This week's reading by Marcuse, though short, had my head spinning! He wastes no time; in the very first sentence we are told that "unfreedom prevails" in advanced societies, and the remaining pages are filled with questions and statements about how and why we aren't as free as we think we are. My copy of the text is littered with question marks in the margins, and I'll try to wrap my mind around some of those questions in this blog post.
"Contemporary industrial civilization demonstrates that it has reached the stage at which 'the free society' can no longer be adequately defined in the traditional terms of economic, political, and intellectual liberties, not because these liberties have become insignificant, but because they are too significant..." (page 4).
In this passage, I have trouble with the word significant. Even if you shift to use words that are the negation of the traditional words, your fundamental understanding still resides within those traditional words.
"The most effective and enduring form of warfare against liberation is the implanting of material and intellectual needs that perpetuate obsolete forms of the struggle for existence." (page 4)
This passage makes me think about David's "stomach ache" from last week's class. Of course, I can't speak on his behalf, but I think this is what he was talking about. If mass media has conditioned us to think we need to acquire things in our pursuit of happiness at the expense of ignoring people/situations/ideas beyond our borders, then what are we destined to become? We'll be chasing Marcuse's false needs forever.
"The preconditioning does not start with the mass production of radio and television and with the centralization of their control. The people enter this stage as preconditioned receptacles of long standing." (page 8)
If we enter the stage of consuming mass produced radio and television (and Internet?) preconditioned, then at what stage does the conditioning actually happen? And is this conditioning happening differently in the Internet age?
These passages - and others - called to mind Plato's Apology. Like Socrates, we are on a quest to live the truth, and during that journey, we will have to confront our own treason against those ideals we are conditioned to accept and help perpetuate.
I'm looking forward to discussing this text in class to see if others have as many questions as I do. I had to read these 12 pages slowly, multiple times, and I still feel like I'm struggling with the concepts.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Grand Finale
Looking back over my blog posts from the semester, I find that “technology” is one of the tags that I used most frequently to organize my weekly journaling. Reflecting on this, it occurs to me that the development of communication could be viewed as an evolving relationship between the individual and technology. In this final blog post, I will examine this relationship as it unfolded around the technology about which we have read: writing, print, the telegraph, the television, and the Internet.
At the start of the semester, we studied the highly stylized and performative oral tradition of the ancient Greeks. This oral tradition served several purposes in society. It provided entertainment (and social commentary) for (male) audiences. It distributed information from one generation to the next. And it preserved and transmitted the history of the society as it was “recorded” by orators. The invention of the alphabet - and consequently, writing - revolutionized the way information was distributed. With writing, stories and information could be recorded, and this had important implications:
Additionally, writing gave individuals who were not orators a voice. This is not to say that everyone could read and write. However, writing allowed the customs, ideas, and experiences of society in a particular moment in time to be represented for both the current generation and those to come after.
If writing revolutionized what information was captured, then printing revolutionized access to that information. Once printing became readily available (both technologically and financially) then countless opportunities became available in many different industries. Governments (and religious groups) could produce and distribute propaganda. Educators could ensure that students were learning from the same text. Average consumers could borrow or buy books to read for entertainment. Printing also allowed for Anderson’s imagined communities to form, which spurred nationalism in ways heretofore unseen.
As we learned from Carey, the telegraph allowed for the separation of communication from transportation. Imagine how liberating it must have been to have a message telegraphed to someone (or to yourself) for the first time! Like printing, once the telegraph became widespread, its impact was profound. Local markets became national markets, subject to fluctuations in price, supply, and demand that were no longer fixed by geographic constraints. For perhaps the first time, the potential powers of technologically captured the imaginations of the masses, who talked about the telegraph in biblical terms, such was their awe.
No communications technology has been quite as profound as the television. To quote a colleague of mine, “Everyone’s an expert in television.” Television has characteristics of both the printing press and the telegraph. Like printing, the television opened up a whole world of information and entertainment to countless people. And like the telegraph, the television had immeasurable impacts on economic forces, though in very different ways. Advertisers, singers, writers, actors, producers, directors, hardware manufacturers and telecommunications giants sought the financial gains of the new industry. Behind the scenes, advertisers, producers, and members of the government did a careful dance with the American public in which either a) culture was put forth from the TV or b) the TV reflected existing culture back onto the public.
The Internet is the great communications frontier that we are currently exploring. We can identify important traits of this new technology:
Looking at how technology has woven itself through communications history, two themes emerge for me. First, communications technology has always been used as a way to control the public. Second, women are not represented in this history.
On Control
Are humans psychologically susceptible to manipulation? Are government officials, business gurus, and media magnates utilizing communications technology to further their own agendas? Or is it both? I think about Barnouw’s Tube of Plenty and Gitlin’s analysis of the television medium. We can extract from both of these texts questions that can help us to better understand the social dynamic that happens around these technologies.
Are people passive consumers of what is essentially propaganda spewed to/on them from the few people who control media programming? Are we conditioned to be acculturated in a particular way that is communicated to us through different media (television, radio, magazines, advertisements, etc.)? Or are we complicit in creating what is disseminated? Is media really just a mirror that lets us see more palatable versions of the “we” that already exists?
We watched All in the Family, and in an offline conversation with Frank, we discussed several interpretations of it. One is that the presentation of diversity essentially absolves liberals from confronting any real societal problems. After all, they showed the coming together of different groups in a popular way that reached - and was accepted by - millions of viewers. Another interpretation is that it reinforces racist thoughts and behaviors by projecting accepted forms of those thoughts and behaviors back to viewers. I think both interpretations are right, and that’s why both Barnouw’s and Gitlin’s texts are so important. It isn’t either/or. It’s both. Culture is disseminated to us via communications technologies. But our own culture is also often simply reflected back to us.
In this process of dissemination and reflection, we embody Marcuse's notion of one-dimensionality. "Private space has been whittled down by technological reality. Mass production and mass distribution claim the entire individual." (page 10) What is a consumer to do in the face of these assertions/realities? We can't just throw our hands up and walk away from all communications technology. But we can - and should - be aware of the ways in which they infiltrate and permeate our lives, so that we have the presence of mind to step away occasionally.
On Women
I would be remiss if I didn’t briefly mention in closing an issue about which I’ve written in several of my blog posts this semester. I am saddened, but not surprised, to learn how glaringly absent women are from the development of communications technologies. Nothing I write can remedy that. However, there are two areas of communication that women carved out for themselves in a way that men didn’t - simply because men didn’t have to.
First, women used letter writing as a major form of communication as far back as the 1600s. Letters were used for economic reasons (how to manage a house) as well as social reasons (reinforcing familial and friendship bonds across distances). Like other communications technologies, letter-writing began as an activity for the elite. With the rise of literacy, more women could participate in the medium. Of course, men also wrote letters. But in looking for the impact of women on communications - and vice versa - letter-writing strikes me as one of the most important places to start.
More recently women have participated in the creation of ‘zines (self-published magazines distributed throughout a community). The 1990s, in particular, saw a wave of feminist activity known as the riot grrrl movement. Women who identified with this group, and similar groups, used ‘zines to create and spread a culture of awareness around punk music and gender equity.
Letters in the 17th century allowed women to connect to each other. ‘Zines in the 20th century allowed women to connect to larger communities.
The bottom line is that the development of communications is a journey. We can document our history, and chart our course for the future. No one can say for sure exactly where we are going, only that we are traveling collectively, marching toward the next new technology that will be even greater than the last.
