I was struck by Benjamin's comment that "the greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed and the truly new is criticized with aversion." He notes that an individual person's reactions "are predetermined by the mass audience response." Anotherwards, people follow the crowd. Few want to take the risk of sticking their necks out with an opinion that has not already been confirmed by the mass audience. Benjamin was referring to movies, but his comment is applicable to the digital technology of our era. In "Digital Maoism," Lanier wrote "Every individual who is afraid to say the wrong thing within his or her organization is safer when hiding behind a wiki or some other Meta aggregation ritual." Lanier termed this collectivism "a hive mind." Benjamin believed that our reactions and perceptions of art are influenced by the medium through which they are received. He noted that in earlier eras the available technology did not allow for "simultaneous collective experience." He gives the example of viewing a painting versus viewing a movie. While a painting might be exhibited in a hall, it could not be viewed on simultaneous screens across the country, or even the world. The simultaneous transmission is a function of the medium, or technology. Benjamin's observation is apt for our fast-paced digital era, when much of our artwork is created and transmitted on line.
The question that deserves further investigation is this: Does our new technology--and its "simultaneous collective experience"-- stifle the original creative impulse, still the voice of the pioneer? In writing about the mindset of collectivism, Lanier lamented a "loss of insight and subtlety, a disregard for the nuances of considered opinions, and an increased tendency to enshrine the official or normative beliefs of an organization." Perhaps 50 years from now we will have the hindsight to assess the digital revolution's impact more objectively.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Dewey and the Roaring 20s
Dewey (p. 115) lamented that "The creation of political unity has also promoted social and intellectual uniformity, a standardization favorable to mediocrity. Opinion has been regimented as well as outward behavior. The temper and flavor of the pioneer have evaporated with extraordinary rapidity." He noted that half of the population don't bother to vote, and that people are much more interested in "easy and cheap"amusements than they are in serious dialog about the future of democracy.
Looking back at the 1920s from our current perspective, it was a revolutionary time in which old conventions and behaviors were overturned, women voted, and cut their skirts and hair short, and African American music (The Jazz Age) and dance (the Charleston, Suzie Q) entered mainstream culture for the first time. (In 1923 the first all-Black Broadway musical made the Charleston a worldwide sensation). All this rapid change brought about Prohibition and a conservative backlash. Thus, I disagree with Dewey's assessment of his era as uniform and mediocre. Culturally, the 1920s was a highly creative time when the public was reinventing itself, with women and African Americans making their mark in a new amd more public way. People enjoyed new technologies such as the automobile, radio, and movies, and used technology for the rapid transmission of culture around the world.
Looking back at the 1920s from our current perspective, it was a revolutionary time in which old conventions and behaviors were overturned, women voted, and cut their skirts and hair short, and African American music (The Jazz Age) and dance (the Charleston, Suzie Q) entered mainstream culture for the first time. (In 1923 the first all-Black Broadway musical made the Charleston a worldwide sensation). All this rapid change brought about Prohibition and a conservative backlash. Thus, I disagree with Dewey's assessment of his era as uniform and mediocre. Culturally, the 1920s was a highly creative time when the public was reinventing itself, with women and African Americans making their mark in a new amd more public way. People enjoyed new technologies such as the automobile, radio, and movies, and used technology for the rapid transmission of culture around the world.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Castells & Lanier
Castells and Time
In chapter 10 of Castells, he talks about the transformation of time from sequential to "timeless time." As a long-time fan of the Twilight Zone and other sci fi, as well as a long-time meditator, I found this concept fascinating. Can we really end our sense of sequential time? Can we travel into the past and future through digital technology? Or is it all a matter of perspective? When one is meditating, time stops--there is no past or future, only the present moment, a timeless sense of floating in an altered state of mind. In the deepest form of meditation, the "I am" of self merges with the cosmic consciousness of the universe, creating a timeless unity. Somehow I don't think that's exactly what Castells had in mind. Certainly many writers and other artists has eschewed linear formats in favor of other perspectives. Yet, whatever our point of view, we have a built in biological clock and therefore, we are born, we age, and we die. That urgency of limited time informs every decision we humans make--it is quintessentially the human condition. So I'd have to say that we humans are driven by our own internal clock, and no digital technology can eliminate that. But the new technology can alter our sense of time significantly, and I think that's what Castells means.
Lanier and the Hive Mind
Lanier makes the point that professional writers have learned their craft and spent time articulating a perspective. He says, "Real writing, writing meant to last,...involves articulating a perspective that is not just reactive to yesterday's moves in a conversation." Many commentators wait until they see what the crowd (in Lanier's terms, the hive mind) wants before offering their own point of view. What makes it more dangerous is that it is easy to abrogate responsibility for one's words when there is anonymity. I agree with Lanier that there has been a "a disregard for the nuances of considered opinions, and an increased tendency to enshrine the official or normative beliefs of an organization." There is a place for Wikipedia, but it should not be regarded as gospel. Lanier notes that he can't even control his own bio on Wikipedia, which he finds to be distorted. He points out that "the hive mind should be thought of as a tool. Empowering the collective does not empower individuals--just the reverse is true." Power tools come with instructions and safety tips. We need some rules and safeguards to govern the hive mind, plus the power to enforce them.
