After thoroughly engaging with Nakamura’s work over the course of the semester, I’ve found her arguments increasingly fragmented and her methodological approach lacking in clarity and rigor. The deeper I examine them, the more annoyed I am. But in my class we examined her work as a hallmark of examination into the digital space and our identities existing in them.
Like ok, we do a lot of critical theory reading in media studies so this isn't my first rodeo, but something about her writing feels hard to track at time and becomes a bit ramble-y. She is obviously very innovative as this was written in 2002, I like how she critiques the racialized and gendered assumptions baked into supposedly universal digital spaces, very valid take. She brings about a good question I thought about a lot in my class: who bears the burden of virtual space? We blame users so heavily but aren't we just a result of the condition, like how much can you actively work against a system that's so poorly designed. I feel like I've grown very critical of everything I read, maybe just the feeling of growing up and realizing the world is on fire has turned me sour and pessimistic. UGH!