At the start of the semester, we studied the highly stylized and performative oral tradition of the ancient Greeks. This oral tradition served several purposes in society. It provided entertainment (and social commentary) for (male) audiences. It distributed information from one generation to the next. And it preserved and transmitted the history of the society as it was “recorded” by orators. The invention of the alphabet - and consequently, writing - revolutionized the way information was distributed. With writing, stories and information could be recorded, and this had important implications:
- Information was less subject to decay over time if it was written down.
- Government could begin to document laws, policies, legal proceedings, etc.
- Poetry and plays could be memorialized in writing (even if they were still being interpreted and performed in the oral tradition).
Additionally, writing gave individuals who were not orators a voice. This is not to say that everyone could read and write. However, writing allowed the customs, ideas, and experiences of society in a particular moment in time to be represented for both the current generation and those to come after.
If writing revolutionized what information was captured, then printing revolutionized access to that information. Once printing became readily available (both technologically and financially) then countless opportunities became available in many different industries. Governments (and religious groups) could produce and distribute propaganda. Educators could ensure that students were learning from the same text. Average consumers could borrow or buy books to read for entertainment. Printing also allowed for Anderson’s imagined communities to form, which spurred nationalism in ways heretofore unseen.
As we learned from Carey, the telegraph allowed for the separation of communication from transportation. Imagine how liberating it must have been to have a message telegraphed to someone (or to yourself) for the first time! Like printing, once the telegraph became widespread, its impact was profound. Local markets became national markets, subject to fluctuations in price, supply, and demand that were no longer fixed by geographic constraints. For perhaps the first time, the potential powers of technologically captured the imaginations of the masses, who talked about the telegraph in biblical terms, such was their awe.
No communications technology has been quite as profound as the television. To quote a colleague of mine, “Everyone’s an expert in television.” Television has characteristics of both the printing press and the telegraph. Like printing, the television opened up a whole world of information and entertainment to countless people. And like the telegraph, the television had immeasurable impacts on economic forces, though in very different ways. Advertisers, singers, writers, actors, producers, directors, hardware manufacturers and telecommunications giants sought the financial gains of the new industry. Behind the scenes, advertisers, producers, and members of the government did a careful dance with the American public in which either a) culture was put forth from the TV or b) the TV reflected existing culture back onto the public.
The Internet is the great communications frontier that we are currently exploring. We can identify important traits of this new technology:
- It is, in some ways, less subject to the whims of advertisers and governments.
- It is open to the production and consumption of content from amateur content producers.
- It is interactive.
- It is time-less, not subject to a scheduling grid.
Looking at how technology has woven itself through communications history, two themes emerge for me. First, communications technology has always been used as a way to control the public. Second, women are not represented in this history.
On Control
Are humans psychologically susceptible to manipulation? Are government officials, business gurus, and media magnates utilizing communications technology to further their own agendas? Or is it both? I think about Barnouw’s Tube of Plenty and Gitlin’s analysis of the television medium. We can extract from both of these texts questions that can help us to better understand the social dynamic that happens around these technologies.
Are people passive consumers of what is essentially propaganda spewed to/on them from the few people who control media programming? Are we conditioned to be acculturated in a particular way that is communicated to us through different media (television, radio, magazines, advertisements, etc.)? Or are we complicit in creating what is disseminated? Is media really just a mirror that lets us see more palatable versions of the “we” that already exists?
We watched All in the Family, and in an offline conversation with Frank, we discussed several interpretations of it. One is that the presentation of diversity essentially absolves liberals from confronting any real societal problems. After all, they showed the coming together of different groups in a popular way that reached - and was accepted by - millions of viewers. Another interpretation is that it reinforces racist thoughts and behaviors by projecting accepted forms of those thoughts and behaviors back to viewers. I think both interpretations are right, and that’s why both Barnouw’s and Gitlin’s texts are so important. It isn’t either/or. It’s both. Culture is disseminated to us via communications technologies. But our own culture is also often simply reflected back to us.
In this process of dissemination and reflection, we embody Marcuse's notion of one-dimensionality. "Private space has been whittled down by technological reality. Mass production and mass distribution claim the entire individual." (page 10) What is a consumer to do in the face of these assertions/realities? We can't just throw our hands up and walk away from all communications technology. But we can - and should - be aware of the ways in which they infiltrate and permeate our lives, so that we have the presence of mind to step away occasionally.
On Women
I would be remiss if I didn’t briefly mention in closing an issue about which I’ve written in several of my blog posts this semester. I am saddened, but not surprised, to learn how glaringly absent women are from the development of communications technologies. Nothing I write can remedy that. However, there are two areas of communication that women carved out for themselves in a way that men didn’t - simply because men didn’t have to.
First, women used letter writing as a major form of communication as far back as the 1600s. Letters were used for economic reasons (how to manage a house) as well as social reasons (reinforcing familial and friendship bonds across distances). Like other communications technologies, letter-writing began as an activity for the elite. With the rise of literacy, more women could participate in the medium. Of course, men also wrote letters. But in looking for the impact of women on communications - and vice versa - letter-writing strikes me as one of the most important places to start.
More recently women have participated in the creation of ‘zines (self-published magazines distributed throughout a community). The 1990s, in particular, saw a wave of feminist activity known as the riot grrrl movement. Women who identified with this group, and similar groups, used ‘zines to create and spread a culture of awareness around punk music and gender equity.
Letters in the 17th century allowed women to connect to each other. ‘Zines in the 20th century allowed women to connect to larger communities.
* * *
The bottom line is that the development of communications is a journey. We can document our history, and chart our course for the future. No one can say for sure exactly where we are going, only that we are traveling collectively, marching toward the next new technology that will be even greater than the last.
The Tube of All Evil
I really enjoyed reading Barnouw's Tube of Plenty. For me, this book synthesized the themes that we've been discussing individually throughout the semester: how communications is tied to oral traditions, written traditions, familial traditions, justice, technological advances, politics, nationalism, war, and collective memory. It also reinforced something I noticed a few weeks ago: that historically, the development of the way we communicate is the domain of white men. Neither of these statements is meant as a criticism, only as an observation.
I walk away from this week's readings feeling like television is just another vehicle by which the public can be manipulated by "the man." Television executives, advertisers, politicians, and government representatives are all in bed together. It's utterly exasperating! TV execs want to generate revenue from advertisers who only want to be associated with the most desirable programming which only gets funded if it meets certain criteria and can pass the litmus test of politics (should we reveal this information to the public?).
Barnouw writes about the television coverage in the wake of Kennedy's assassination. While I wasn't alive to witness that myself, I imagine that it felt a lot like 9/11. Is TV, then, responsible for the fetishization of national and international tragedy? A lot of evidence indicates that it is: during my lifetime alone, we have had exhaustive, overwhelming coverage of 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the earthquake in Haiti, the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, and the Oklahoma City bombings, to name a few. Does television numb us to tragedy, or does it create an insatiable desire for visual representations of those tragedies?
Another question: Is the Internet the new television? I think the Internet actually has the potential to undermine television. If television is a tool by which the masses can be manipulated, then the Internet (while it can also serve that function), provides an opportunity to circumvent that system. Television projects the voices of few to the masses. The Internet projects the voices of the masses to the masses and sometimes projects the voices of the masses back to the few - without politics, governments, or business executives "cluttering the airwaves" so to speak.