In chapter 10 of Castells, he talks about the transformation of time from sequential to "timeless time." As a long-time fan of the Twilight Zone and other sci fi, as well as a long-time meditator, I found this concept fascinating. Can we really end our sense of sequential time? Can we travel into the past and future through digital technology? Or is it all a matter of perspective? When one is meditating, time stops--there is no past or future, only the present moment, a timeless sense of floating in an altered state of mind. In the deepest form of meditation, the "I am" of self merges with the cosmic consciousness of the universe, creating a timeless unity. Somehow I don't think that's exactly what Castells had in mind. Certainly many writers and other artists has eschewed linear formats in favor of other perspectives. Yet, whatever our point of view, we have a built in biological clock and therefore, we are born, we age, and we die. That urgency of limited time informs every decision we humans make--it is quintessentially the human condition. So I'd have to say that we humans are driven by our own internal clock, and no digital technology can eliminate that. But the new technology can alter our sense of time significantly, and I think that's what Castells means.
Lanier and the Hive Mind
Lanier makes the point that professional writers have learned their craft and spent time articulating a perspective. He says, "Real writing, writing meant to last,...involves articulating a perspective that is not just reactive to yesterday's moves in a conversation." Many commentators wait until they see what the crowd (in Lanier's terms, the hive mind) wants before offering their own point of view. What makes it more dangerous is that it is easy to abrogate responsibility for one's words when there is anonymity. I agree with Lanier that there has been a "a disregard for the nuances of considered opinions, and an increased tendency to enshrine the official or normative beliefs of an organization." There is a place for Wikipedia, but it should not be regarded as gospel. Lanier notes that he can't even control his own bio on Wikipedia, which he finds to be distorted. He points out that "the hive mind should be thought of as a tool. Empowering the collective does not empower individuals--just the reverse is true." Power tools come with instructions and safety tips. We need some rules and safeguards to govern the hive mind, plus the power to enforce them.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Calhoun, Harvey & Appadurai
1. Calhoun provided a good background for our reading of Harvey's lens of historical-geographical materialism. Calhoun described globalization as inextricably bound up in the context of history. He noted that globalization is not a natural process, but rather, is a reflection of power, which is inherently unequal. He noted that it is multidimensional, affecting markets, media and migration. Appadurai concurs that the four key factors in understanding globalization are financial capital, electronic information technology, the growing gaps between rich and poor, and the new kinds of migration in the world labor market.
After their initial discussion of what drives globalization, Harvey and Appadurai continue with disturbing analyses of its dire consequences. Harvey concurs with the NY Times' view that "America's entire war on terrorism is an exercise in imperialism." Appadurai sees the 9/11 attacks as "a massive act of social punishment" for America's "moral travesties around the world." Appadurai describes our post-9/11 world as one in which "order...is organized around the fact or the prospect of violence," a world that destabilizes two of our cherished assumptions: "that peace is the natural marker of social order and that the nation-state is natural guarantor and container of such order." In this world, "civilians do not exist."
Harvey quotes Arendt: "Since power is essentially only a means to an end a community based solely on power must decay...only by acquiring more power can it guarantee the status quo; only by constantly extending its authority...through process of power accumulation can it remain stable." Harvey notes that accumulation is done by dispossession, by taking away the rights, lands, and livelihoods of anyone who stands in the way of the U.S.'s "perpetually expansionary" capitalist imperialism.
2. I was taken by Calhoun's point that globalization exists only because it is imagined. This concept follows up on our Anderson reading last semester on Imagined Communities. Calhoun's concept of globalization's existence relying on our imagining it is both radical and self-evident. .
I was disturbed by the apocalyptic vision of Appadurai, who sees growing "macroviolence" as a fact of life that we must learn to live with. I would like to have seen some suggestions as to how to address the dire circumstances that he describes.
After their initial discussion of what drives globalization, Harvey and Appadurai continue with disturbing analyses of its dire consequences. Harvey concurs with the NY Times' view that "America's entire war on terrorism is an exercise in imperialism." Appadurai sees the 9/11 attacks as "a massive act of social punishment" for America's "moral travesties around the world." Appadurai describes our post-9/11 world as one in which "order...is organized around the fact or the prospect of violence," a world that destabilizes two of our cherished assumptions: "that peace is the natural marker of social order and that the nation-state is natural guarantor and container of such order." In this world, "civilians do not exist."
Harvey quotes Arendt: "Since power is essentially only a means to an end a community based solely on power must decay...only by acquiring more power can it guarantee the status quo; only by constantly extending its authority...through process of power accumulation can it remain stable." Harvey notes that accumulation is done by dispossession, by taking away the rights, lands, and livelihoods of anyone who stands in the way of the U.S.'s "perpetually expansionary" capitalist imperialism.
2. I was taken by Calhoun's point that globalization exists only because it is imagined. This concept follows up on our Anderson reading last semester on Imagined Communities. Calhoun's concept of globalization's existence relying on our imagining it is both radical and self-evident. .
I was disturbed by the apocalyptic vision of Appadurai, who sees growing "macroviolence" as a fact of life that we must learn to live with. I would like to have seen some suggestions as to how to address the dire circumstances that he describes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)