The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins by Karl Polanyi.
This week we read Chapters 11, 12 and 13 from Karl Polanyi's "The Great Transformation". Polanyi was a Hungarian political economist and economic historian. I decided to look into his background a bit after finishing the reading to see where he was coming from and the historical context from which he comes. I read that he was a World War I officer of the Austro-Hungarian army and a member of the editorial staff of Vienna's leading financial newspaper. He was forced into exile first from Hungary and then from Vienna, and he wrote "The Great Transformation" while in exile in London at the end of the 30's.
I don't have much of an academic background in economic history or even economic theory for that matter, so I did find it difficult to get to some of the core ideas of Polanyi at first. But once I reread the text and isolated some key quotes, his basic theory came through.
The work is basically a history of the self-regulating economic market and how the market sets up a system that is inconsistent with a sustainable society. According to Polanyi, the ongoing tension between the efforts to create and maintain the self-regulating market and the efforts to protect society from the negative consequences of the self-regulating market the "double movement". It is the classic struggle between liberal capitalism and social protectionism, here taking place as a result of the consequences of the Industrial Revolution.
He basically says that the commodification of both people (under the name of labor) and nature (under the name of land) under a self-regulating market is problematic and always leads to a self-corrective action. If the SRM is left "to evolve according to its own laws (it) would create great and permanent evils" (p. 136).
Polanyi encapsulates the issue in this way:
"The commodity fiction disregarded the fact that leaving the fate of soil and people to the market would be tantamount to annihilating them. Accordingly, the countermove consisted in checking the action of the market in respect to the factors of production, labor and land. This was the main function of interventionism". (p. 137)
Polanyi points out that the response to the negative effects of the self-regulatory market (interventionism) depended on the class of those that were impacted, and "the outcome was decisively influenced by the character of the class interests involved" (p. 161).
When reading it my thoughts kept turning back to Dewey's concepts of the "ripple effect" of behavior and how individual behavior (commerce, acquisition of wealth) can effect collective behavior (the self-regulating market). The are definitely some Dewey ideas that can be applied in the Polanyi context, even though Polyani is basing his theories more in terms of international economic structural patterns.
I also am left wondering what Polanyi would think of the current economic crisis, and ironically I am sitting blogging with President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress on the television in the background. Facing the current recession, I would love to know what Polanyi thought of the state of the global economy. Now we are faced with a global economic recession of enormous scale, and the facts are coming out that this was directly caused by the lack of governmental restriction on bank lending. Now, the "social liberals" of the media are bringing the story to a mortified and shocked public. Free trade without governmental oversight is what the capitalist giants wanted, and now that they have made monumental errors, they ironically want the government to step in and bail them out with billions of dollars of taxpayer monies.
It would seem that Polanyi's ideas were prophetic and the "countermovement" Polanyi discusses is upon us. And so it goes.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Thoughts on Readings 2/18/09
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin
I had the opportunity to read this theoretical analysis as part of a class that I had last semester, entitled "Arts in Context". The course was designed to provide future Arts Administrators with some of the analytical tools to deconstruct art and apply some of the better known critical theories to our work.
I really enjoyed the class (it provided a much needed contrast to the other classes I was taking that semester) and particularly enjoyed reading the prophetic thoughts of Walter Benjamin. In re-reading the chapter and also referring to some of my class notes from our discussion, I wanted to highlight some interesting points:
1.) He seems centered on the idea that art is based upon the critical concept of "aura". That is to say that art carries with it a physical, visual presence which creates an emotional connection with the audience. This "aura" creates a sense of authenticity, tangibility, and uniqueness-it creates a feeling that is almost MAGNETIC. This "aura" is intrinsic to an original piece of art.
2.) However, once the work of art is reproduced (with one of the many technological advancements that make this possible), the "aura" dissipates. This "aura" is diluted with continuous reproduction.
3.) Freud talks about people possessing charisma-this is the same conceptually as Benjamin's "aura".
4.) Using performance art as an example, this idea becomes very clear. Stage performances are all about connecting the actor with the audience; the audience sees and feels the actor's "aura". Film acting takes away this sense of intimate communication-it creates a sense of alienation for the actor. Control is situated differently in a film performance vs. a live stage performance. In film, the director and editor have the most control-they can use the techniques of mechanical reproduction to influence the thoughts of the audience. In a stage performance-the control is in the hands of the actors and the actor manages his/her relationship with his/her audience.
5.) This reading reminds me of the 1936 Chaplin film "Modern Times". In the film, Chaplin is a worker who represents a simple cog in the machinery of the factory in which he works. Framing the film in the time in which it was produced has particular resonance (the Great Depression). The film was a critique of capitalism and mechanization.
6.) The end of the article is very interesting-it seems to hold a "cautionary message" regarding the rise of technology as it parallels the rise of Fascism. Benjamin seems to be saying that the two forces coming together will inexorably alter the state of the human race. I think that to some extent, Benjamin was correct. Certainly, the rise of technology (in particular the Internet) has completely altered the way that we communicate with our social contacts on a day to day basis. And our consumption of art is certainly altered by the Internet-many of us have never seen some of the great paintings of the last two centuries live-however, we usually have seen them wrapped up and tied with the neat bow of capitalism.
