DIALOGUES @ RU EDITORIAL BOARD FALL 2017 SPRING 2018 Kelly Allen Maria Awad Amy Barenboim Zakiya Chikwendu Dustin He Devika Kishore Wei Yen Heng Shekha Kotak Devika Kishore Joanna Lampa Jasminy Martinez Amanda Lindley Shannon McIntyre Jessica Mazzeo Michele Mesi Margaret McCollum Kalina Nissen Monica Mills Jillian Pastor Amanda Pisciotta Kassandra Rhoads Shannon Ray Syeda Saad Danyal Siddiqui Cheyenne Terry Nazish Zara Aurora Tormey Andrea Zerpa EDITORS COVER DESIGN & Tracy Budd TYPESETTING Lynda Dexheimer Mike Barbetta © Copyright 2018 by Dialogues@RU All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. ii. CONTENTS Foreword • iv Namita Abraham, Facebook: A Modern Day Digital Panopticon • 1 Julia Ambrozy, Graffiti in New York City: Law & Popular Culture • 11 Jeremy Banks, Net Neutrality Giveth, the FCC Taketh Away: The True Power of ISPs and CPs Unraveled • 27 Olivia Chan, Do Parents Really Know Best?: Ethical Issues Concerning Medical Consent for Minors • 40 Tiffany Chi, Nonprofit Hospitals Are For Profit: The Influence of Profits on Patient Care • 52 Jane Christiansen, Deciding to Be Undecided: The Causes and Implications of Choosing the Undecided Major Pathway • 62 Elizabeth Fogarty, The Hyper-Materialistic Occupation of Hip-Hop • 74 Lauren Kulik, The Effect of Cultural Influence on the Consumption of Gluten • 89 Alexandra Maris, Latinx Imagined Communities: The Role of Soccer Culture in America • 103 Jessica Michal, Socialist Realism: The Art of Manipulation Versus The Art of Authenticity • 117 Kaitlyn Owens, The Influence and Effect of Orientalism In Comic Books • 130 Rikin Patel, CRISPR Genetic Modifications: Seeking Public Acceptance • 142 Kevin Stasiewski, The U.S. Military’s Hypermasculine Culture and Its Sexual Victimization of Gay Men • 152 Ankita Veta, Brushstrokes in Red: An Artistic Analysis of the Menstruation Taboo • 163 iii. FOREWORD This collection of research papers written by Rutgers University undergraduates is an exemplary representation of the rigorous intellec- tual project of critical reading and thinking, careful interpretation, and thoughtful analysis. All the student authors whose work was selected for publication completed their papers in the Rutgers Writing Program course Research in the Disciplines. Their topics range widely in scope and include the censorship threat inherent in limiting net neutrality; the economics of non-profit hospitals; the importance of soccer to the Latinx identity in the United States; and the transformation of graffiti from vandalism to political expression. Importantly, each paper makes an independent argument based on a conceptual analysis developed through the lens of a discipline-based theory. Congratulations to the thoughtful and intelligent writers whose work makes up this volume, and to all the wonderful Rutgers undergraduates who complete exceptional projects each and every semester. Such fine work would not be possible without the dedication and diligence of our Writing Program faculty. Our instructors coach students through every phase of the research writing project, teaching them the fundamentals of information literacy while helping them grow the acorn of an idea into a full-fledged exploration of a scholarly debate. Faculty members work tirelessly to help each student bring an individual project to fruition, from research proposal through three drafts and an oral pre- sentation, culminating with the final paper. I cannot express how grateful I am to the talented, devoted professionals with whom I am privileged to work. Dialogues@RU is a student-centered endeavor. The Editorial Board members you see listed on the masthead are all undergraduate students who participated in a semester-long Editing Internship. In the internship, students learn the basics of the editorial process by selecting manuscripts for publication (from among nearly 250 submissions) and working with student writers through the substantive and technical edit- ing process. My experience with interns over the years has been inspiring. They bring to the table intelligence and a willingness to learn and work hard as well as creative insights and quick wit. I am so thankful to be part of their career preparation as internship coordinator along with my iv. brilliant and good-humored colleague, Tracy Budd, who co-edited this volume with me. I must recognize the many faculty members of the Writing Pro- gram who volunteer their time to proofread the final papers before they head off to the printer. This service to the Dialogues@RU project is an invaluable part of the process, and the last set of eyes on the text always helps us catch a few errors before press time. I also would like to thank Writing Program Director Kurt Spellmeyer for his continuing support of this project. Dialogues could not happen without it! Thanks also to the Department of English for its support, with a particular thanks to Sabri- na Del Piano who publicizes the internship every semester and helps us recruit Editorial Board interns