Final Blog Post

“What we carry. This is the story in the end.” –Florence, Falling Man

Keith didn’t ask to be born. Neither did Nick. They happened to be the product of various biological combinations, appearing on the earth with little hands and toes. Life happens, and we are in it. We wake up. We sleep. We walk. We keep moving forward. As we grow, we make sense of awkward limbs, cracking ankles, upset stomachs, fading memories, bodies and bodies. We wrestle with urges, desires, needs, both false and real. Our eyes, ears, fingers, tongue, nose take in the world, others too. Why are we here? Presented with an unanswerable question, arguably, we search for meaning. We search for God. We reject God. We wonder, We struggle. Who is in control of all of this? Am I a spiritual person? We make decisions, large and small, every day. Things happen we can’t control. Tragedies blindside us. We experience loss. To be sure, we all experience loss. Events and circumstances arrest us, consume us without our permission. They happen to us, and we make sense of them. We are resilient creatures. This is it, the beauty in everdayness.

As we grow, we build ourselves. Little pieces, conversations, experiences, we build slowly. First words, first loves. Travel, reading, learning. And 9/11 Happened. A loved one dies. We are badly injured. We are emotionally injured. Tragedy breaks even the strongest structures of self. Left in shambles, sifting through pieces, we attempt to rebuild. We rebuild ourselves, individually and collectively. Project rebirth documented this rebuilding. Disparate lives examined parallel to the rebuilding of the WTC site, each person finding something to get them through. Falling Man documented the rebuilding of individuals within a family and the pain of picking up pieces. It is important to remember this when examining political events and theorizing on the grand scale.

For me, it is sometimes easy to get lost in theory. I remember when we were discussing Polanyi, we focused on the double movement and resulting sociopolitical changes happening in the world. We almost lost Polanyi’s young chimney sweep, getting caught inside the chimney and perishing. It was necessary to connect with the pains of migration to cities, split families and the jarring contrast of city and country life that spurred the countermovement’s reaction. Mills’ power elite was more than a description of the modern-day ruling classes. It conveyed finger-on-trigger apprehension, the horror of bomb drills and cowering underneath desks. For me, this is the first lesson of Project Rebirth and Falling Man. When events are highly politicized and theorized, we often lose touch with the everyday experiences that give them meaning.

Both works also got me thinking about myth. After reading Barthes’ text, it is easy to identify mythologies everywhere. Both Veblen and Latour seemed to be writing in the same vein. In my earlier post on Barthes, I mentioned 9/11 and its relationship to the wrestler myth. I was timid, suggesting that I might be taking the example too far. Looking back, our reaction as a country after 9/11 is the embodiment of so many of the negative aspects of the theorists we’ve read. As a country, we avoided engaging with complexity, and took the ‘experts’ at their word [Latour]. We believed that the Bush administration knew better than us; they went up into Truthland and came back to share with us things we could never know on our own. We did not engage with the reality of war; the reality of the death and destruction that would be caused by our decisions [Falling Man/Project Rebirth]. The issue of caskets being filmed coming back to the U.S. is a great example of this. Rather than engaging in open communication and deliberation [Dewey], the “facts” ended discussion; there was a clear right and wrong [Latour]. We misunderstood the nature of the Power Elite and the networks and connections that allowed Dick Cheney to profit immensely from war [Mills]. And most prominently, we chose not to engage in the act of critical thinking. We accepted the President’s request to “go shop” instead of thinking deeply about our situation. In many ways, most of us embodied Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man, becoming lost in the ever-growing number of false needs and the desire for conspicuous consumption [Veblen].

If we can free ourselves from the self-imposed shackles of the cave, we can open our minds up to think critically about the world around us. Questioning power structures and leadership is essential to ensuring that a post 9/11 situation will not reoccur. Really, this is what education should be about. Freeing us to explore our own questions, to be our own experts about the world around us.

If I had to put my finger on the driving force of the movement to war, it would be the eye for an eye myth that Barthes describes through wrestling coupled with Appadurai’s description of an US vs. THEM mentality. If we were able to get some distance on the issues, cool the heat of revenge and engage in some form of forgiveness, a horrible situation may have become an opportunity for real change -- and that’s where my heart breaks. As a country, the U.S. missed out on an opportunity to better the community, both in this country and abroad.