Can the Internet catch up to TV? I think it has a fighting chance. In its heyday, the television replaced newspapers as Americans' primary news source. A recent study (March 2010) from the Pew Internet & American Life Project reveals that the Internet is now the third most popular source for news (behind local and cable television). If this week's WikiLeaks scandal is any indication of the public's ability to a) get news on the web and b) get news that other sources won't report, then I think the Internet has a fighting chance, indeed. I couldn't find a study about this, but I wonder how many people watch cable TV versus the number of people who seek entertainment from YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, CastTV, or other online entertainment sites.
And the battle to control our minds rages on. . .
EDIT: Barnouw writes that "The advent of television was widely compared, in its impact, with that of the Gutenberg printing press centuries earlier. Television was beginning to be seen as the more revolutionary innovation." (page 467) We can obviously substitute the Internet here and have a contemporary version of the sentences: The advent of the Internet was widely compared, in its impact, with that of the television. The Internet was beginning to be seen as the more revolutionary innovation.
I've been thinking a lot about whether or not the Internet can really unseat television in a meaningful way. And I think it can. But it will be tricky to measure. On the one hand, the Internet can become just another screen we look at. Whether we watch NBC on a TV or online is irrelevant if the content is the same. But once we utilize the web to go beyond the content that corporations feed to us, then the Internet will have truly become a "revolutionary innovation." If it's just another screen by which we absorb the same material that's on the television, then it falls short of its potential to unseat the manipulative machinery behind the television.
Edit #2: It is absolutely incredible how much attention this book has gotten. Whether I was reading on the train, during lunch, or around relatives, everyone felt comfortable commenting on it - after seeing only the title! One of my colleagues described the phenomenon: That's because everyone's an expert. We all have TV experiences. We've all invested in it.
I walk away from this week's readings feeling like television is just another vehicle by which the public can be manipulated by "the man." Television executives, advertisers, politicians, and government representatives are all in bed together. It's utterly exasperating! TV execs want to generate revenue from advertisers who only want to be associated with the most desirable programming which only gets funded if it meets certain criteria and can pass the litmus test of politics (should we reveal this information to the public?).
Barnouw writes about the television coverage in the wake of Kennedy's assassination. While I wasn't alive to witness that myself, I imagine that it felt a lot like 9/11. Is TV, then, responsible for the fetishization of national and international tragedy? A lot of evidence indicates that it is: during my lifetime alone, we have had exhaustive, overwhelming coverage of 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the earthquake in Haiti, the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, and the Oklahoma City bombings, to name a few. Does television numb us to tragedy, or does it create an insatiable desire for visual representations of those tragedies?
Another question: Is the Internet the new television? I think the Internet actually has the potential to undermine television. If television is a tool by which the masses can be manipulated, then the Internet (while it can also serve that function), provides an opportunity to circumvent that system. Television projects the voices of few to the masses. The Internet projects the voices of the masses to the masses and sometimes projects the voices of the masses back to the few - without politics, governments, or business executives "cluttering the airwaves" so to speak.
Can the Internet catch up to TV? I think it has a fighting chance. In its heyday, the television replaced newspapers as Americans' primary news source. A recent study (March 2010) from the Pew Internet & American Life Project reveals that the Internet is now the third most popular source for news (behind local and cable television). If this week's WikiLeaks scandal is any indication of the public's ability to a) get news on the web and b) get news that other sources won't report, then I think the Internet has a fighting chance, indeed. I couldn't find a study about this, but I wonder how many people watch cable TV versus the number of people who seek entertainment from YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, CastTV, or other online entertainment sites.
And the battle to control our minds rages on. . .
EDIT: Barnouw writes that "The advent of television was widely compared, in its impact, with that of the Gutenberg printing press centuries earlier. Television was beginning to be seen as the more revolutionary innovation." (page 467) We can obviously substitute the Internet here and have a contemporary version of the sentences: The advent of the Internet was widely compared, in its impact, with that of the television. The Internet was beginning to be seen as the more revolutionary innovation.
I've been thinking a lot about whether or not the Internet can really unseat television in a meaningful way. And I think it can. But it will be tricky to measure. On the one hand, the Internet can become just another screen we look at. Whether we watch NBC on a TV or online is irrelevant if the content is the same. But once we utilize the web to go beyond the content that corporations feed to us, then the Internet will have truly become a "revolutionary innovation." If it's just another screen by which we absorb the same material that's on the television, then it falls short of its potential to unseat the manipulative machinery behind the television.
Edit #2: It is absolutely incredible how much attention this book has gotten. Whether I was reading on the train, during lunch, or around relatives, everyone felt comfortable commenting on it - after seeing only the title! One of my colleagues described the phenomenon: That's because everyone's an expert. We all have TV experiences. We've all invested in it.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Gazing Down on the Present from the Top of Telegraph Hill
I really enjoyed this week's reading and videos. The arguments were clearly articulated and described in the essay, and the rationale behind the essay was made evident in the short video clips. I find it fascinating that Carey came to study the telegraph because of a desire to understand the intersection of technology, international banking, and the airline industry. He speaks of "notions of mobility" (first video clip) and how the 19th century equivalent of airlines, banking, and satellite was the emergence of the telegraph. He essentially looked backward in order to identify a framework that he could project onto the development and emergence of other (more modern) technologies. We can similarly use the telegraph to understand some of the technological communications trends that we are experiencing today.
Carey talks about several ways that the telegraph changed "culture and individuals living in culture." (second video clip) Two of these changes are 1) the way in which transactions are executed and 2) the ability for people to participate in the same "system of social relations." (second video clip) The telegraph drove down the costs of transactions in many industries by allowing people to communicate more quickly and by removing the element of transportation that had been tied to communication prior to the telegraph. The telegraph also let people participate in a single system by providing a platform for the new communication and by eventually leading to the establishment of standard time upon which people all over the world could rely.
If we look at our own new technologies, we will find that they, too, are becoming embedded in our culture by the way we perform transactions and by allowing people to participate in social systems. The Internet has drastically changed the way financial transactions are completed - both for institutions and for individuals. Pennies to millions can be moved (transported) with a few clicks of a mouse. Moreover, we are no longer constrained by time. Even when markets and banks are closed, we can still initiate financial transactions. With the Internet, we can save money, spend money, and send money - actions that impact many, many industries.
We can also look to the web to see the changing ways in which we are now able to participate in social systems. Facebook is perhaps the most obvious example. People can connect online without regard for time, geographic location, or transportation. But Facebook hasn't cornered this market. Many companies are jumping on the social system/network bandwagon. There is lots of money to be made connecting people and networks.
Carey writes that the telegraph was able to reconcile people's opposing desires for "peace, harmony, and self-sufficiency with the wish for power, profit, and productivity." (p 207) We can see how our own technologies are positioned to do the exact same thing. We love the self-sufficiency that comes with managing our lives online. And the founder of Facebook is managing a company that was recently valued at nearly $34 billion dollars. Self-sufficiency, meet profit.
Carey talks about several ways that the telegraph changed "culture and individuals living in culture." (second video clip) Two of these changes are 1) the way in which transactions are executed and 2) the ability for people to participate in the same "system of social relations." (second video clip) The telegraph drove down the costs of transactions in many industries by allowing people to communicate more quickly and by removing the element of transportation that had been tied to communication prior to the telegraph. The telegraph also let people participate in a single system by providing a platform for the new communication and by eventually leading to the establishment of standard time upon which people all over the world could rely.
If we look at our own new technologies, we will find that they, too, are becoming embedded in our culture by the way we perform transactions and by allowing people to participate in social systems. The Internet has drastically changed the way financial transactions are completed - both for institutions and for individuals. Pennies to millions can be moved (transported) with a few clicks of a mouse. Moreover, we are no longer constrained by time. Even when markets and banks are closed, we can still initiate financial transactions. With the Internet, we can save money, spend money, and send money - actions that impact many, many industries.