from among many talented students. I appreciate everyone whose hard work has gone into Volume 13, and I hope you enjoy this fine read! Lynda Dexheimer Co-Editor Associate Director Rutgers Writing Program v. FACEBOOK: A MODERN DAY DIGITAL PANOPTICON — Namita Abraham ABSTRACT This paper analyzes Facebook’s structure and function, and the par- allels between that of the eighteenth-century prison model, the Panopticon. In his seminal work, Discipline and Punish, Michael Foucault expanded on Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon and stressed the architectural significance of such a structure. Arguably, a similar framework is used by Facebook. The current paper addresses the larger implications behind such similarities using Erving Goffman’s Presentation of Self Theory in order to explain the overall effects a panoptic structure has on its users. The following series of issues will be examined: why our digital interactions are a significant piece of our identity, factors that influence us to adjust or change our identities online, and how Facebook molds our identity in a similar manner as the Panopticon. It is argued that as a digital Panopticon, Facebook limits a user’s right to privacy, and alters the behavior and identity of its users. In the Internet age, it is feasible to think that our digital footprint adds to our very being and identity whether we like it or not. We con- stantly collect data about ourselves and leave little breadcrumbs that give clues about who we are through our interactions on the internet. Because of this aspect of new technology and innovation, privacy has emerged as a fundamental human right. While it was always universally cherished, technology has begun to erode our privacy much faster than it can be protected. Social media has emerged as a dominant force through which our privacy is lost: this comes as a surprise to many, as social media is generally viewed simply as a means of self-expression. Facebook, in par- ticular, which boasts over 2 billion active users monthly, has come under severe scrutiny regarding the level of privacy it affords its users. But what kind of privacy is being breached by this service? Is it simply one that would allow us to conceal information from others? Or is it something that has a much more significant impact on our very being and identi- ty? In my research, I will evaluate Facebook and compare its structural similarities, and its overall effects on its users, to a Panopticon. First, I 1 will explain why our digital interactions contribute to the creation of our identity and why we should be afforded a level of privacy as a result. I will then address the idea of identity through the lens of Erving Goffman’s theory of the Presentation of the Self. More specifically, I will touch on specific factors that cause us to adjust our identities online, as well as ways in which Facebook facilitates this. Finally, in my concluding section, I will focus on Facebook itself, using Michael Foucault’s analysis of Bentham’s Panopticon. Exploring the similarities between the two structures, one physical and one virtual, will present a distinct correlation between a decades-old prison structure and a current social media site. I argue that Facebook is a digital Panopticon, not only limiting our right to privacy, but also leaving us constantly visible, and thereby altering our behavior and our identity. The formation of our identity is a dynamic and personal process in which our digital interactions play an integral part shaping and mold- ing that identity. But we can also think of ourselves as having a separate identity existing in the digital world. The “digital persona,” developed by Roger Clarke, is defined as “a model of an individual’s public personality based on data and maintained by transactions, and intended for use as a proxy for the individual” (3). In other words, it encompasses the aspects of an individual established through the collection and analysis of that person’s data. In theory, this persona could be used as a “proxy” for the physical being. Jeroen Van den Hoven and Pieter E. Vermaas further extend this idea to an argument about transactional identities: “although a market mechanism for trading personal data seems to be kicking in on a global scale, not all individual consumers are aware of this economic opportunity, and if they do, they are not always trading their data in a transparent and fair market environment” (182). Our data have become items which can be sold. Some may argue that sharing our data and information about ourselves with web browsers, stores, and websites has benefits that may include carefully targeted discounts and rewards. While this is true, it does not discredit the Van de Hoven and Vermaas’ argument that many consumers are still unaware of how they are being commodified, and “do not always know what the implications are of what they are consenting to when they sign a contract,” whether that contract is literal or implicit (Van de Hoven 286).