Redesigning What’s in My Bag
In the original What’s in My Bag task, I presented a photograph of my everyday handbag and described what each object revealed about me. The image served as evidence, but the written explanation carried the meaning. I interpreted the items for the reader and directly connected them to my habits and values . This reflects what the New London Group (1996) would describe as a traditional transmission model of literacy — language delivers a message that remains relatively fixed across readers.
Redesign
For the redesign, I did chose to not simply translate the same content into another format. Instead, I changed the communicative situation itself. Drawing on the New London Group’s concept of Design, I re-oriented the task so meaning would be constructed rather than delivered.
I transformed the bag into an archaeological artifact analyzed by a researcher in the year 2125.
In this version:
-
my author voice disappears
-
objects become evidence rather than symbols
-
meaning emerges through interpretation rather than explanation
The bag stops functioning as self-expression and instead becomes data. The reader must infer identity from patterns, absence, and material traces.
Rather than telling the audience who I am, I created conditions in which they must design that understanding themselves.
Part One-The Artifact
Archive Reference: Urban Personal Effects Collection
Site: Transit-Dense Coastal Settlement (Early 21st Century)West coast Canada
Estimated Date Range: 2020–2035
Researcher: Cultural Practices Reconstruction Unit, 2125 Dr. Everyday Items
Object Description:
A small black cross-body carrying container constructed of synthetic leather composite was recovered intact. The container is structured, minimal in volume, and shows no evidence of decorative modification. Wear patterns indicate daily continuous use rather than occasional transport.
The limited capacity appears intentional rather than economic. The owner repeatedly chose restriction over expansion. Below are the contents in the artifact.
| Item | Observed Function | Cultural Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Identification cards | Access mediation | Participation in institutional systems |
| Mobile communication device | Connectivity | Present but regulated usage |
| Payment instruments | Mobility support | Frequent movement through public infrastructure |
| Lip cosmetic + mirror | Self-maintenance | Preparedness in shared social environments |
| Keys | Autonomous access | Independent spatial movement |
Notably absent:
-
entertainment objects
-
sentimental tokens
-
reading materials
-
accumulation objects
-
backup technologies
Absence appears purposeful, rather than accidental.
Behavioural Interpretation:
The artifact cluster indicates a user engaged in high mobility environments requiring readiness without burden. The container functions less as storage and more as a filtering mechanism.
The communication device shows heavy handling wear but muted notification settings (confirmed through configuration residue). Connectivity was available but selectively permitted.
The carrier did not optimize for comfort or leisure, but for uninterrupted forward movement through structured spaces.
Cultural Interpretation:
This individual practiced selective connectivity — maintaining access to systems while resisting constant engagement.
The artifact suggests:
-
intentional control of attention
-
preference for efficiency over display
-
avoidance of accumulation (minimialism)
-
self-regulation within technologically saturated environments
The container functioned as a behavioural boundary rather than a possession.
Concluding Hypothesis:
Rather than expressing identity symbolically, the owner engineered conditions under which daily life could proceed smoothly.
The bag did not represent the individual.
It regulated the individual’s relationship to the surrounding world.
PART 2 PODCAST
NOTEBOOK LM
Listen to the Podcast Created on Notebook LM
When creating the podcast I again shifted the model from a written text to aural dialogue. It no longer was a reading of the text alone, but was a discussion.
In the podcast the meaning becomes negotiated between speakers and interpreted by listeners.
The bag object moves through three distinct modes and meanings.
| Mode | How meaning works |
|---|---|
| Personal description | Author explains meaning |
| Archaeological report | Reader interprets evidence |
| Podcast dialogue | Meaning socially negotiated |
This demonstrates that each medium reorganizes experience rather than transferring information.
Reflection: What Changed When the Mode Changed?
In the original version, meaning depended on explanation. I selected objects and then told the reader what they revealed about me. Communication worked through clarity and intention: the reader’s task was simply to understand the message I had already decided. When the task shifted to an archaeological report, that stability disappeared. By removing my voice, the objects no longer functioned as symbols with fixed meanings. Instead, they became evidence. The reader had to infer patterns, notice absences, and construct an identity from traces rather than statements. The benefit of this shift was deeper engagement — the reader became an investigator. The limitation, however, was loss of certainty, because interpretations could differ from what I originally meant.
Moving the report into a podcast changed the process again. The written report encouraged reflective analysis, but the spoken conversation introduced tone, pacing, and emphasis. Meaning was no longer contained in a single interpretation but negotiated between speakers and listeners. Instead of observing the artifact, the audience encountered people interpreting it together. This created a richer experience because listeners could hear uncertainty, disagreement, and emphasis, but it also increased subjectivity. The interpretation could now be shaped by personality and delivery rather than only by evidence.
Across the three modes, the same bag produced different kinds of knowledge. The personal description framed identity as something expressible, the report framed identity as something inferable, and the podcast framed identity as something socially constructed. The change in mode did not simply present the same idea differently; it reorganized how meaning was made and who was responsible for making it.