Latour

Linking theory and practice can be a challenge. This year, my brain processed quite a bit of theory, and many thinkers left me guessing about how theory might apply to the real world. I found Latour refreshing, because his thinking is easily applied to many parts of daily life. Embracing complexity, murkiness, and muddiness is not inviting; Latour throws us in the mix of it all, encouraging and empowering us to explore and make sense of our world. For Latour, this requires getting out of the cave and accepting that "nothing is as concise as a myth" (pg. 10). According to Latour, the myth of truths outside of human creation, only accessed through the scientists' double rupture, is a destructive one. [Barthes could have easily penned this in his Mythologies text.]

Using Science as a "trump card" silences debate and discourse, giving those with the 'knowledge' all the power. I found this theory quite interesting when applied to Lippmanian thought. In his world, a country would be run by experts, those who have the time, ability, and talent to truly understand the political world. They would make decisions for the rest of us, for our own good. Why? Because the government asks too much of us; we are overworked, underpaid and simply don't have the capacity or desire to process such complex information. To be sure, there are parts of Lippman's argument that resonate, but throwing all power in a few hands does not seem like a reasonable solution.

Latour's theory really empowers the individual to think critically and maintain curiosity. The question is really, "how do we have the time for any of this?" Scientists are paid professionals, right? They went to school, have degrees and worked hard to master the skills necessary to work in a lab and create experiments. Even if the average Joe wanted to bust into the laboratory and mess around, would he have the time? The time to invest in learning new skills, etc.?

For laughs, some scientific "trump cards"...

Aeschylus, Democritus & Plato

Reading Democritus was one of the more provocative experiences of my academic career. In simple fragments, a man living 2,000 years ago explained how we should take care of each other. [insert quotes] I can't help but wonder what the world would be like if Plato's philosophies of knowledge were the ones buried, and Democritus and Aeschylus became prominent. What would be different? Moreover, how did Plato's philosophies dominate? Was it a political battle that set the tone for the rest of western civilization? Or was it some innately human desire for "false needs" or competition that helped Plato win the day? [I think not.] I find the ancient Greek tradition fascinating and incredibly relevant. My biggest question remains:: So what does it mean that we've been asking these questions for over 2,000 years? Are they simply questions without answers? Or do the answers constantly change?

---

Plato's philosopher king reaches the "good" by FIRST desiring to leave the cave. This seems logical: the interested, engaged and promising students get out. And they should, right? But many students, because of their "habitus," do not even imagine what it would be like to leave. What does it take for these individuals to develop the motivation to leave the cave? Is this the "turning around"? If so, Plato's plan of geometry and physical education seem laughable today. Have we figured out how to "turn around" a soul?

Habermas

Dense, dense prose! Another month with the text would be nice; but even then, I doubt I would walk away with complete comprehension. I can't believe Habermas wrote this when he was only 25! Incredible...

Reading about the liberal public sphere in England ignited issues underlying my entire first year of study. Clearly, no society ever benefited from the perfect public sphere. Taking it further, perhaps its highly unlikely we will ever have a perfect public sphere. Even Habermas admits his sphere excluded many people, including slaves, minorities and women. So, what to do with seemingly dismal hope for change?

In the midst of these arguments, I am attempting to ground myself in what I believe and how I should academically proceed. Do I accept the imperfect public sphere, assume no possible change and work with said reality? Or do I press on toward the Dewian ideal, recognizing that humans can change and grow? I realize this isn't a choice of one or the other; it's finding the action in the former and using it to inform the latter. I am not willing to settle for the status quo. I believe we can do better. We can take care of each other better. We can become involved, discuss and act on political issues better. We can care for our environment better. We can use technology better. We can educate our children better.  Believe it or not, I am becoming quite fond of Dewey.

Veblen

INVIDIOUS COMPARISON
What a phrase!

It's amazing how much invidious comparison I facilitate in my own everyday. Most of my academic career has [sadly] been fueled by invidious comparison. [See image right] In my undergraduate music program, our entire selection, promotion and testing processes relied on students' invidious comparison. One of the benefits of this text was becoming conscious of this potentially destructive engagement. C'est vrai! We are more than the sum of our publications, possessions or first-chair wins.

