Learned Plagiarism

Academic Camouflage…
The Art of Mushfake (or Invisibility)

I cannot stop reeling over this idea of "learned plagiarism".  I keep thinking of the way I learned to write a research paper in high school and I feel like I learned this process of assemblage in sort of the opposite way.  I was encouraged to acknowledge my sources in my formal writing.  From what I came to understand from my teachers, if I failed to cite my sources then my work would lack the credibility and genius (Johnson-Eilola & Selber) that would lead to its acceptance in mainstream academia. 

Later on in my academic career (and by later on I mean NOW), I would learn that I had to stop depending on the “three long quote, five short quote” structure my papers and writing had come to adopt if I even hoped to make it as a doctoral student, let alone a published author in a peer-reviewed academic journal.  My writing and academic identity had to be transformed.  I could no longer rely on the ideas, theories, and philosophies of others nestled comfortably between quotation marks.  My “original” ideas could no longer be hidden among citations.  NOW to be accepted into the world of mainstream academia, my scholarship had to be entirely my own – I had to become the citation – and the credible sources I was taught to cite/acknowledge as a K-12 student were now supposed to be supporting actors in my work.  The credibility of my work/academic writing no longer depends on how many sources I could cite, or authors/theorists I could quote as it once did, but on the merit of my creative genius.

Obviously this kind of pressure did not exist for me as an elementary school or even middle school student – at this stage in life these were the days of simple sentences, anagram poems, book reports, and grammar lessons.  These typical lessons/activities, even if marketed to students as wholly creative under the guise of an art project (i.e., not in the form of a textbook or worksheet), were still structured, formatted, and pieced together to limit the true potential of the student’s creative genius.  I think the point I am trying to make is that all of these ideas are an assemblage of something else from somewhere else -- from the lesson plan to the final product – from the idea to the format and example, to the implementation and the outcome – it’s ALL a sample of something that came before it – an assemblage or collage of words, ideas, and material.   

As I analyze my own experiences as a writing student (nay as a student in general), I realize that I was taught to mushfake (Gee) – trained in the art of mushfake discourse.  The definition of this term is most likely what you think it to be – an accurate representation of the amalgamation of the two words that make it up – mush and fake.  Loosely translated, a person who engages in mushfaking is combining (or mushing – mush used as verb) together partial acquisition of the dominant discourse, as well as meta-knowledge (knowledge of other knowledge – mush used as a noun) of strategies associated with functional literacy to pass/hide (fake) in mainstream society.  It is academic/literacy camouflage…a survival strategy…hiding out in the open…“within their own culture” (Bartlett, 1994, 295) – or at least with the culture shaped by the dominant discourse.  The long of the short of it is that my entire academic career, the philosophies and identities I have written for myself in many of life’s forums have been and continue to be assemblage and mushfake – the ineffectual reassembly/simulation of ideas, words, material a.k.a knowledge to situate ourselves and construct our identities in the performance piece that is academia, mainstream society, marriage, motherhood, and ultimately life. 

At this point, it seems as though I have reached an impasse – one in which I am trapped in the ouroboros, realizing that even this piece is a reassembly of ideas/theories, making it a part of the very cycle about which I am trying to think critically, but from which I am bred. 

Beware the Ouroboros!

Turns out it does not have to be a ditto to be a copy…or mushfake!

 

It’s ALL a Sample (or Remix)…

What are We Writing For?

 

Reading the work and theories of Johnson-Eilola & Selber (2007) regarding the relationship between plagiarism and assemblage, I am reminded of my days working with Kaplan K-12 Learning Services.  As an instructor for this company, I was provided with all of the resources I would ever need for presenting their curriculum to my students.  For the duration of my employment I was a scripted teacher, and any deviation from this script was frowned upon by my supervisors.  Johnson-Eilola & Selber reminded me that in this age of accountability, teachers, just as much as students, are victims of assemblage.  According to these authors the “final” product a student produces—a text—is not concerned with original words or images on a page or screen but concerned primarily with assemblages of parts” (380).  Similarly, today’s pedagogical practices, and professional development of teachers are also concerned with their ability to reassemble information and present it to their students for the purpose of achieving a particular objective or score.
 

