Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 8 | Page 10

10 | JADE
ARTICLE #1 | 11
PHILIP DEVINE
matters of concern/things”, with relation to Marinetti’s aesthetic
of deconstruction (cited in Benjamin, 1935, p. 15). This gives rise to
heightened subjective experience in digital cultures, and leads to
the problematic relationship between object and subject, extending
Simmel’s (1910-11) understanding of nature as being represented
by the way our intellect assembles and orders sense perceptions
(physico psychical organisation). Simmel’s (1910-11) widening
of the Kantian worldview (thought experiment) introduces the
concept of ‘rejection’, in that objects reject representation because
“coherences, regularities, appear as subjective, as that which is
brought to the situation by ourselves, in contrast with that which
we have received from the externally existent”. In light of Simmel’s
understanding of nature, I would like to go on to suggest that the
agency and ‘mythology’ of an artifact (or object) is not delivered by
representation, but is delivered by experiment, assemblies, orderings
and sense perceptions, described by Haraway (1985, p. 84; 2007, p.
57) as “powerful infidel heteroglossia”. This is perpetuated by the
relationship between the apparent and the existent, Berger (2010, p.
9) telling us that “appearances are volatile” and that “technological
innovation has made it easy to separate the apparent from the
existent” indicating that the “system in which we now live has a
mythology”. Berger extends Walter Benjamin’s ‘pre-world war two’
worldview, as set out in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction” (Benjamin, 1935).
INTERCONNECTED MOTIONS:
AGENCY OF INFORMATION IN CULTURE & LEARNING (VIRTUAL MYTHOLOGY)
would suggest, attempt to deliver a mythology of a type. What is
new is the social acquisition of media in the digital domain, in which
populations in general appear to continue the apparent human
condition of mythification of human experience (for one purpose or
another). This is described by Berger (2010, p. 12) as living “within a
spectacle of empty clothes and unworn masks”.
Cultivation, Icon and Iconography
In light of my understanding of agency, mythology and
representation, how is the objectification of information on culture
and learning made apparent in practice, and what are the abilities
and effects of the agency objectification of information on culture
and learning? I would suggest that the notions of agency in this
instance are legion. It is hoped that #edcmooc data will uncover less
obvious representations of idealised experience that influence digital
education.
So, to begin what would be a more substantial study, beyond the
remit of this paper, I would like to share my thoughts on #edcmooc
participants’ representation of lecturer within the #edcmooc digital
environment, and locate evidence of that representation in learning
within #edcmooc data [Appendix 1].
To understand the nature (and abilities) of agency in relation
to the objectification of information in culture and learning, it is
necessary to further investigate the notion of representation, with
the understanding that objects reject representation (Simmel, 1910-
11). I define representation as “a hypothetical internal cognitive
symbol representing reality” [appendix, 2] that can be shared among
members of a group or community. I now introduce the notion of
mythology into my argument, defined as “idealised experience to
establish behavioural models” [Appendix, 3].
I can then suggest that what I am looking for, the agency of the
objectification of information, exists in established behavioural models
(or patterns) within, in this case, empirical data that may deliver
‘idealised experience’, or what Pedersen (2010, p. 243) describes as
a “preoccupation with the project of the human”. I understand that
through ‘experience’ it is possible for objectification of information
to mean many ‘things’ to many people, defined by Sheller and Urry
(2005, p. 222) as “flickering combinations of presence and absence
of peoples”. The portrayal of idealised experience that hopes to
result in established behavioural models is not new; far from it. Early
cultural artifacts to contemporary religious icons, or early forms
of product (brand) advertising, to digital artifacts gone viral, all, I
1: #edcmooc Hangout, 01.02.13, 17:00 pm–18:00
2: Ohrid Annunciation Icon
The images above are a juxtaposition of objectification in the service
of the cultivation of individuals. The first is taken from the initial
edcmooc Google hangout; the second, a Christian artifact created in
the first quarter of the 14th century. My interest in this juxtaposition
of image is in how the massification of audience in educational
experience represents lecturer (or educattor) as an arbiter or source
of knowledge. Resulting from objectification, the artifact or object
is becoming iconic, if only fleetingly, a representation of idealised