We can also look to the web to see the changing ways in which we are now able to participate in social systems. Facebook is perhaps the most obvious example. People can connect online without regard for time, geographic location, or transportation. But Facebook hasn't cornered this market. Many companies are jumping on the social system/network bandwagon. There is lots of money to be made connecting people and networks.
Carey writes that the telegraph was able to reconcile people's opposing desires for "peace, harmony, and self-sufficiency with the wish for power, profit, and productivity." (p 207) We can see how our own technologies are positioned to do the exact same thing. We love the self-sufficiency that comes with managing our lives online. And the founder of Facebook is managing a company that was recently valued at nearly $34 billion dollars. Self-sufficiency, meet profit.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Imagine That!
I love Anderson's notion of imagined communities. The text is chock full of goodness, such that no matter how often I re-read it, I always stumble upon something that I missed previously. This go-round, I was preoccupied with two concepts: first, that the boundaries of an imagined community are both elastic and finite, with other imagined communities (i.e. nations) just beyond the borders. Second, the importance of the newspaper in creating imagined communities is fascinating. However, each of these is not without its own problems.
Nations' Borders
The version of the text that I read was revised in 1991. Were Anderson to revise it again, today, I wonder how the impact of globalization would change his ideas. I agree that boundaries are elastic. I don't, however, agree that they are finite. The borders are porous, and if a person follows the rules of entry, s/he can join other imagined communities. Let's think about America. There are several borders that define who is/is not America/n. One border is geography. If you live in a particular location, you are American (though you can also live in America and not be American). Another border is place of birth. If you were born in a particular location, you are American. Another border is ancestry. If your parents are Americans, and your birth was registered with the American consulate in the country where you were born, then you are American. Though it is admittedly difficult, one can also meet none of these criteria and still become an American citizen. We cannot predict exactly how many people will apply for citizenship, nor can we predict how many people will be granted citizenship. But we do know that the number of citizens is always growing. In this way, it is not finite. There are also people who reject imagined communities. While some people want to become Americans, others may reject their citizenship in order to become members of other nation-communities. As I said, borders are porous. Even if we agreed that everyone in the world could be American, the total number of Americans would continue to grow every time a baby was born.
Two Communities in Newspapers
First, I disagree with Anderson's claim that a newspaper is simply an "extreme form" of a book that has "ephemeral popularity" (Anderson 34). This claim is unfair to both books and to newspapers. News writing is a distinct genre. Journalists aren't trained to write novels, and viceversa. Moreover, a single book doesn't have nearly as many authors as a single newspaper.
Anderson also writes that the linkage between articles in a single newspaper is imagined (p. 33). I disagree with this, too. (Sorry to be so disagreeable, this week.) There are two real linkages that exist between newspapers articles:
Anderson writes eloquently about different people reading the same newspaper around the country at any given time, creating an imagined community of people who know of each other without knowing each other. The ability for the newspaper to create this type of community is one reason why it (the newspaper) is so important in the formation of imagined national communities. I think that the newspaper also creates imagined communities in another way. When an earthquake devastated Port-au-Prince in January, newspapers throughout America reported on the physical damage, loss of life, and recovery efforts. Thus, two imagined communities were created. The first is the community of readers that read the same paper. The second imagined national community was the representation of Haiti to which those readers were exposed: an imagined community defined by journalists and editors who portrayed Haiti in the sensational way that would increase sales.
All of this is just fodder for my own understanding of imagined communities. I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on Wednesday night.
Nations' Borders
The version of the text that I read was revised in 1991. Were Anderson to revise it again, today, I wonder how the impact of globalization would change his ideas. I agree that boundaries are elastic. I don't, however, agree that they are finite. The borders are porous, and if a person follows the rules of entry, s/he can join other imagined communities. Let's think about America. There are several borders that define who is/is not America/n. One border is geography. If you live in a particular location, you are American (though you can also live in America and not be American). Another border is place of birth. If you were born in a particular location, you are American. Another border is ancestry. If your parents are Americans, and your birth was registered with the American consulate in the country where you were born, then you are American. Though it is admittedly difficult, one can also meet none of these criteria and still become an American citizen. We cannot predict exactly how many people will apply for citizenship, nor can we predict how many people will be granted citizenship. But we do know that the number of citizens is always growing. In this way, it is not finite. There are also people who reject imagined communities. While some people want to become Americans, others may reject their citizenship in order to become members of other nation-communities. As I said, borders are porous. Even if we agreed that everyone in the world could be American, the total number of Americans would continue to grow every time a baby was born.
Two Communities in Newspapers
First, I disagree with Anderson's claim that a newspaper is simply an "extreme form" of a book that has "ephemeral popularity" (Anderson 34). This claim is unfair to both books and to newspapers. News writing is a distinct genre. Journalists aren't trained to write novels, and viceversa. Moreover, a single book doesn't have nearly as many authors as a single newspaper.
Anderson also writes that the linkage between articles in a single newspaper is imagined (p. 33). I disagree with this, too. (Sorry to be so disagreeable, this week.) There are two real linkages that exist between newspapers articles:
- the fact that they appear in the same paper (which Anderson mentions)
- different articles about the same topic in the same paper
Anderson writes eloquently about different people reading the same newspaper around the country at any given time, creating an imagined community of people who know of each other without knowing each other. The ability for the newspaper to create this type of community is one reason why it (the newspaper) is so important in the formation of imagined national communities. I think that the newspaper also creates imagined communities in another way. When an earthquake devastated Port-au-Prince in January, newspapers throughout America reported on the physical damage, loss of life, and recovery efforts. Thus, two imagined communities were created. The first is the community of readers that read the same paper. The second imagined national community was the representation of Haiti to which those readers were exposed: an imagined community defined by journalists and editors who portrayed Haiti in the sensational way that would increase sales.
All of this is just fodder for my own understanding of imagined communities. I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on Wednesday night.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
On Print
Disclaimer: This post was written with a kidney infection, after spending eight days at the hospital with my grandmother. It is not as cohesive as it would be if I were well.
This semester, in addition to taking The History of Communication, I'm also taking a class called Written Culture. These two courses complement each other very well, particularly this week as we look at the impact of print on thinking, writing, history, and culture. I think that we can substitute the word print with technology and look at the ways in which the evolution of communications technologies generally have shaped and continue to shape our lives.
Cochran writes that "The multiplicity of media, whether cinema, video, audio recording, or software, involves new ways of transcribing human thought for posterity and alters understandings of historical continuity. . . [M]any aspects of cultural production have become visible for the first time." (page 2) We can add to this list e-mail, blogging, tweeting, and many other forms of communications technologies that we currently use. Two things stand out: 1) new ways of transcribing human thought for posterity and 2) visible cultural production. How do our new technologies (our print replacements, so to speak) fall into these two arenas?
This past year, the Library of Congress decided to archive all public tweets. Many authors are now bypassing publishing houses and self-publishing their manuscripts as ebooks instead. These are just two examples of new ways in which we are transcribing human thought. But it begs a question. Can something digital actually be preserved for posterity? How long-lasting is a 140 character tweet, even if it is saved on a server somewhere at the LoC? While some of our technology is replacing print, I think we can safely argue, for now at least, that print is not, in fact, replaceable.
