Emblems, MyStory, and Conflicting Interpretations

There are a number of ways to read Ulmer's Mystory/Electracy.  I will outline the 3 primary ways here:


1) Foucaultian/Institutional-Power
The Mystorical working through the PopCycle can be seen as an investigation of how we are constrained and influenced by the institutional power structures in which we exist.  This reading is consistent with his overall grammatological approach that "cuts across the old divisions of knowledge, being concerned with all manner of inscription, with the question of [...] knowledge or more of knowing" (Applied Grammatology 10, italics added).  This allows us to work past these institutions in order to establish new transversal communities.  This can be productive in that it allows us the EmerAgency to "improve the world; or, if not to improve th world, then to understand in what way the human world is irreparable." (Electronic Monuments xxxiii).  


I don't have much a problem with this reading.  It allows for a recognition of institutional/discursive forces that insist on limited top-down approaches, thereby opening up the possibility for bottom-up approaches.  The Mystorical examination of the PopCycle is simply a means of working through Foucaultian concepts.  I suppose, though, that reading the MyStory only in this way would make it merely derivative of Foucaultian investigation.  That's fine, I suppose.


2) Psychoanalytical
Like it or not, Ulmer is doing many many many psychoanalytic things in this work.  It simply is the case.  His extensive quoting of Freud, his emphasis on atmosphere/obtuse meaning, his employment of memory work, is more than enough to demonstrate the psychoanalytic foundations of the MyStory.  He says in Heuretics that "the architectural premises could be this 'house of entertainment,' and the logic would come from psychoanalysis" (50, italics added).  The Mystory them becomes a form of "psychic writing" (Heuretics 80).  It turns our attention "from skepticism to yearning" and "nostalgia" (Internet Invention 268).


This has been the primary way we have interacted with the Mystory in this course.  Such is evidenced by the questions like "I really see you in the Family Discourse because you are not there --- why did you not put pictures of yourself in your family section?"  and "wow, the fact that this memory keeps coming up for you must mean that it really impacted you somehow, that it keeps reappearing -- why do you think that?"  This way of reading Ulmer is the one I have the most problem with.  


All of the traditional critiques of psychoanalysis (reductivism, transference, counter-transference, etc. ... not to mention the pedagogical problems, such as doing all this in a classroom with other students led by a non-therapist and then Published on the Internet!!! ....among other things) can be brought to bear on this very particularized version.  It's not even the open ended laying on the green couch conversation with the therapist, but instead is a therapist-driven session.  It masquerades as this "do-it-your-own-way" form of investigation, but the hyper-specificity of the Assignments betrays any notions of patient-drivenness.  Ulmer's consistency with his very specific Assignments during our session with him a few weeks ago reaffirms the validity of this critique.  


This approach is also difficult to reconcile with the political aspirations mentioned above in the Institutional section.  The Mystory becomes very self-involved, even self-obsessed, self-indulgent, and self-centered.  Ulmer's characterization of the widesite as being for self, not to be thought of as something you make for the public, is verification of such.  Now, one might say that the Electronic Monuments' politicality and the Mystory's introvertedness are separate because they are separate endeavors.  Sure.  But that just means that the positive outcomes of Reading #1 go away when assessing only the Mystory.  That does not score the Ulmerian any points.


3) Creative Writing/A New Genre
Ulmer is explicitly working to create, or at least publicize and academically justify (Teletheory 61), a new genre of writing - the MyStory.  It is a genre that is built on the appratus of electracy, which works through the connective logic of conduction, inspired by electricity, and thus works through the ontology of electrical technology, though it is not medium-contingent.  In this new scheme, the "mystory continues to include narrative knowledge, but prefers to work with forms such as the anecdote and joke" (Teletheory 86).  Working in the "middle voice" (whatever that is), it does not seek to replace analytic writing, but rather seeks to open up new space for meaning making (Teletheory 66).  


This creative approach is one I feel like I can embrace.  This reading is diametrically opposed to a psychoanalytic function, as it is "making a creation, not a discovery" (Teletheory 85).  Working through the logic of conduction, it works in a brainstorming fashion that allows for the electric movement from one node (unexpectedly) to another node, creating a fascinating and unpredictable new web of ideas.  One might say that "Ulmer is not seeking truth.  While psychoanalysis cannot find real Truth, it is not a problem for Ulmer because he's not looking for truth anyway."  Such, however, is denied by the overt specificity of Ulmer's Assignments, his insistence on memory, etc.  These two views, are ultimately mutually exclusive.  Using your family history of entertainment influences as creative inspiration is fine.  Searching for "something about myself" in the Mystory is an incompatible other goal.


EMBLEM
This brings me then to the Emblem.  How I go about creating/finding/exploring my Emblem is entirely dictated by which of the above readings I follow.  In truth, ULMER IS DOING ALL OF THEM.  This blog post is not to say that one reading is "right" and the other is "wrong."  In fact, in the grand philosophy out of which Ulmer is working, we cannot even make those statements.  One of my points, however, is that these tenants in Ulmer's work are Ultimately INCONSISTENT and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE on many levels.  Now, Ulmer would probably say "Great!  Inconsistency!  That's where Invention comes from!"  That may sound great, but as a philosophical system, it doesn't work.  If I deny the claim that "Inconsistencies are Fine," (which in many ways I do... not always, but for the expression of a philosophical/pedagogical/psychological system... yes, I deny it), then we get back to my overarching critique.


For me, then, I will take Ulmer for what he says (in ONE place, not all of them) about the Emblem.  He says "You should always ask: What is that for me?" (Internet Invention 246).  As such, my emblem will not be an instance of institutional resistence, and CERTAINLY NOT of self-revalation and discovery of self.  instead, it will be an act of Creation.  I will be looking for what "emerges" across the discourses in a brainstorming, inventive, electrate way.  I will not be utilizing a deductive, literal process of "here's my problem, I need to generate solutions," but rather I will let the electricity cross between the connective notes and I will create something out of it.  One might say that I am no longer writing MY story... that I am not following the psychoanalytic tenants that are espoused in Ulmer's work... but hey, this is MYstory.  Not theirs.