributive and recognitive agendas, 2nd wave feminism developed a binary where people had to choose which side they thought worked best
Act3 – still unfolding but we are seeing the reinvigoration of feminist and other emancipatory forces to demand that the runaway markets be subjected to democratic control
Second wave feminism came out of the New Left after WW2.
Act1 – Began life as an insurrectionary force that challenged male domination in state organised capitalist societies
Neoconservative forces have (for a time) defused 2nd wave feminism’s radical currents but we are beginning to see it’s reanimation [Fraser predicted it in 2014, I reckon we can say it’s here in late 2017]
Fraser argues that, despite good intentions, the emphasis on identity dovetailed too neatly with neoliberal desires to make people forget about egalitarianism and redistribution of capital
At present 2nd wave feminism is deepening its signature insights
– critiquing capitalism’s androcentrism
– analysis of male domination
– gender -sensitive revisions of democracy and justice
By the 1980s the political project of feminism had died down due to decades of Conservative governments. The fall of the Communist bloc also didn’t help ‘socialist’ movements
The book traces the changing focus of the history of second wave feminism over the 20th/21st centuries. Providing essays situated in each of the three ‘Acts’. I’m live tweeting Fraser’s overview of the history and spirit of the wave