*3 pages long.* due tomorrow* i have posted uncompleted essay(i was gonna write it), you can start the work from that essay.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
English 102: Writing, Research, & Responsibility in Social Media Culture
Assignment 10: Rhetorical Effects of Surveillance
Part 1: Reading an Academic Essay
Begin by reading and taking notes (just as you have done for past assignments) to “The Gift
of Surveillance.” This is a scholarly essay published in an academic journal, and it may be
helpful to look up the journal. In addition, note how the form and vocabulary is different
than what we have ran into in our other readings (this is good practice for thinking about
your own academic research, which we will begin next week).
Part 2: Composing an Annotated Bibliography for an Academic Essay
In your upcoming research project, you will be asked to compose an Annotated
Bibliography of scholarly and popular sources you have researched yourself. To help
prepare you for that work, and for navigating scholarly essays, for this assignment you are
being asked to compose an Annotated Bibliography entry for an academic essay. Your
annotated bibliography for “The Gift of Surveillance should have 3 parts:
1) The source citation in MLA format
Our class does not require a formatting guide, but if you have a guide such as the DK
Handbook you may use it. Another fine option is the Purdue Owl:
2) Summary of argument that includes author’s credentials
Complete a Google Search of the author: who is it? What credentials to they have?
(in your own writing, giving some context about an author and their creditials will
help to make your essay more credible). Also, what is the main argument being
made in your source and what is its purpose? Be as descriptive as you can.
Additionally, please compose a sentence or two about the purpose of this source as
the first sentence in your annotated bibliography entry and bold it (with the rest of
the summary following).
3) Select 3-‐‑6 quotes from the essay that seem most important
In your own research you will want to select 3-‐‑6 quotations from the reading that
help you think about your own research, but for the purposes of this assignment,
choose 3-‐‑6 quotations that seem the most valuable or interesting (ones you would
like to talk about during discussion).
An example annotated bibliography is included on the next page.
Due: Tuesday to the D2L Dropbox before the start of class
English 102: Writing, Research, & Responsibility in Social Media Culture
Example of an annotated bibliography entry for a source:
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-‐‑Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on
Argumentation. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame, 1971. Print.
The New Rhetoric sought to disrupt the philosophical theories reliant on cartesian
reasoning (which required a demonstration of a claim in order for it to be accepted
as possible for all competent and reasonable people to accept) in order to all show
how those claims that are not clearly self-‐‑evident also have the right to claim
reasonableness. While the modern philosopher of the time strived for a system of thought
that matched the “dignity of science” (2), the authors want to argue that just because there
is no experiment or logical deduction that would solve a problem, doesn’t mean that we
must “abandon ourselves to irrational forces, instincts, suggestions, or even violence” (3).
They note how rhetorical study has nearly been altogether abandoned by philosophers,
and push toward a “rapprochement” with rhetoric that aims at emphasizing that
argumentation develops in terms of audience and that ever communicative expression has
an intended audience and conditioned “whether consciously or unconsciously, by those he
wishes to address” (5-‐‑7). Also importantly, The New Rhetoric claims that though rhetoric
was initially designed for the “common man” or to “ignoramuses,” the work of this book
does not want to “lose sight of the quality of the minds which the argument has succeeded
in convincing” (7). This definition of rhetoric, then, emphasises and requires mutual
respect in the relationship of speaker and audience, especially in terms of intellectual
contact” (14). This reading would be good background information (using the BEAM
Framework) for my source since it talks about the history of rhetoric.
Key Quotes from source
• “A change in audience means a change in the appearance of the argumentation and,
if the aim of argumentation is always to act effectively on minds, in order to make a
judgement of its value (so NOT propaganda or faith) we must not lose sight of the
quality of the minds which the argument has succeeded in convincing.” (7)
• “In real argumentation care must be taken to form a concept of the anticipated
audience as close as possible to reality. An inadequate picture of the audience,
resulting from either ignorance or an unforeseen circumstances, can have very
unfortunate results.” (20)
• Multimodality mentioned briefly here: “Various conditioning agents are available to
increase one’s influence on an audience: music, lighting, crowd effects, scenery, and
various devices of stage management. These means have always been known and
have been used by primitive peoples as well as by the Greeks, Romans, and the men
of the Middle Ages. In our own day, technical improvements have fostered the
development of these conditioners to the point that they are regarded by some as
the essential element in the acting on minds.” // “Besides the conditioning of this
kind, which is beyond the scope of this wrok, there is conditioning of speech
Hulsey, Nathan, & Joshua Reeves. “The Gift that Keeps on Giving: Google, Ingress, and the Gift
of Surveillance.” Surveillance & Society [Online], 12.3 (2014): 389-400. Web. 17 Oct. 2017
The article “The gift of surveillance” was about the new Google’s online game. The author
says that the game Ingress uses player’s real time and locations to make them able to
interact with each other. The article was written by to assistant professors. The first one is
Nathan Hulsey who is an assistant professor in Nazarbayev university and he has a Ph.D. in
digital media form. The other one is Joshua Reeves who is an assistant professor in Oregon
State University and he has a Ph.D. in new media communication and speech communication.