We have yet to see if/how our new technology will stand the test of time, but we can't dispute the fact that they expose cultural production in new ways. We have access to more information, and more importantly, we have access to the people who produce information. We not only see an online exhibit at a museum to which we don't have access; we also see a video with the curator describing how the piece was assembled. We can listen to an interview with an author online, but we can also submit questions that we'd like that author to answer. News is disseminated faster than newspapers are printed and (for better or worse), one doesn't need a degree in journalism to be a "reporter." The production of culture is visible now, but that doesn't mean it's good quality, or easy to find. Consumers - and producers - must be discerning in this Web 2.0 world.
This semester, in addition to taking The History of Communication, I'm also taking a class called Written Culture. These two courses complement each other very well, particularly this week as we look at the impact of print on thinking, writing, history, and culture. I think that we can substitute the word print with technology and look at the ways in which the evolution of communications technologies generally have shaped and continue to shape our lives.
Cochran writes that "The multiplicity of media, whether cinema, video, audio recording, or software, involves new ways of transcribing human thought for posterity and alters understandings of historical continuity. . . [M]any aspects of cultural production have become visible for the first time." (page 2) We can add to this list e-mail, blogging, tweeting, and many other forms of communications technologies that we currently use. Two things stand out: 1) new ways of transcribing human thought for posterity and 2) visible cultural production. How do our new technologies (our print replacements, so to speak) fall into these two arenas?
This past year, the Library of Congress decided to archive all public tweets. Many authors are now bypassing publishing houses and self-publishing their manuscripts as ebooks instead. These are just two examples of new ways in which we are transcribing human thought. But it begs a question. Can something digital actually be preserved for posterity? How long-lasting is a 140 character tweet, even if it is saved on a server somewhere at the LoC? While some of our technology is replacing print, I think we can safely argue, for now at least, that print is not, in fact, replaceable.
We have yet to see if/how our new technology will stand the test of time, but we can't dispute the fact that they expose cultural production in new ways. We have access to more information, and more importantly, we have access to the people who produce information. We not only see an online exhibit at a museum to which we don't have access; we also see a video with the curator describing how the piece was assembled. We can listen to an interview with an author online, but we can also submit questions that we'd like that author to answer. News is disseminated faster than newspapers are printed and (for better or worse), one doesn't need a degree in journalism to be a "reporter." The production of culture is visible now, but that doesn't mean it's good quality, or easy to find. Consumers - and producers - must be discerning in this Web 2.0 world.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Writing on the Wall
For much of the semester, we've talked about orality versus writing, as if the two were the only ways in which history was recorded, remembered, and recalled. This week, we see that architecture is a third way in which histories are captured. Indeed, architects often had liberty to do/say things via their structures that writers could not.
In The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Victor Hugo worries that "[t]he book will kill the building" (Hugo, 169). He fears that writing will replace the cultural authority that had been the domain of the architect. What will happen to buildings if they are no longer of import (beyond being structures)? Hugo needn't have worried.
When I recall the traveling I've done, and the pictures I've taken, buildings feature prominently (in both memory and pictures). I think fondly about the Eiffel Tower, Dublin Castle, the Plaza de Toros de las Ventas in Madrid (bull fighting ring), and other places that I've seen that are important for a variety of reasons. These buildings are historically significant as the sites of the histories of these cities/countries. Some of them are still important - like the bull fighting ring in Madrid - as they continue to be the sites of living history. While we certainly read books to prepare for travel, and even seek out books when we travel (the Book of Kells comes to mind), architecture still plays an important part in documenting the history of places.
Recently, the Clock Tower in the Old Town Square in Prague turned 600 years old. To commemorate this event, the city presented a spectacular digital map of this 600 year history. In a grand display of old meeting new, the events of the past 600 years were literally displayed upon the facade of the building. Print is undoubtedly important for capturing and preserving histories. But I don't think that the book has killed the building.
In The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Victor Hugo worries that "[t]he book will kill the building" (Hugo, 169). He fears that writing will replace the cultural authority that had been the domain of the architect. What will happen to buildings if they are no longer of import (beyond being structures)? Hugo needn't have worried.
When I recall the traveling I've done, and the pictures I've taken, buildings feature prominently (in both memory and pictures). I think fondly about the Eiffel Tower, Dublin Castle, the Plaza de Toros de las Ventas in Madrid (bull fighting ring), and other places that I've seen that are important for a variety of reasons. These buildings are historically significant as the sites of the histories of these cities/countries. Some of them are still important - like the bull fighting ring in Madrid - as they continue to be the sites of living history. While we certainly read books to prepare for travel, and even seek out books when we travel (the Book of Kells comes to mind), architecture still plays an important part in documenting the history of places.
Recently, the Clock Tower in the Old Town Square in Prague turned 600 years old. To commemorate this event, the city presented a spectacular digital map of this 600 year history. In a grand display of old meeting new, the events of the past 600 years were literally displayed upon the facade of the building. Print is undoubtedly important for capturing and preserving histories. But I don't think that the book has killed the building.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Mid-semester Reflection
I've thought a lot about the story with which Frank ended class last week. When confronted with his mortality, he thought about his ancestors, and a reunion with them wherever they are. I've experienced the inverse of that.
I have really low blood pressure, and the way that I found out was by fainting in a restaurant. I'd never fainted before, and it's a pretty incredible experience. I lost consciousness, but not sub-consciousness. While I was passed out, I remember looking around a dark hallway for my grandmother. It was a very calm, very rational moment. And I thought to myself, "Well, she's not here, so I guess I'm not dead." I didn't realize how certain I was that death would reunite me with lost loved ones until I had some time to reflect on that experience.
And now I'm thinking about how our ancestors contribute to communication habits that are unique to us, that we inherit as beneficiaries of the familial institution. Stereotypically, many Italian people use their hands when they communicate. In my own family, my grandmother communicates via the preparation and presentation of food. I obviously can't speak to the communication habits of other families, but I presume that each family has a set of communication strategies or techniques that are inter-generational.
What does this mean for the study of communication? I think it means that we can approach communications with a camera, so to speak. We can look through the lens and make generalizations that apply to the majority of people. We can look broadly at the history of the communications tradition that we (humanity) have inherited. Or we can zoom in. We can zoom in to look at communications within institutions such as the state, religion, education, etc. We can zoom in further to look at family dynamics and politics. Finally, we can zoom in all the way, until we get to ourselves. As Frank said in class, "In the end, we each define our own rootedness and duty."
And in the end, (I think) we return to our ancestors.
I have really low blood pressure, and the way that I found out was by fainting in a restaurant. I'd never fainted before, and it's a pretty incredible experience. I lost consciousness, but not sub-consciousness. While I was passed out, I remember looking around a dark hallway for my grandmother. It was a very calm, very rational moment. And I thought to myself, "Well, she's not here, so I guess I'm not dead." I didn't realize how certain I was that death would reunite me with lost loved ones until I had some time to reflect on that experience.
And now I'm thinking about how our ancestors contribute to communication habits that are unique to us, that we inherit as beneficiaries of the familial institution. Stereotypically, many Italian people use their hands when they communicate. In my own family, my grandmother communicates via the preparation and presentation of food. I obviously can't speak to the communication habits of other families, but I presume that each family has a set of communication strategies or techniques that are inter-generational.
What does this mean for the study of communication? I think it means that we can approach communications with a camera, so to speak. We can look through the lens and make generalizations that apply to the majority of people. We can look broadly at the history of the communications tradition that we (humanity) have inherited. Or we can zoom in. We can zoom in to look at communications within institutions such as the state, religion, education, etc. We can zoom in further to look at family dynamics and politics. Finally, we can zoom in all the way, until we get to ourselves. As Frank said in class, "In the end, we each define our own rootedness and duty."