I was also taken with the concept of conspicuous consumption. In our small group discussion, we all agreed that none of us felt like we purposefully displayed our wealth. Clearly, we're all in denial. The clothing, transportation, tools and toys we select say SOMETHING [perhaps many things!] about us. I love my Apple computer and my iPhone, but the giant Apple symbol on the back of the phone is displayed every time I make a call. It says something about my status, whether I intend it to or not. Conspicuous consumption has a mythological feel to it, much like Barthes mythologies. It is always with us, but rarely are we aware of its presence.

If you type conspicuous consumption into a google search,

this image appears on the first page. 

Yes, it's a diamond-laden pacifier...

Barthes

I worry about Barthes' selectively neutral treatment of the myth. In the Blue Blood Cruise, his political statement is poignant. I wonder why value judgments are absent from other mythologies, specifically Wrestling [insert title]? Maybe I'm missing something?

Uncritically submitting to myth's gravitational pull seems problematic. The wrestling myth [justice] surfaced during the weeks following 9/11. In an effort to watch the "bastard" get his due, freedoms were sacrificed and a war on terror was waged. Maybe I'm stretching with this example, but to be sure, our draw toward the spectacle of justice being served can be dangerous.

When countries like South Africa and Liberia set up Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to address war crimes, many were not satisfied with the results. In light of this myth, I can imagine why. An eye for an eye may make the whole world blind, but the satisfaction of injuring the other in justice is a powerful motivator.

Right, Justice Harry S. LaForme, chair of Canada's Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with Canada's decades-long government policy requiring Canadian Indians to attend state-funded church schools. From: [http://www.daylife.com/photo/09Uheeg1oif6V]

--

I see a relationship between this text and Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin is clearly worried that the film will be used in a highly politicized, potentially negative way. Because of it's "ballistic" nature, the film does not allow the viewer to think critically about the experience; they are very much submerged. On the first page of his work, Barthes draws a correlation between the audience of the mythological world of wrestling and "the audience at the cinema" (15). He says, "a light without shadow generates an emotion without reserve" -- doesn't this sound familiar? It also leads me to Marcuse's mimesis. If the world is filled with the zombie-esque citizens he describes, constantly arrested by film and wrapped in mythologies, how is it possible for the myth-consumer to think beyond the surface level of the myth?

Barthes argues throughout the text that the language-object is never destroyed, but neutralized. My question is: how neutralized can it get? If the audience doesn't perceive the language-object, does the myth becomes truth? What kind of potential does this hold?

Marcuse

When Marcuse talks about the idea of losing "inner freedom" it reminds me of the oral epic tradition discussed in the first few classes last semester. To Marcuse, loss of the "inner freedom" is devastating. He says, "Today this private space has been invaded and whittled down by technological reality. Mass production and mass distribution claim the entire individual..." (p. 10). In the Greek oral epic tradition, the memorization and repetition of stories allowed no room for personal reflection or critical thinking. The advent of writing afforded the opportunity to externalize thoughts and reflect upon them. It seems that Marcuse is describing the same lack of reflection and critical thought present in early Greece.

The irony is stunning. Look how far we've come.

Mills

The Power Elite could not be more relevant today. Case in point: evil genius Dick Cheney. He worked through the organizations of Halliburton (among others) and the U.S. Government to influence all three of Mills' spheres: military, political and economic. He decides to go to war (military/political), what corporations get government money to provide services for the war (economic), and how long the war continues(military/political). He is one of "the warlords, the corporation chieftains, the political directorate" (Pg. 9).

Mills' 1956 text caught on. In 1961, Eisenhower's warned (YouTube clip) about the Military Industrial Complex, and in 2004 (just two years before his death) J.K. Galbraith condemned the relationship between the military, economic and political powers specifically in reference to the Iraq war.

In 2007, Todd Boyle argued (YouTube link) that no military industrial complex equals no war. Quite the bold statement. He likens the close-looped system to a "self-licking ice cream cone." [[FYI: If you're not in the mood for a rant, stop at the 8-minute mark.]] Below is a diagram from his anti-war website taking the idea further by integrating all three aspects of Mills' argument: military industrial congressional complex.