I decided to do a bit of research on the life of Benjamin to examine the cultural zeitgeist from which he emerged. Benjamin was living in France in 1940 when Hitler invaded. Being a Jew and knowing his potential fate, Benjamin tried to escape over the border into Spain. There was some resistance to his crossing at the border, so Benjamin committed suicide that evening. Ironically, the next day the border crossing rules changed and Benjamin would have crossed with no issues had he just waited a day. A tragic irony.
The Public and Its Problems by John Dewey-Chapter VI-"The Problem of Method"
I really enjoyed this final chapter of the Dewey book. It really pulled together all of his ideas and summarized what seemed to be his primary points.
He begins by discussing again the concept of individualism vs. collectivism. There is essentially no absolute version of each concept. And understanding this is essentially to creating a public and state that are mutually beneficial to one another. He encapsulates it well when he says:
"the human being whom we fasten upon as individual par excellence is moved and regulated by his associations with others; what he does and what the consequences of his behavior are, what his experience consists of, cannot even be described, much less accounted for, in isolation" (p. 188).
He seems to be breaking down the idea of the inter-connectedness of all individuals within society, and to stress the "ripple effect" of behaviors. Behaviors that seem to be isolated usually have unknown consequences for a much larger group of individuals. Being a film nerd, Dewey's statement made me think of the Frank Capra classic film "It's A Wonderful Life". George Bailey is on the verge of committing suicide, thinking that his life has not touched other lives in a significant way. An angel shows him the dark world that would exist had he not lived, and he finally sees his importance in the collective society in which he lives.
He also discusses the problem of reconciling the individual vs. the society when they are fundamentally in opposition when uniting in societies and groups. At what point are one's individual interests sublimated by the interests of the collective group? Does this necessarily have to occur? Who are the people who dictate the "collective goals" for a group?
He then outlines a new methodology for generating policies and proposals for social action. Dewey argues that they "should be treated as working hypotheses, not as programs to be rigidly adhered to and executed". He discusses the evolution of the democratic movement as one that "was coincident with the transfer of power from landed proprietors, allied to churchly authorities, to captains of industry, under conditions which involved an emancipation of the masses from legal limitations which had previously hemmed them in" (p. 204).
The next section I found to be completely relevant to the past 8 years of life in the United States under the Bush Administration. Dewey demonstrates the danger of a powerful state that does not consider the needs of the public which it serves. What happens when you have the needs of a powerful few dictating the economic and political landscape of the public? Dewey states:
"No government by experts in which the masses do not have the chance to inform the experts as to their needs can be anything but an oligarchy managed in the interests of a few" (p. 208).
I was struck by how easy it was to come up with examples of this during the dark years of the Bush Administration. Extreme tax cuts for the top 1% income bracket, a crippled health care system in which many Americans cannot afford even the most basic health care package and are left to fend for themselves and make decisions about whether they should go to the doctor or pay their mortgages, and the list goes on and on. I even thought of the widely reported story that Condoleeza Rice spend her time in NYC visiting the 9/11 site shoe shopping in the most exclusive Madison Avenue boutiques!! Are these the "experts" meant to represent the masses or the privileged elite who only seems concerned with the interests of a few?
Luckily, the public came together last November and made a decision that we were no longer going to have a government concerned with the interests of a few. Whether or not changes will be made to address this issue still remains to be seen, but I am one of the many who say "YES, WE CAN!".
There, off of my soapbox. Thanks Dewey!!!
I had the opportunity to read this theoretical analysis as part of a class that I had last semester, entitled "Arts in Context". The course was designed to provide future Arts Administrators with some of the analytical tools to deconstruct art and apply some of the better known critical theories to our work.
I really enjoyed the class (it provided a much needed contrast to the other classes I was taking that semester) and particularly enjoyed reading the prophetic thoughts of Walter Benjamin. In re-reading the chapter and also referring to some of my class notes from our discussion, I wanted to highlight some interesting points:
1.) He seems centered on the idea that art is based upon the critical concept of "aura". That is to say that art carries with it a physical, visual presence which creates an emotional connection with the audience. This "aura" creates a sense of authenticity, tangibility, and uniqueness-it creates a feeling that is almost MAGNETIC. This "aura" is intrinsic to an original piece of art.
2.) However, once the work of art is reproduced (with one of the many technological advancements that make this possible), the "aura" dissipates. This "aura" is diluted with continuous reproduction.
3.) Freud talks about people possessing charisma-this is the same conceptually as Benjamin's "aura".
4.) Using performance art as an example, this idea becomes very clear. Stage performances are all about connecting the actor with the audience; the audience sees and feels the actor's "aura". Film acting takes away this sense of intimate communication-it creates a sense of alienation for the actor. Control is situated differently in a film performance vs. a live stage performance. In film, the director and editor have the most control-they can use the techniques of mechanical reproduction to influence the thoughts of the audience. In a stage performance-the control is in the hands of the actors and the actor manages his/her relationship with his/her audience.