The essay talked about three types of surveillance that gives Ingress “condition of existence”.
The first one is “top down surveillance in which google track the data that was produced by the
players.” The second one is “lateral surveillance in which players display and produce data about
themselves. The third one is “self-surveillance which allow players to access information of each
other and monitor them.
The players were supported to give and receive gifts if they maintain the required task on the
game. Also, google were tracking the player’s information to get benefits out of them.
Key Quotes from source
* “For Esposito, the munus is a gift that demands reciprocal action. “Once one has accepted the
munus,” Esposito writes, then “one is obliged to return the onus, in the Surveillance& Society
12(3) 397 form of either goods or services” (2007: xiii). Munus is a binding gift, a type of
contractual potlatch, since it calls for a response from the receiver and thus embeds both parties
in a recurrent and mandatory system of reciprocity.” (P.396)
* “However, because of its immune status vis-à-vis the Ingress community, Google is
empowered with the exceptional privilege to extract players’ communal contributions from the
cycle of reciprocal exchange. Once released from this system of communal reciprocity, the
Ingress community’s gifts are monetized, generating capital that becomes the exclusive purview
of Google.” (p.397)
* “In the most basic sense, the Ingress “community” is bound to a sort of gift economy: players
are bound to the game, bound to other players, and bound to Google in a cycle of reciprocation
(via game participation and compulsory data production)” (P.397)
The Gift that Keeps on Giving:
Google, Ingress, and the Gift of Surveillance
North Carolina State University, US.
University of Memphis, US.
This article analyses Ingress, Google’s new massively multiplayer online game, as indicative of an emergent economy that calls
for the datafication of one’s mobile life in exchange for the gift of play. From this perspective, Ingress is simply suggestive of
broader sociocultural transformations in which citizens must submit to pervasive surveillance in order to participate in
contemporary economic and political life. Turning to Roberto Esposito’s recent work on gift-giving and communal exchange, we
explain how Google “immunizes” itself from its consumer community by continuously collecting that community’s gift of
surveillance while structuring its own conditions of reciprocity.
“The world around you is not what it seems”—or so the advertisers of Google’s new massively
multiplayer online game (MMO), Ingress, would like you to think. Released in November 2012, Ingress is
a cutting-edge game that uses players’ real-time geographic coordinates and social networking platforms
to enable players to cooperatively contain a fictional invasion of digital “alien matter.” On the surface,
Ingress is simply a hot new game that calls on players to use social media and GPS-enabled mobile
devices to coordinate their movements across virtually layered hybrid spaces. Yet as many journalists,
activists, and watchdog organizations have noted, Ingress is also one of the most seductive and prolific
data-mining tools to be introduced in the last decade (Hindman 2013; Hodson 2012; Kolb 2013).
This essay will analyze Ingress as an exemplary site of an emergent form of digital economic exchange—
one that requires the “datafication” of one’s mobility and communicative action in exchange for the gift of
play (see Lycett 2013). To describe the unique features of this exchange, we will tease out some of the
cultural and political implications of “hybrid space” platforms like Ingress. Hybrid spaces integrate users’
real-time geographical data with online social networks (de Souza e Silva 2006), allowing multiple users
to coordinate through—and thus muddy the boundaries between—real and virtual space (de Souza e Silva
and Frith 2011; Gordon and de Souza e Silva 2010; Wilson 2012). Similar to augmented spaces
(Manovich 2006), data and the lived environment are inseparable in hybrid space: removing locational and
social data would effectively terminate the space (de Souza e Silva 2006). In the case of Ingress’s
gamespace, data is not merely layered onto locations; rather, the gamespace itself depends on the flows of
data embedded within it. The ubiquitous capture and analysis of users’ movements is a necessary feature
of hybrid space, augmented reality applications like Ingress (also called location-based mobile games, or
Hulsey, N. and J. Reeves. 2014. The Gift that Keeps on Giving: Google, Ingress, and the Gift of
Surveillance. Surveillance& Society 12(3): 389-400.