In fact, as I have often discussed in my blog posts this semester, much of the knowledge or information we acquire is a “simulation of its predecessor” (Toffoletti, Baudrillard).  What Johnson-Eilola & Selber are suggesting is that student writers are being constructed to simulate and hide their “genius”.  The authors state that “[w]hat we want to suggest…is that the whole issue of plagiarism is still tied to the idea of the lone, creative genius.  In other words, at least one set of social forces suggests to students that using citations and quotations from sources materials will be valued less than their own original text, a situation that may encourage them to conceal their sources” (378).  They propose a redefinition of creativity; one in which “[c]reativity…shifts into assemblage:  Take what already exists and make something else, something that works to solve problems in new, local contexts” (400). 

To this I say “yes” and “no”

We spend our class time theorizing and philosophizing these ideas of agency, embodiment, consciousness, and originality.  And we often leave the room realizing that all that we know, anything that we perceive to be an original idea, is actually a copy of something that came before it.  In a nutshell…it is all plagiarized.  Yes, students are taught to recognize the current version of the box or wheel.  Teaching and instructional practices utilized in this age of accountability ensure that they learn to understand, interpret, and reiterate whatever society deems to be the current standard or model at the moment for a particular subject because at the end of the day anything we believe is the product of social construction.  Let’s face it, to what extent can we really believe that anything we think is original?  At the end of the day the responsibility of students, teachers, and ultimately society is to think critically about their social constructions.  However, one is also apt to disagree with the idea that students are not being taught to construct or make meaning of their own.  If anything the student has more creative license, more agency to make meaning than the author.  The work of the author is often open to more interpretation than he/she may have ever intended and readers are free to glean what they will from it.  Roland Barthes suggests that “literature is [the] neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes” (2).  Writers are essentially put into boxes or wheels.  They are constrained or confined by meaning.  The identity of the writer is constructed by interpretation…the meaning made of his/her writing.  At the end of the day producing a final product is a part of a cycle of constructing meaning.  Barthes states that “a code cannot be destroyed, it can only be “played with”…by abruptly violating expected meanings” (p. 3).  As I work to interpret Johnson-Eilola & Selber, I want my students to work toward producing original work that affects social change.  I want to be honest about the issues that plague, corrupt, and destroy society…I want my own writing to change the world and change the lives of those who encounter my theories and ideas for the better.  But regardless of intent simply by constructing meaning and knowledge to some extent our work has some type of social effect.  We add new knowledge to the field, we affect the lives of those studied, we stir old archives, and we create “new” knowledge, if only for ourselves; to some extent we have a social effect on the world no matter how small. 

As a student, as well as someone journeying into the world of publishing to further her academic success and professional reputation as an academic, I can no longer write for myself (the real question is will I always have the courage to be this honest – or will I develop a fear of honesty in favor of being published?).  My ideas and interpretations of theories are no longer just mine…come to think of it they were never mine to begin with…no matter how revolutionary I ever thought they were.  Instead like the writers and theorists who came before me and those who will come after me I am “a mediator, shaman or speaker, whose “performance” may be admired (that is, his mastery of the narrative code), but not his “genius”” (Barthes 2).  Producing a final product, whether this means writing for academia or the great American novel, is simply a part of a cycle of constructing meaning in which we take an “original” idea make it the model, teach to the model, change the meaning, and do it all over again.

