Recant, Sort Of...

All right, all right. I take it back -- sort of. That is, I liked Chapter two of Nakamura's book. It was much better methodologically, I feel, and explored much more of the things I wanted to see. While this chapter still shared some of the problems of the first, at the same time I felt that this one was much more effective, because it focused on one issue: the visualization of race on one site, and in so doing made this chapter more theoretically (and intellectually) rigorous.

I particularly liked her assessment off the "allooksame?" site; not only was she careful to point out the potential controversies and issues with depicting such a sensitive topic, but she went to the source itself, did some discourse and visual analysis, and looked at users. Though she had done some of this in the first chapter, it was too limited in scope for me to buy it. Here, since she was only discussing this one-of-a-kind site, it didn't seem so bad. I do believe her now, when she says that this website presents spaces for deconstruction of (visual) race; all elements contribute and the surrounding discussions effectively sketch out the parameters for her argument. :)

I totally dig the fact that she is/was willing to explore the possible sites (no pun intended) for resistance on the Internet. It's a refreshing viewpoint that needs more publicity and serious attention, as she forcefully reiterates. I'm particularly fascinated with her discussion that race has always been, and continues to be, primarily a visual signifier. For me, this raises significant questions about how the continuing ubiquity of public (and global) visual media will impact race in the future.

Another interesting point that I wish she had spent more time on: this idea of the "postliterate" society. Whoa. I'm not sure, exactly, what to make of this, but I'm intrigued, because it relates nicely to what we were discussing in Thursday's class about the potential to have visual learning disabilities. She even references one -- the inability to recognize visual patterns-- as she discusses what it means to exist in a postliterate society. What's even more interesting are how oral/visual societies use the internet and social networking; I would have liked much more elaboration on this point, as it provided a nice correlation to her arguments. How much of race is constructed through visual cues/signifiers, and how much of it (also) depends upon the interaction of those visual signifiers with the textual? Can race "translate" into "text" in similar ways? I wonder what would happen if visual/oral societies -- especially those who bypassed tv and film, for example -- responded to visual racial signifiers. Finally, could further proliferation of sites like "Allooksame" effectively erase racial boundaries, as our sharp Annette imagines?

Not sure. My critique of the first chapter still stands, though. I'm still angry. But at least she redeemed herself. So, she had one "bad" chapter. So sue me for pointing it out.

Maybe even MORE later, when I parse out what I'm planning to use for my future work on facebook.