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org| ISSN: 1477-7487
© The author(s), 2014 | Licensed to the Surveillance Studies Network under a Creative Commons
Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license.
Hulsey and Reeves: The Gift that Keeps on Giving
LBMGs), as they require their users to submit to the datafication of their movements in public (and often
private) space. This opens up the possibility for new forms of productively governing the mobile playingsubject, as LBMGs like Ingress thrive on the surveillance and redirection of player mobility through
targeted commercial and non-commercial spaces. Through its embedded game mechanics, Ingress
encourages players to actively participate in a surveillance community while also normalizing data mining
and surveillance as a valid exchange for the privilege of play.
This article follows Bart Simon’s (2006) call to approach gaming practices as embedded in broader social
and cultural processes. As such, our argument will unfold in several stages. First, we introduce Ingress
through the lens of hybrid space and LBMGs, describing how the game’s capital potential is tied to its
ability to pervasively monitor and redirect the living movements of its playing subjects. After we briefly
analyze how players’ assent to this surveillance complements citizens’ more general willingness to
exchange ubiquitous state surveillance for the elusive gift of security, we interpret these developments as
indicative of an emergent economy in which pervasive surveillance is the primary medium of exchange.
From this perspective, Ingress is only suggestive of broader social transformations in which citizens must
submit to diverse surveillant apparatuses in order to participate in contemporary economic and political
life. Yet Ingress, because of its unique status as the world’s most cutting-edge LBMG—not to mention the
fact that it is directly plugged into the data coffers of Google, the world’s most ambitious corporate data
collector—is a game that provides a privileged site of analysis for how citizen-subjects willingly submit to
the datafication of their mobile lives. Finally, we turn to Roberto Esposito’s theories of gift-giving and
community reciprocity in order to consider the sociopolitical implications of this development, arguing
that Google “immunizes” itself from the community on which it capitalizes by continuously collecting and
redirecting that community’s gift of pervasive surveillance—a gift, most importantly, for which Google
structures its own conditions of reciprocity.
Ingress and the Mobile Playing-Subject
Ingress plays with several different game design genres; it is a multiplayer location-based mobile
game(LBMG)—a game that utilizes GPS-tracking systems, locational data, and mobile devices—that also
incorporates augmented and alternate reality (Deterding et al. 2011) components.1 As an LBMG that
operates as an alternate reality game (ARG) with augmented features, Ingress layers game mechanics and
narrative devices over real-world locations and events and it is reliant on situated social and geographic
networks (de Souza e Silva and Hjorth 2009). ARGs like Ingress, therefore, are often described as
pervasive games, where the boundaries of play directly align with physical locations and real-world events
(Montola, Stenros, and Waern 2009). T.L. Taylor and Beth Kolko (2003) note that ARGs operate as
examples of “boundary play” (Nippert-Eng 2005) in which players accept gamespace as a transgressive
liminality through which they negotiate, and often intentionally muddy, the porous areas between “virtual”
and “real” activities. Oftentimes ARGs incorporate non-players, such as bystanders, law enforcement, and
family members, into the gaming experience. And personal technologies—such as fax machines, cell
phones, pay phones and public meeting spaces—add additional layers into augmented reality gameplay by
disrupting the experiential borders between gaming and everyday life (Stenros, Waern, and Montola 2012;
Taylor and Kolko 2003).2 In fact, as a number of scholars have noted, it is often the thrill of disrupting
everyday routines with performative play that attracts players to pervasive ARGs (Montola et al. 2009;
Stenros et al. 2012). These games, therefore, thrive on media saturation and utilize it as a basis for
merging simulation-based play into everyday activities, thus creating environments in which gameplay is
1LBMGs have come to the forefront as a new brand of playful mobility that creates new dynamics of networked spatial practice
(Chan 2008; Gazzard 2011; Licoppe 2009). LBMGs like Ingress work as a type of mobile interface that helps constitute the kind
of hybrid space that we have described throughout this essay (de Souza e Silva 2006). In Ingress’s particular brand of hybridity,
game mechanics, player mobi …
Purchase answer to see full