In 1971, the University of Illinois became one of the first fifteen nodes on the ARPANET, the precursor to the Internet. Where on campus was the ARPANET node? Include a picture of the building.
This treasure hunt was both surprising and very frustrating. I did not expect for it to be so complicated to find the actual location of the ARPANET node on campus. I thought Google would surely direct me to where I needed to go, but after two hours of unsuccessful exploration, I realized that Google does not have all the answers. Naturally I turned to the UIUC website, which also left me empty-handed. How on earth was it possible? The Internet had failed me? So I turned to the most dependable resource of all, the library. It took a few phone calls and a few libraries (the undergrad and main libraries could not help me whatsoever), but eventually Elizabeth at the Grainger library helped me find my way. She gave me the e-mail address of a professor, George Friedman, who worked here when the ARPANET node was first established, in which I was directed to the Digital Computer Lab, formerly the CCSO building. The ARPANET node wasn't there. A lady suggested I check out the Siebel library, in which I found displays for other precursors for the Internet, but still no ARPANET. Unfortunately, no one there knew the answer to my question either.
From the cultural determinist's view, "as culture changes, it needs and develops need technologies to accomplish its goals" (Slack & Wise, 46). To prove this point, ARPANET came to being for many reasons, one of them driven by Sputnik's launch. Thus, because of cultural events, a technology was born. ARPANET was seen as a "colonial model of infrastructure development," which did not adapt to other computer networks (Lievrouw & Livingston, 236). ARPANET's infrastructure was that of many nodes and interconnections dependent on one another. Because ARPANET's IMPs were less powerful than that of other computer nodes in other networks, it was becoming technologically old. Ironically, the same ideals that caused its birth also resulted in its eventual end. It was not a lost cause though. "The open source movement has been seen as running counter to the dominance of large centralized industries: the argument goes that it puts power over the media back into the hands of the people in a way that might truly transform capitalist society" (Lievrouw & Livingston, 235). The infrastructure of ARPANET was involved in political and cultural change as well as its obvious technological advancement. Although ARPANET's development was started by the government, the cultural need of obtaining more information in a faster, more effective manner (than the "other guys," the Soviet Union) led to even more useful communication technology. So useful, in fact, that ARPANET lost its value as any practical means for communication.
That is the Thomas Siebel building where the ARPANET node is supposedly located.
It seems that you put a lot of effort into this assignment. I think that it could also be a technological determinism because the technology of ARPANET led to produce cultural changes in network too.
I think that it is well written, and it's a shame that you were not able to find the exact location of the node.
I did not even know there was a system similar to the internet before it. I would have to say, you picked one of the more challenging items to find. This was some very strong writing. I see you went through a lot to find this ARPANET. if you could explain a little more what ARPANET is, what makes it different from the internet we use to day, and maybe why it failed, would be great. You did a nice amount of research, and I think the reader appreciates the sourcing and the effort you put in to this blog Good job!
Kimmy,
Really well done. This one certainly wasn't easy to find, and you obviously did some serious hunting! Did you ever hear back from Prof. Friedman? I got a little confused about whether he was the one that directed you to the Digital Computer Lab or if you found out through Elizabeth at Grainger (a friend of mine!) or some other way. I found your narrative of the hunt for the ARPANET node, especially concerning your disbelief that "the Internet had failed [you]", funny and really engaging.
Regarding Part III: I like how you start your argument for cultural determinism with the quote from page 46 of the Slack and Wise book. It shows that you returned to the text to reconsider the definitions of the two determinisms before laying out your argument. Part III started off really strong, but I got a bit lost as I kept reading. How did Sputnik's launch lead to the development of ARPANET? What were the other reasons and events that caused ARPANET to come into being? The main point of the argument that "because of cultural events, a technology was born" is great; but it's still unclear what those events were and why they caused ARPANET to be created.
It was great that you did some research into the history of ARPANET, but I feel like your argument in support of cultural determinism strayed somewhat off track somewhat with all the background information and quotes about the "colonial structure" of ARPANET and the open source movement (both very interesting topics worthy of study, but its not entirely clear how they support your argument about cultural determinism). Also, toward the end you say "The infrastructure of ARPANET was involved in political and cultural change as well as its obvious technological advancement". This sounds a lot like technological determinism. It's clear that you're thinking about other course concepts like sociotechnical systems, and I think that your post really illustrates the point that if you broaden the scope of your understanding of any communication infrastructure, you'll start to see that cultural determinism or technological determinism alone are each too simplistic to fully explain that infrastructure.
So your challenge here is to simplify your cultural determinist account of ARPANET. Maybe it would help to narrow the scope to just the development of ARPANET, rather than trying to tackle the whole arc of its history from creation to eventual obsolescence? Just a suggestion; it's up to you.
Overall, this is an excellent start, Kimmy. Can you think of a good title for this? I really look forward to reading your revisions and to all of your future blog posts.
Emily
Kimmy,
Really well done. This one certainly wasn't easy to find, and you obviously did some serious hunting! Did you ever hear back from Prof. Friedman? I got a little confused about whether he was the one that directed you to the Digital Computer Lab or if you found out through Elizabeth at Grainger (a friend of mine!) or some other way. I found your narrative of the hunt for the ARPANET node, especially concerning your disbelief that "the Internet had failed [you]", funny and really engaging.
Regarding Part III: I like how you start your argument for cultural determinism with the quote from page 46 of the Slack and Wise book. It shows that you returned to the text to reconsider the definitions of the two determinisms before laying out your argument. Part III started off really strong, but I got a bit lost as I kept reading. How did Sputnik's launch lead to the development of ARPANET? What were the other reasons and events that caused ARPANET to come into being? The main point of the argument that "because of cultural events, a technology was born" is great; but it's still unclear what those events were and why they caused ARPANET to be created.
It was great that you did some research into the history of ARPANET, but I feel like your argument in support of cultural determinism strayed somewhat off track somewhat with all the background information and quotes about the "colonial structure" of ARPANET and the open source movement (both very interesting topics worthy of study, but its not entirely clear how they support your argument about cultural determinism). Also, toward the end you say "The infrastructure of ARPANET was involved in political and cultural change as well as its obvious technological advancement". This sounds a lot like technological determinism. It's clear that you're thinking about other course concepts like sociotechnical systems, and I think that your post really illustrates the point that if you broaden the scope of your understanding of any communication infrastructure, you'll start to see that cultural determinism or technological determinism alone are each too simplistic to fully explain that infrastructure.
So your challenge here is to simplify your cultural determinist account of ARPANET. Maybe it would help to narrow the scope to just the development of ARPANET, rather than trying to tackle the whole arc of its history from creation to eventual obsolescence? Just a suggestion; it's up to you.
Overall, this is an excellent start, Kimmy. Can you think of a good title for this? I really look forward to reading your revisions and to all of your future blog posts.
Emily