So, those are the ways I see Mills' argument playing out in recent large-scale events. If we operate on the definition, "those who are able to realize their will, even if others resist it" (Pg.9) combined with "...although all of us are within history we do not all possess equal powers to make history. To pretend that we do is sociological nonsense and political irresponsibility" (Pg.22), we must include other newly emerging history-makers: terrorists. During our discussion group on Monday, Ruthie mused about this idea in relation to Appadurai's cellular vs. vertebrate system theory, and at first I was not willing liken terrorists to the power elite. After working it through, my position is this: Terrorists do not fit Mills' definition of the power elite, but the do hold the same "finger on trigger" power to make history with which he was decidedly concerned. Appadurai makes a good structural argument for why technology is changing power systems. I am not completely sure what this means. Maybe we are in a new "epoch"?

Some general issues with the text:

• Mills' concept of unintentional elitism. Realizing this is the backbone of his "not a conspiracy theory" tautology, I don't think it's realistic. Being generous, I might agree that most elites are not aware of their elitism, however, there are bad people with bad intentions who use this power for bad things, just like there are good people with good intentions who use the power for good things. Ignoring this fact to eliminate a conspiracy stereotype may be good for selling books, but not so good for legitimate analysis.
  
• Mills doesn't get into the possible conflict between the three institutions (political, military, and economic.) He does mention the intimate and at times inseparable connection of the military and political institutions, but not the economic. This is especially important to explore when our government is handing out billion dollar "bail out" loans to large corporate institutions.
  

Other thoughts:

• "What is lacking is a truly common elite program of recruitment and training" (Pg 295). Currently, I see an easier path for individuals aspiring to jump from non-elite to elite status. I think the above quote compliments this idea. Will develop this idea later.
  

Polyani

I found the final chapter of our reading, Birth of the Liberal Creed (Continued): Class Interest and Social Change most challenging. Polyani argues that "Not economic exploitation, as often assumed, but the disintegration of the cultural environment of the victim is then the cause of the degradation. The economic process may, naturally, supply the vehicle of the destruction, and almost invariably economic inferiority will make the weaker yield, but the immediate cause of his undoing is not for that reason economic; it lies in the lethal injury to the institutions in which his social existence is embodied." In other words, it's not loss of income but the experience cultural degradation (i.e. man and nature being commoditized) that causes true exploitation. I follow this. I understand that bringing class issues to the forefront tends to distract from serious issues of degradation.

However, it seems like Polyani is polarizing economic losses and social losses. I think this may present a problem. In ignoring the economic losses, one brushes aside issues of class and power completely. I think rather than championing one over the other, a balance of both viewpoints wound be the most advantageous.

"Yet the ultimate cause is set by external forces, and it is for the mechanism of the change only that society relies on internal forces. The "challenge" is to society as whole; the "response" comes through groups, sections and social classes" (160). I'm interested in examining the cause, or the "challenge." What exactly is a cause? How are causes or challenges created? I don't have answers, but I do have a nagging feeling (likely spurred by my reading of Mills last week) that the answers are related to power, i.e. the decisions of a small group of 'Power Elite.' I find this group, although the identification of them may give material to the economic liberals, impossible to ignore.

It is entirely possible that I misread the chapter, but here's my stab.

Benjamin

"From an alluring appearance or persuasive structure of sound the work of art of the Dadaists became an instrument of ballistics. It hit the spectator like a bullet, it happened to him, thus acquiring a tactile quality. It promoted a demand for the film, the distracting element of which is also primarily tactile, being based on changes of place and focus which periodically assail the spectator." - Page 238


A few weeks ago, my friend John and I were talking about the movie-going experience. In conversation, I revealed that I really dislike going to the movies. He was shocked! I spent the next hour answering question after question about WHY I felt this way. My argument was simple: I don't like the way it makes me feel. The room is dark, with all eyes are focused on the bright light of a screen. It's silent, and even whispers are frowned upon. Put away the cell phone, too distracting; you might miss something! I feel like my senses and my psyche are arrested for two hours. Critical thinking is difficult while being dragged into an editor's world. I get so caught up, so emotionally engaged with the film, that it sticks with me. Like Benjamin put it, I feel "assail"ed. I told John to read this essay; I figured Benjamin could explain it better than I.