Social Networking, the New High Society Party…

 

Who Are You?
In The Great Gatsby (1925) by F. Scott Fitzgerald, socialite Jordan Baker asserts that she “like[s] large parties.  They’re so intimate.  At small parties there isn’t any privacy.”  Jordan goes on to enjoy this high society party hosted by Jay Gatsby, flittering among the masses.  Like a bee, she moves from flower to flower, or in her case person to person.  Similar to the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers, Baker engages in an [information] exchange.  She pollinates by offering information and gathers nectar in the form of information.  Her statement suggests that such things could not occur in a smaller setting because the opportunity to syphon through personalities and ideologies does not present itself (touching once more on the relationship between embodiment and consciousness/awareness).  Moreover, her preference for obscurity within these crowds is demonstrative of her ability to situate herself among these personalities and identities (within this makeshift society of socialites).  While we are far from the days of flapper girls and the Jazz age, the idea of hiding out in the open is far from lost.  As a society we have not yet abandoned the notion situating ourselves among the myriad of personalities and ideologies that exist in mainstream society as we attempt to construct our identities. 

Today the high society parties in which we attempt to situate ourselves or construct our identities come to us in the form of social networking.  Bronwyn Williams stated that as we develop our identities via social networking “the writer of the page has composed to construct a performance of identity.” (25).  The advent of recent advancements in technology suggest that we interact more with each other along these long distance channels.  We experience more exposure to an interactive culture/popular culture which contributes to the construction of our identities:  personalities and ideologies.  Similar to the Baker’s preference, even we are prone pretentiousness when our favorite underground social networking site becomes more prevalent in mainstream society.  According to Bill Howard once a social networking site becomes more aligned with the tenets of “conventional wisdom” (14) its growth and popularity “makes a social networking site both impersonal and undesirable" (14).  We often believe that the ways in which we situate ourselves among social networking sites may define our identities.  In the same way, this type of development also suggests that sometimes social networking sites develop their own idnetities through their growth, acceptance, or rejection by mainstream soceity.

Another aspect prevalent among social networking, which can also be found within the context of a high society party, is the ability to define a system or ideology.  The idea of convergence theory suggests that through the medium of technology, connections among economic, cultural, historical, and social systems will occur.  Williams states, that “contemporary convergence culture [is] both filtered through and use[s] popular culture” (26) to establish a conception of ideology in mainstream society.  Alluding to Gee’s concept of affinity spaces, she contends that social networking provides an opportunity (as well as the ability) to “affiliate with others to share knowledge and gain knowledge…distributed and dispersed across many different people, places, Internet sites, and modalities” (32).  Through this type of socialization we understand that we now have the ability and opportunity to create new knowledge, influence new/existing knowledge, and develop our own identities and ideologies (as well as that of others) because the “definitions of literacy and performances of identity are complex social phenomena situated in cultural context” (29).  Like the denizens of the East Egg we develop our identities and ideology through the cultural context of socializtion; however, in our day we call it Facebook. 

 

An Academic Scavenger Hunt:

WebQuest as New Media...Project Proposal

Vision & Rationale:

For the purposes of this project I would like to explore the use of a WebQuest as an effective method of instruction and teaching tool.  According to www.teAchnology.com a WebQuest is an interactive tool designed to engage students in inquiry based learning.  It is a pedagogical/educational scavenger hunt in which students are asked to make a discovery or complete a task through their exploration of web based resources provided by their teacher.  Although it may seem one-dimensional in so far as students are simply finding the answer to one question, a WebQuest can facilitate the critical analysis of a particular subject or topic.  Because this academic adventure is orchestrated by the teacher, teachers can tailor students’ learning to include a myriad of innovative discoveries and new information simply based on the resources/information they choose to present to their student.  Student learning does not have to stop at simply finding the answer to a question.  Teachers can use this inquiry-based activity to make learning continuous.  Teachers can artfully present extra useful/interesting facts and information to their students; they can make anything a teachable moment, demonstrating that learning can happen at any time, and really never stops.  The converse of this is that students may also be limited to the information/resources provided by teachers; however, simply engaging in this activity can provide students with opportunities to develop technological and academic literacy, as well as research skills.    Students learn how to maneuver the web for academic/informational purposes.  Moreover, because it is suggested that this activity usually culminates in a written product which describes students’ discovery process and findings (i.e., the answer to the question) this activity takes the scientific method to another level and students are performing amateur research.  This type of guided practice activity creates a learning environment which provides students and teachers with agency/autonomy as they attempt to find answers or create “new” knowledge.  

