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.
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!
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.