And in the end, (I think) we return to our ancestors.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Identities
This week's readings explored personal and political identity politics, as they relate to men. In Fromm's "Sane Society," men grapple with severing maternal ties in order to become separate individuals. In Virgil's "Aeneid," Aeneas balances being his father's son with being a good statesman/soldier. These themes can be bound in a broad category called identity politics. Who are we? How do we develop our sense of self? What agents of socialization come to bear upon the decisions we make that define who we are? Though there are many answers to this last question, we see three distinct answers in this week's texts: maternal relationships, nationalism, and religion. Interestingly, nations and religions often take on maternal qualities, further blending these categories of identity.
There are many ways in which a man defines himself. "[H]e has to overcome the deep craving to remain tied to mother." (Fromm 39) He has to "belong to a nation." (Fromm 56) We see this search for self definition played out in Aeneas' journey. Aeneas is his father's son and also a son of his country.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm going to take this post to the same place I've taken previous posts - to the topic of gender. In both readings, women represent the foundation from which men can start to develop identities. Women are nurturing mothers, or motherlands. There is no option for women other than to be the platform from which men launch their adult lives. In the context of this week's readings, what does women's identity politics look like? I think that Fromm alludes to some of the ways in which women develop personal and national identities: there is Eve's fall from grace (where the woman is, at least in the beginning, more intelligent than the man); there is the acknowledgment that matriarchal societies exist, and that those societies are different than patriarchal societies. I would also argue that women's identity can be considered in what Fromm doesn't say, in the negative space of the essay, so to speak. For example:
"The incest tabu is the necessary condition for all human development, not because of its sexual, but because of its affective aspect. Man, in order to be born, in order to progress, has to sever the umbilical cord; he has to overcome the deep craving to remain tied to mother. The incestuous desire has its strength not from the sexual attraction to mother, but from the deep-seated craving to remain in, or to return to the all-enveloping womb, or to the all-nourishing breasts." (Fromm 39)
If we look at what isn't said, then can we assume that women do not have to work through any of these issues as they develop their personal identities? If men fight the urge to return to the womb, then are women stronger for not having to fight that urge? Are biological women freer to develop identities because they have their own wombs and breasts from which to be comforted and nourished? Or do women just have "daddy issues" which Fromm was not able or interested in documenting in this excerpt?
Then, of course, there is gender identity politics as it relates to the queer community. I know that this goes way beyond the scope of what we read this week, but as our task is to write about ideas that relate to personal experience/interest, I'll proceed.
How are we to understand personal and national identity politics in the queer community? Does a transsexual person born a woman undergo the personal identity development of a man? If this happens later in life, then does that middle-aged person become the equivalent of an adolescent in terms of personal identity? And what of national identity? This is especially relevant in light of recent developments in the existence of DADT, where personal and national identity politics crash into each other. Men and women are asked to deny their personal identities in order to embrace and participate in a culture of national identity. Fromm writes that the "average man today obtains his sense of identity from his belonging to a nation." (Fromm 56) Clearly, this is true, since countless LGBTQ people are willing to sacrifice their personal selves to maintain their national identities.
What does all this rambling mean for us today? In sum, I walk away from this week's readings with the following:
There are many ways in which a man defines himself. "[H]e has to overcome the deep craving to remain tied to mother." (Fromm 39) He has to "belong to a nation." (Fromm 56) We see this search for self definition played out in Aeneas' journey. Aeneas is his father's son and also a son of his country.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm going to take this post to the same place I've taken previous posts - to the topic of gender. In both readings, women represent the foundation from which men can start to develop identities. Women are nurturing mothers, or motherlands. There is no option for women other than to be the platform from which men launch their adult lives. In the context of this week's readings, what does women's identity politics look like? I think that Fromm alludes to some of the ways in which women develop personal and national identities: there is Eve's fall from grace (where the woman is, at least in the beginning, more intelligent than the man); there is the acknowledgment that matriarchal societies exist, and that those societies are different than patriarchal societies. I would also argue that women's identity can be considered in what Fromm doesn't say, in the negative space of the essay, so to speak. For example:
"The incest tabu is the necessary condition for all human development, not because of its sexual, but because of its affective aspect. Man, in order to be born, in order to progress, has to sever the umbilical cord; he has to overcome the deep craving to remain tied to mother. The incestuous desire has its strength not from the sexual attraction to mother, but from the deep-seated craving to remain in, or to return to the all-enveloping womb, or to the all-nourishing breasts." (Fromm 39)
If we look at what isn't said, then can we assume that women do not have to work through any of these issues as they develop their personal identities? If men fight the urge to return to the womb, then are women stronger for not having to fight that urge? Are biological women freer to develop identities because they have their own wombs and breasts from which to be comforted and nourished? Or do women just have "daddy issues" which Fromm was not able or interested in documenting in this excerpt?
Then, of course, there is gender identity politics as it relates to the queer community. I know that this goes way beyond the scope of what we read this week, but as our task is to write about ideas that relate to personal experience/interest, I'll proceed.
How are we to understand personal and national identity politics in the queer community? Does a transsexual person born a woman undergo the personal identity development of a man? If this happens later in life, then does that middle-aged person become the equivalent of an adolescent in terms of personal identity? And what of national identity? This is especially relevant in light of recent developments in the existence of DADT, where personal and national identity politics crash into each other. Men and women are asked to deny their personal identities in order to embrace and participate in a culture of national identity. Fromm writes that the "average man today obtains his sense of identity from his belonging to a nation." (Fromm 56) Clearly, this is true, since countless LGBTQ people are willing to sacrifice their personal selves to maintain their national identities.
What does all this rambling mean for us today? In sum, I walk away from this week's readings with the following:
- Personal and political identities are not mutually exclusive.
- While we focused on male identities, there is room to use these readings to talk about female identities as well.
- Families, states, and religions are primary agents of socialization and individual development.
- Modern theories of identity politics face the challenge of incorporating and representing groups whose development is not traditional (though not less valid or important for falling outside of tradition).
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
History: War & Ritual
This week's historical readings - Thucydides, in particular - demonstrate some of the ways in which Greek culture set the precedent for the development of future societies. Indeed, within these readings we can easily see representations of ancient Greek culture in our own lives. There are two big takeaways for me:
1. Where men exist in collectives/societies, war is inevitable.
2. Ritual ceremonies contribute to the foundation of society.
On War
"Even after the Trojan War Greece continued in a state of upheaval and resettlement, with no opportunity for peaceful growth." (Thucydides, page 8)
Substitute Operation Iraqi Freedom for the Trojan War, and Iraq for Greece, and this sentence would be relevant today. What is it about the nature of men that compels them to battle? Were women the majority of leaders around the world, would there be as much global conflict as there is today? I think back on Amartya Sen's interview to which we listened last week. It doesn't seem possible to me to balance justice and war. I don't understand the desire to conquer, seize, and kill. This is contradictory to what Thucydides writes later on: "we are not angry with our neighbour if he indulges his own pleasure, nor do we put on the disapproving look which falls short of punishment but can still hurt." (page 91) If on the one hand you are not obsessed with your neighbor, and on the other hand you fight a war with your neighbor, then how do you reconcile this contradiction within yourself? It seems to me that war boils down to men's egos - both in ancient Greek life and in our world today.