As a part of this project I would like to explore the possibility of creating an eye catching document/presentation (maybe using Prezi or an interactive map) which draws students in and literally takes them on an academic journey.  I want to show how this interactive teaching tool/instructional method can be used to supplement and facilitate teaching and learning.  What’s more I hope to show that this one tool does all of this all at the same time.   

Questions to Consider:

1.      How much agency/power do teachers and/or students have over their own teaching/learning as they engage in this type of inquiry-based activity?

2.      How much autonomy is afforded to students or teachers with regard to teaching/learning as they engage in this activity?  What are their constraints/boundaries as they engage in this inquiry-based activity?  What do you feel is holding them back or propelling them forward?

3.      Does agency/power, and autonomy even exist in a WebQuest (participation, design, etc.)?

4.      Are students/teachers actually able to create any “new” knowledge or expand/add to what they already know by completing a WebQuest?

5.      Does this type of technologically based activity facilitate students or enable them?  Does something like this make students (and maybe even teachers) lazy?

6.      Is this a new version of the banking concept as described by Paulo Freire?  How do these types of activities facilitate or retard literacy skills (functional, technological, dominant vs. secondary).

7.      What is the effect of such activities, in which information is provided to us under the guise of discovery, on our academic/cultural identity/philosophy (how we write ourselves, etc.)?

8.      Consider medium/embodiment, how does this type of activity affect or change our consciousness/awareness/perceptions about what is being studied?

Theory/Ideas/Concepts (Authors)

Toffoletti, Baudrillard, Derrida, Badmington – Simulated Knowledge, Copies of the   Original, Effects of Consumption/Appropriation of “original” idea – becoming a part of the mainstream/dominant discourse, Limitations/Ability to create “new” knowledge or

Hayles, Welch, Bolter:  5 Canons of Rhetoric, Embodiment/Form/Medium à Perceptions, Consciousness, Awareness, Power, Reproduction

Hayles – Informational Prostheses – Building ourselves through the appropriation of informational patterns

Identity Development:  Writing ourselves/identities/philosophies

A Comment Turned Blog Post...

The Green Cycle...or the Cycle of Simulation?
This post is an adapation of a comment/discussion from a previous blog post:

One theme/trend that I've noticed throughout most, if not all, of our readings this semester is that of embodiment (form, medium -- whatever you want to call it), and its effects on the way we perceive information and knowledge.  Moreover, as I continue to consider this notion of knowledge being a "simulation of its predecessor" or "copies/simulations influenced...by perception" it's making me wonder how much agency/power we actually have in creating new knowledge; and how much, if any, of it is authentic (if there is such a thing as authenticity given the theoretical perceptions of people like Hayles, Thacker, Toffoletti, and Plato). I feel like in our quest to try and help people learn, understand, or even relate to knowledge and information we end up reducing knowledge/information or identity into particular aspects vis-a-vis simulation rather than creating something new.  In a previous comment I noted that what really gets me is how our relationships to this information is always shaped by someone else's perspective...it's like a version of the green cycle...information has been REDUCED to a particular set of concepts, ultimately REUSED since knowledge or what we have come to consider knowledge is a simulation of some other set of ideas, thereby RECYCLED to be perceived of as something else (even though we are learning it's nothing new). 

Attempts to restore "original" or create "new" knowledge are futile because upon changing its form or being affected by "new" knowledge the "original" no longer (or never) exists.  Ultimately we succeed in objectifying and commidifying knowledge (as we do with all things in our consumerist society).

On Life & Death: Life Gems?

On Life & Death: 
Life Gems?