Dewey

I've read this text three times in three separate classes, and my perspective changes with each reading. First read, I was a little confused by prose but ultimately inspired and hopeful. I saw no problem with the work. Second read, I was asked to read it with Lippman's "The Phantom Public." This gave Dewey's argument a new context, and I drifted a bit from his optimism. Third read, I'm tired of the argument. The America he talks is about only exists within the covers of his work. If this "Great Community" is possible -- why haven't we seen it yet? Both Lippman & Dewey wrote their works in the 20's. Dewey's ideal still hasn't come to fruition. I'd really like to embrace Dewey's work - but I need more. How will the great community happen? Yeah, you talk about "signs and symbols" enhancing communication -- but what do these "signs and symbols" look like? How will this work in the real world? And in a society with incredible medical and technological innovation, why can't we create the "signs and symbols" to make our Democracy work? I'm not sure it's possible.

That's why Lippmann makes sense to me. He talks about the public I see and interact with on a daily basis. He offers a realistic role for the public with tasks we can actually achieve. I also think his book was WAY more fun to read... but we won't factor that into the argument :)

After three readings, this is my stance. I'll update again if I go for number four!

Lanier, Oh Lanier.

Dear Jaron Lanier,
You are a film director. That is why Wikipedia says you are a film director. Just because you wish you were not a film director doesn't make the Wikipedia entry false. Using that as proof that collective knowledge is "for the most part stupid and boring" (Pg. 6) is for the most part stupid and boring.

Moreover, please tell me more about this "real writing" (Pg. 6-7) you describe. Blogging isn't writing? Really?! Since you went to a really really good school and you're SO much better than us, why don't you educate all the little people out there about this "real writing" you champion.

Also, searching for HARD NEWS sources on a website called POPURLS is a pretty unfair way to judge its overall worth. Are people really going to this website to get hard news content? Do a study on that before you start spouting off.

Finally, you're mostly right about the rest. Thank you for Pages 8 & 9. Collective knowledge should be used strategically. We should consider the issues of reproduction (Benjamin) and authorship. These are two topics worth discussing. But, we shouldn't lose hope that this "collective" can improve in intelligence and move forward. Although some may cry "that's unrealistic!," it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep striving for the best. Please, stop being a negative Nancy!

Best,
Amy

P.S. - You and Walter Lippmann should hang out. You guys would be BFF's.

Fear

Notes on climate change and sustainable development…
Destroying our planet = Destroying ourselves
The debate over climate change is ridiculous. Scientific evidence (such as the Stern Review) is clear; we are doing irreversible damage to our home. Suck it up, big business. Make some changes and move forward.

Sachs is a compelling advocate for change, but even he is not sure of what to do. Poverty and economic inequity are complex and pressing issues, and there are no easy answers.

Notes on Collier…
Sigh. I could have done without: 1) poor writing, 2) name dropping like crazy, and 3) preaching about the need to avoid ‘stigmatizing’ the bottom billion while doing it throughout the text. Aside from these surface issues, the ideas in the text were sound. He focuses on the two key concepts in making change in the bottom billion countries:
- Change must come from inside the bottom billion
- Wealthy countries should support the individuals working for change inside the bottom billion
This led me to think about digital equity, and wondering if technology could help empower the bottom billion to ‘jump’ up and close the gap. In Howie Budin’s class we talked a little about this, but I am wondering how it fits into an economic text like Collier’s.

Notes on Appadurai…
This was the most engaging reading, in my opinion. It was smartly written and situated in this particular moment in history. While analyzing our current situation, Appadurai cited many great social thinkers of the past – showing his social street ‘cred.

His term ‘crisis of circulation’ hints to Beniger’s ‘crisis of control.’ The nation state is a symbol of stability and control. Rocked by terrorism and other destabilizers, our confidence is shaken and we begin to experience fear because we have lost control. In Beniger’s text, trains on railways without control collide– but fixing train schedules is a concrete task. Once completed, the trains run with reasonable regularity. Our ‘crisis of circulation’ isn’t that easy to tackle. This lack of control, or destabilization induces great fear.

We fear because we cannot understand ambiguous terrorism; this is the heart of the evils of humanity. Fear must be pacified. In the pursuit of stability and control, humans can turn into monsters. Appadurai highlights some of these instances.

It is likely that I’ll read this again before class to get a better handle on the material…

The Transition

Semesters change, classes follow.
Classes change, blogs follow.

This is now a blog for Theories of Communication.
I have moved on from Social and Communicative aspects of the Internet and other ICTs. You will be missed, but never forgotten :)