On Ritual
". . . the bones of the departed are laid out, and people can bring offerings to their own dead." (Thucydides, page 89)
I was struck by the account of funeral rituals during war times. It is quite amazing to visualize the gathering of bones, laying of offerings, and weeping women. State funerals were accorded to those high in the military chain of command, and eulogies were tributes that could embolden the living and stir them to aspire to the greatness of the dead (what a concept!). Ritual - whether religious or not - is of great consequence on many levels: sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically, educationally. Ritual binds people together, giving them common experiences upon which to draw in times of sadness, celebration, anger, etc.
Rituals are all around us. I only wish it were easier to objectively identify and analyze the ones in which we participate.
1. Where men exist in collectives/societies, war is inevitable.
2. Ritual ceremonies contribute to the foundation of society.
On War
"Even after the Trojan War Greece continued in a state of upheaval and resettlement, with no opportunity for peaceful growth." (Thucydides, page 8)
Substitute Operation Iraqi Freedom for the Trojan War, and Iraq for Greece, and this sentence would be relevant today. What is it about the nature of men that compels them to battle? Were women the majority of leaders around the world, would there be as much global conflict as there is today? I think back on Amartya Sen's interview to which we listened last week. It doesn't seem possible to me to balance justice and war. I don't understand the desire to conquer, seize, and kill. This is contradictory to what Thucydides writes later on: "we are not angry with our neighbour if he indulges his own pleasure, nor do we put on the disapproving look which falls short of punishment but can still hurt." (page 91) If on the one hand you are not obsessed with your neighbor, and on the other hand you fight a war with your neighbor, then how do you reconcile this contradiction within yourself? It seems to me that war boils down to men's egos - both in ancient Greek life and in our world today.
On Ritual
". . . the bones of the departed are laid out, and people can bring offerings to their own dead." (Thucydides, page 89)
I was struck by the account of funeral rituals during war times. It is quite amazing to visualize the gathering of bones, laying of offerings, and weeping women. State funerals were accorded to those high in the military chain of command, and eulogies were tributes that could embolden the living and stir them to aspire to the greatness of the dead (what a concept!). Ritual - whether religious or not - is of great consequence on many levels: sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically, educationally. Ritual binds people together, giving them common experiences upon which to draw in times of sadness, celebration, anger, etc.
Rituals are all around us. I only wish it were easier to objectively identify and analyze the ones in which we participate.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
On Education and Justice
I was struck by two things in this week's readings: our ideas about education and about justice.
Education
In Book VII of the Republic, we read that "man ought not to learn any study slavishly. . .don't use force in training the children in the studies, but rather play. In that way you can also better discern what each is naturally directed toward." (page 216) Given all the things that Plato writes about education, it may seem silly to focus on this small nugget. But I think that Plato was on to something.
We can interpret this in two ways. On the one hand, Plato can be telling us that people need to be taught through genuine interest and discovery. This is not at all how our current educational system is structured, though it does call to mind my own utopian view of home schooling. What better way to learn than to be curious about something and be in the company of a teacher who encourages and fosters discovery of that topic?
The second way to interpret this is much more literally. All people - young and old - need time to play. Society doesn't place nearly enough emphasis on the importance of play. I used to work for an organization that had (and still has) a game room. Here you'd find comfy couches, lots of natural light, video games, puzzles, books, and small tchotchkies on which you could while away some time when you were particularly flustered by a task. Playing is not a bad thing. Sometimes, we need to not be productive in order to ultimately be productive.
Justice
Disclaimer: I believe in right and wrong, but not in society's ability to define those categories.
I really enjoyed the interview with Amartya Sen, and found specific threads of the conversation that I was able to apply to my own personal experiences, and to the scholarly issues with which I grapple as an anthropology student.
Education
In Book VII of the Republic, we read that "man ought not to learn any study slavishly. . .don't use force in training the children in the studies, but rather play. In that way you can also better discern what each is naturally directed toward." (page 216) Given all the things that Plato writes about education, it may seem silly to focus on this small nugget. But I think that Plato was on to something.
We can interpret this in two ways. On the one hand, Plato can be telling us that people need to be taught through genuine interest and discovery. This is not at all how our current educational system is structured, though it does call to mind my own utopian view of home schooling. What better way to learn than to be curious about something and be in the company of a teacher who encourages and fosters discovery of that topic?
The second way to interpret this is much more literally. All people - young and old - need time to play. Society doesn't place nearly enough emphasis on the importance of play. I used to work for an organization that had (and still has) a game room. Here you'd find comfy couches, lots of natural light, video games, puzzles, books, and small tchotchkies on which you could while away some time when you were particularly flustered by a task. Playing is not a bad thing. Sometimes, we need to not be productive in order to ultimately be productive.
Justice
Disclaimer: I believe in right and wrong, but not in society's ability to define those categories.
I really enjoyed the interview with Amartya Sen, and found specific threads of the conversation that I was able to apply to my own personal experiences, and to the scholarly issues with which I grapple as an anthropology student.
- Sen talks about the idea of global justice, about whether or not some official global justice entity would be a good thing. I can certainly see how global justice could be useful. However, it could also be very dangerous. Laws and practices exist within individual cultures, and to suggest that there can be a global justice is to deny the defining characteristics of a time/place that called for those specific laws. Of course, I'm not thinking about basic human rights like the right to food and clean drinking water. I'm thinking of moral hot-button issues like female genital mutilation, abortion, capital punishment, and the like. Would we really want to be subject to laws agreed upon by an international group?
- Sen addresses my fear somewhat by claiming that we have to be open to ideas that don't necessarily come from within our own local communities. To develop a complete and reasonable understanding of justice, we have to be able and willing to adopt international ideas that further the basic notion of justice. Reason will prevail, or at least make a significant dent in any argument that could lead to an abuse of a global system of justice.
- My favorite concept from this interview is this: It is important that we not ask what a perfect justice looks like. Rather, we need to focus on identifying injustices that exist, and remedying those one at a time. This seems like a manageable way to bring about positive changes - both in our local communities and in the world. Nevertheless, making justice "bite-sized" like this is not to make seeking justice any less daunting. Pockets of injustice can be found throughout the world. Can it ever really be possible to address them all?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Voiceless Women
In this week's readings, I was most struck by the way women were treated by the men around them and portrayed by the writers who wrote about them. Helen is nothing if not a villain for Euripides, and Clytemnestra is a murderous whore for Sophocles. But it is Electra who suffers the most for her biological gender. The reader should feel bad for her because she is unmarried, a virgin, a weakling who relies upon the men in her life. For Euripedes, she is a maternal character who dotes upon her sick brother and relies upon him and his criminal activity to save her from death. For Sophocles, she is a victim of circumstances around her, powerless to change her life until her heroic brother Orestes rescues her. In both plays, Electra's voice advanced the plot. And yet, Electra doesn't really have a voice, at all.
I discussed this with Martin earlier in the week, and we had to agree to disagree. He thinks that the playwrights were challenging gender stereotypes by exposing them to such an extreme degree. A true challenge to societal norms, in my opinion, would have been to make Electra a confident, assertive, even aggressive woman who is able to avenge her father on her own. Merely writing about sex discrimination - or any kind of discrimination - isn't enough to combat that in society which needs to change.
I think many people who are discriminated against can relate to different aspects of this play. If you are an immigrant, or if you look other than white, then perhaps you can relate to the slave in Euripides, who is spared by Orestes after a humiliating and humbling encounter with him. If you are a woman, then perhaps you know what it is like watch the men around you succeed, despite your own attempts in the same arena. If you are a (gasp!) single woman, then perhaps you know the sting of being reduced to your relationship status. The episodes of discrimination about which we read this week aren't so very far removed from the way society operates today. The disappointment, for me, is that the discrimination in the plays is never remedied - or even countered.