Upon embarking on these extra topics we were asked to consider for this week Toffoletti’s words continued to run through my mind.  As she described the discarded Barbie dolls she found at a local flea market, she stated that these dolls were waiting to be “taken and used in another context” (57).  She suggested that knowledge, information, objects are mere simulations of their predecessors.  Using the Barbie doll she demonstrated how knowledge, information, and objects can transform or be transformed based on individual experiences or perceptions.  The idea of Life Gem is an obvious representation of the concepts described by Toffoletti.  The product promises to take a lock of hair or cremated ashes and transform it into another carbon based substance to commemorate the life of an organism (I mean its suggested use is for human beings, but who says a loved one cannot be your pet?).  The transformation of one object to another is apparent here; however, we also see the ability of the object to transcend boundaries of knowledge and representation through the medium in which it is presented (form/embodiment).  It is no ordinary diamond after all.  The diamond produced by Life Gem has clearly transformed/changed its medium to represent your loved one in a new (and exciting?) way.  I cannot deny that this concept is intriguing…it immediately engendered visions of Han Solo -- frozen in carbonite, Mel Gibson in Forever Young -- cryogenically frozen, even Brendan Fraser in Encino Man – preserved in a block of ice.  Each character represented a transformation of identity, perceptions, and knowledge with regard to their current state (embodiment) in society.  They meant something different for society, just as it meant something different for them.    

Hand Me Down Knowledge

Making Meaning from My Size Barbie…

My Size Barbie was a doll crafted in 1992.  It was a little over 3 feet tall and fashioned so that little girls could in effect become their Barbie dolls.  The original doll according to some sites included two outfits that could be worn by Barbie and the little girls who wished to emulate her.  This doll took Barbie another level.  It transformed the product and provided new ways in which the Barbie doll, its image and concept could be manipulated by consumers and manufacturers.  Since its advent Barbie has been everything to all people.  Once a “fashion doll for adults” (Toffoletti 57) Barbie has since been a doctor, a teacher, a princess, even an angel, etc., suggesting to consumers that the idea of Barbie has always been malleable, one that can change (and has changed) with time.  While the Barbie doll is often given a bum rap, one which criticizes Barbie for giving little girls warped ideals and expectations of femininity, female identity and beauty, Kim Toffoletti described it as “a type of plastic transformer who embodies the potential for identity to be mutable and unfixed.” (59). She suggested that Barbie is merely a simulation of the female image she was designed to represent thereby providing “alternative understandings of the body and self as transformative, rather than bound to an established system of meaning.” (59).   

As a child of the late 80s and 90s I am no stranger to the Barbie doll; however, considering the work of authors like Toffoletti and DuCille (to whom Toffoletti alludes with regard to the development of multicultural Barbie dolls) I am becoming more aware of how the popular culture references characteristic of my childhood are actually representative of my struggle as a young immigrant girl growing up in the United States attempting to situate herself in mainstream society.  Although I did not realize it at the time, the preferences and the choices I made as a child were indicative of the development of my own double consciousness.  Moreover, they were suggestive of my perceptions of myself in relation to the world around me.  When we look at the Barbie doll and all that it has come to represent, as well as consider the meaning of sociological endeavors such as the toy doll experiment of Kenneth and Mamie Clark in the 1940s, it begins to resonate that the toys, music, clothing, and things we believe are fixed in meaning or symbolism, trapped in a particular time period, actually transform individuals and transcend boundaries based on the experiences associated with them.  All that we know is waiting to be “taken and used in another context.” (57). Halberstam & Livingston stated that “Culture processes and appropriates a subculture only as quickly as the subculture becomes visible as culture:  the Imaginary of dominant culture is always only a culmination of appropriated forms and plagiarized lyrics” (4).  I understand this to mean that nothing is authentic or real (Baudriallard).  Instead all that we know, the information that we process, is an interpretation of something that came before it – a sort of hand me down knowledge that undergoes a metamorphosis based on the next person to inherit it. 

Side Note:  On my travels along the information superhighway I discovered Grace Porras' (2012) --  Multicultural Barbie is Uni-Dimensional -- in which she described the different ways the Barbie doll represents a commodification and exploitation of race/ethnicity and female identity.