I really like the concept of distributed cognition -- the idea that in everyday life we do a lot of our calculating, reasoning, and other thinking by making use of objects and other people in our environments, implying that stimulus-free environments like those demanded by standardized tests are not going to put any of us at our best. Being a longtime fan of anthropology, I also have been thrilled to discover definitions of literacy which go beyond traditional reading and writing, encompassing grafitti, webpages, almost any text you can think of, probably including tee-shirts and other means of signifying within given Discourses. Something bothersome about both of these ideas has been rattling around the back of my head for some time, though, and I think I just figured out what it is: they contradict some of my earliest ideas about what's important about a person.

I refer to this song by Mr. Rogers:

It's you I like,
It's not the things you wear,
It's not the way you do your hair--
But it's you I like
The way you are right now,
The way down deep inside you--
Not the things that hide you,
Not your toys--
They're just beside you.

I believe this, I geniunely do. I think this is one of the few places Mr. Rogers actually had an effect on me. (Mostly I found him patronizing.) I have long believed that how you do your hair or what you own is really not an indicator of what kind of person you are (with a few lapses, of course, in junior high and college). But if you're seven years old and the only way you can get division to make sense is by putting an equal number of Legos into each wall of a building, do your toys really not matter? And if our hairstyle means something very specific in our communities, and when we leave our communities we do not feel loved, supported, or even "ourselves," what then, Mr. Rogers?

But it's you I like--
Every part of you,
Your skin, your eyes, your feelings
Whether old or new.
I hope that you'll remember
Even when you're feeling blue
That it's you I like,
It's you yourself,
It's you, it's you I like.

And who are we, anyway? I've been thinking a lot about avatars recently, having just begun to try my hand at RPGs in a serious way and made two of my own... and talked to Neil about his adorable gnome girl avatar, Gulda... and scanned this Terranova post about avatars as they relate to plastic surgery this morning... and reconsidered Sherry Turkle's thoughts on the postmodern fragmented self, which have always rung true to me... Which skin, which eyes, which feelings did Mr. Rogers love, and if we were actually appearing rather than feeling blue, would he have gathered us into his arms? Mr. Rogers had a heart as big as the sea, but I can't imagine him copping to a belief in the selves we express in our avatars... and I can't help but think he might have viewed body modification such as we see on The Swan as a result of people not getting enough of messages like his as kids.

How are we to love our postmodern selves, and where is the kids' show which will love us back? Posted by Gus at April 09, 2005 04:19 PM | TrackBack