I discussed this with Martin earlier in the week, and we had to agree to disagree. He thinks that the playwrights were challenging gender stereotypes by exposing them to such an extreme degree. A true challenge to societal norms, in my opinion, would have been to make Electra a confident, assertive, even aggressive woman who is able to avenge her father on her own. Merely writing about sex discrimination - or any kind of discrimination - isn't enough to combat that in society which needs to change.
I think many people who are discriminated against can relate to different aspects of this play. If you are an immigrant, or if you look other than white, then perhaps you can relate to the slave in Euripides, who is spared by Orestes after a humiliating and humbling encounter with him. If you are a woman, then perhaps you know what it is like watch the men around you succeed, despite your own attempts in the same arena. If you are a (gasp!) single woman, then perhaps you know the sting of being reduced to your relationship status. The episodes of discrimination about which we read this week aren't so very far removed from the way society operates today. The disappointment, for me, is that the discrimination in the plays is never remedied - or even countered.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Frank's Prompt
Write 3 sentences, each one representing an idea of importance for you related to Aeschylus and our discussion. Do not write more than one sentence. If it helps, make believe that you are deciding what 3 sentences will remain of a larger work which no longer exists with the remaining sentences existing in no autograph manuscripts but only quoted by later thinkers. This is in addition to your normal journal ideas.
- Faith is most important when confronting a challenge.
- Even the most well-intentioned revolutionaries must suffer the consequences of their actions.
- Don't mess with gods/God.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
On Prometheus Bound
1. Prometheus Bound in a Global Context
This may seem like a stretch, but Prometheus Bound brings to mind (for me, anyway) the current print revolution in which we are living. "It was a bad play because the structure was episodic, the characters extravagant and improbable, the diction uncouth and wild" (pg 132). The structure of our own print material has changed dramatically. Pages-long newspaper articles have been replaced with brief blog posts. Our multimedia and data mash-ups are nothing if not improbable. And where Aeschylus' writing is episodic, our own writing has been reduced to 140 character tweets. Sometimes, the ground-breaking departure from standard storytelling isn't recognized as a positive change until the audience has the perspective that comes with the passing of time. Prometheus Bound was like that. Perhaps tweeting will be like that, too, one day.
2. Prometheus Bound in a Personal Context
One a personal level, I was struck by two things: 1) the verses in Prometheus Bound that are suggestive of contemporary experiences and 2) the simultaneous similarities and juxtaposition of Prometheus and Jesus Christ.
On Contemporary Expressions:
"It is an easy thing for one whose foot
is on the outside of calamity
to give advice." (pg 149)
How often does someone give us advice, to which we rejoin "Sure. That's easier said than done."
"Worship him, pray; flatter whatever king
is king today." (pg 174)
How often do we cast our lots with he or she to whom some connection confers a degree of power or importance upon ourselves?
On Comparisons to Christ:
The religious allusions throughout the poem were fascinating. One moment, Prometheus was like Christ. The next moment, Christ's polar opposite.
". . .do not sorrow for my present sufferings;
alight on earth and hear what is to come. . ." (pg 149)
This sounds like something Jesus might have said to his followers, or even as he died on the crucifix. But religious thoughts were hard to maintain, especially in light of verses such as
". . . I, a God, suffer
at the hands of Gods - " (pg 143)
While it may have been true, this is decidedly not something that Jesus would have said.
This may seem like a stretch, but Prometheus Bound brings to mind (for me, anyway) the current print revolution in which we are living. "It was a bad play because the structure was episodic, the characters extravagant and improbable, the diction uncouth and wild" (pg 132). The structure of our own print material has changed dramatically. Pages-long newspaper articles have been replaced with brief blog posts. Our multimedia and data mash-ups are nothing if not improbable. And where Aeschylus' writing is episodic, our own writing has been reduced to 140 character tweets. Sometimes, the ground-breaking departure from standard storytelling isn't recognized as a positive change until the audience has the perspective that comes with the passing of time. Prometheus Bound was like that. Perhaps tweeting will be like that, too, one day.
2. Prometheus Bound in a Personal Context
One a personal level, I was struck by two things: 1) the verses in Prometheus Bound that are suggestive of contemporary experiences and 2) the simultaneous similarities and juxtaposition of Prometheus and Jesus Christ.
On Contemporary Expressions:
"It is an easy thing for one whose foot
is on the outside of calamity
to give advice." (pg 149)
How often does someone give us advice, to which we rejoin "Sure. That's easier said than done."
"Worship him, pray; flatter whatever king
is king today." (pg 174)
How often do we cast our lots with he or she to whom some connection confers a degree of power or importance upon ourselves?
On Comparisons to Christ:
The religious allusions throughout the poem were fascinating. One moment, Prometheus was like Christ. The next moment, Christ's polar opposite.
". . .do not sorrow for my present sufferings;
alight on earth and hear what is to come. . ." (pg 149)
This sounds like something Jesus might have said to his followers, or even as he died on the crucifix. But religious thoughts were hard to maintain, especially in light of verses such as
". . . I, a God, suffer
at the hands of Gods - " (pg 143)
While it may have been true, this is decidedly not something that Jesus would have said.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Diving Into Classics
1. Homer, The Iliad, Richard Lattimore, trans. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), Book 1, pp. 59-75.
This is my first encounter with The Iliad, and as such, I had a variety of reactions to it. I was struck by the similarities between the stereotypical gender roles of today and of yesterday. Men are war-hungry and power-hungry. They settle misunderstandings with threats or acts of violence. The women in their lives fulfill one of two roles; they are either trophies from whom they seek sexual satisfaction or mothers who sooth bruised egos. The women in The Iliad who have a voice use that voice to seek divine intervention or to counsel patience instead of violence. Although Havelock writes that the domestic code is broken in The Iliad (p. 79), the gender stereotypes nevertheless remain. I am reminded of Rachel Simmons' book Odd Girl Out in which she explores the socialization of young boys and girls. Boys engage in physical conflict. Girls fight with words. If this is a gender divide that has always existed, is it something that can (or should) ever be changed? Or is it just the way things are?
2. Havelock, Eric. Preface to Plato (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), Chapters 4 and 9.
In Chapter Nine, Havelock writes of the poet, "[t]o control the collective memory of society he had to establish control over the personal memories of individual human beings." (p 145) If we accept this statement, then poets are not very different from historians. History has two meanings: that which happened, and that which is said to have happened. The historian's job is to gather evidence in the former category and construct a narrative of events for the latter category. Anthropologist Michel-Rolph Trouillot categorizes the process in this way (Silencing the Past, pgs. 2, 6):
Here, we can substitute the word "poet" for "historian" and we have Havelock's perspective of poets, memory, and history. For me, this underscores the fact that history (whether told by a poet or historian) is one fiction among many. It also reinforces the importance of the role that poets play in chronicling historical events.3. Personal Reflection
One thing I found personally interesting in this week's reading is the reference to prayer in The Iliad. "Over and over the old man prayed as he walked in solitude." (verse 35) In this world of mortals and gods, it is fascinating that some characters still resort to the "traditional" notion of prayer: one-way communication to a deity believed to have the power to intervene in one's affairs, in the affairs of others, indeed, even in global affairs. I think of the title of this course - The History of Communication - and wonder what role prayer plays in this history. Prayer is certainly a varied form of communication. Some people pray alone; others pray in groups, in traditional ceremonies. People pray to a god that they have not met, and prayer (unlike other forms of communication) is a monologue. Is prayer a legitimate form of communication?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)