5.) This reading reminds me of the 1936 Chaplin film "Modern Times". In the film, Chaplin is a worker who represents a simple cog in the machinery of the factory in which he works. Framing the film in the time in which it was produced has particular resonance (the Great Depression). The film was a critique of capitalism and mechanization.
6.) The end of the article is very interesting-it seems to hold a "cautionary message" regarding the rise of technology as it parallels the rise of Fascism. Benjamin seems to be saying that the two forces coming together will inexorably alter the state of the human race. I think that to some extent, Benjamin was correct. Certainly, the rise of technology (in particular the Internet) has completely altered the way that we communicate with our social contacts on a day to day basis. And our consumption of art is certainly altered by the Internet-many of us have never seen some of the great paintings of the last two centuries live-however, we usually have seen them wrapped up and tied with the neat bow of capitalism.
I decided to do a bit of research on the life of Benjamin to examine the cultural zeitgeist from which he emerged. Benjamin was living in France in 1940 when Hitler invaded. Being a Jew and knowing his potential fate, Benjamin tried to escape over the border into Spain. There was some resistance to his crossing at the border, so Benjamin committed suicide that evening. Ironically, the next day the border crossing rules changed and Benjamin would have crossed with no issues had he just waited a day. A tragic irony.
The Public and Its Problems by John Dewey-Chapter VI-"The Problem of Method"
I really enjoyed this final chapter of the Dewey book. It really pulled together all of his ideas and summarized what seemed to be his primary points.
He begins by discussing again the concept of individualism vs. collectivism. There is essentially no absolute version of each concept. And understanding this is essentially to creating a public and state that are mutually beneficial to one another. He encapsulates it well when he says:
"the human being whom we fasten upon as individual par excellence is moved and regulated by his associations with others; what he does and what the consequences of his behavior are, what his experience consists of, cannot even be described, much less accounted for, in isolation" (p. 188).
He seems to be breaking down the idea of the inter-connectedness of all individuals within society, and to stress the "ripple effect" of behaviors. Behaviors that seem to be isolated usually have unknown consequences for a much larger group of individuals. Being a film nerd, Dewey's statement made me think of the Frank Capra classic film "It's A Wonderful Life". George Bailey is on the verge of committing suicide, thinking that his life has not touched other lives in a significant way. An angel shows him the dark world that would exist had he not lived, and he finally sees his importance in the collective society in which he lives.
He also discusses the problem of reconciling the individual vs. the society when they are fundamentally in opposition when uniting in societies and groups. At what point are one's individual interests sublimated by the interests of the collective group? Does this necessarily have to occur? Who are the people who dictate the "collective goals" for a group?
He then outlines a new methodology for generating policies and proposals for social action. Dewey argues that they "should be treated as working hypotheses, not as programs to be rigidly adhered to and executed". He discusses the evolution of the democratic movement as one that "was coincident with the transfer of power from landed proprietors, allied to churchly authorities, to captains of industry, under conditions which involved an emancipation of the masses from legal limitations which had previously hemmed them in" (p. 204).
The next section I found to be completely relevant to the past 8 years of life in the United States under the Bush Administration. Dewey demonstrates the danger of a powerful state that does not consider the needs of the public which it serves. What happens when you have the needs of a powerful few dictating the economic and political landscape of the public? Dewey states:
"No government by experts in which the masses do not have the chance to inform the experts as to their needs can be anything but an oligarchy managed in the interests of a few" (p. 208).
I was struck by how easy it was to come up with examples of this during the dark years of the Bush Administration. Extreme tax cuts for the top 1% income bracket, a crippled health care system in which many Americans cannot afford even the most basic health care package and are left to fend for themselves and make decisions about whether they should go to the doctor or pay their mortgages, and the list goes on and on. I even thought of the widely reported story that Condoleeza Rice spend her time in NYC visiting the 9/11 site shoe shopping in the most exclusive Madison Avenue boutiques!! Are these the "experts" meant to represent the masses or the privileged elite who only seems concerned with the interests of a few?
Luckily, the public came together last November and made a decision that we were no longer going to have a government concerned with the interests of a few. Whether or not changes will be made to address this issue still remains to be seen, but I am one of the many who say "YES, WE CAN!".
There, off of my soapbox. Thanks Dewey!!!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Thoughts on Readings 2/11/09
The Public and Its Problems by John Dewey
This week, we were required to read John Dewey's "The Public and Its Problems", which was originally published in 1927 by Henry Holt. Called "a classic in social and political philosophy", Dewey carefully deconstructs such commonly used words as "the public", "the state", and "political democracy".
While I found the text to be a bit overly dense and repetitive (and with a lack of clarifying examples of the principles outlined), one thing that kept coming to mind when I was reading was: Are these definitions relevant today? And to what extent has communication in today's age changed these definitions (if at all)? More on that later...
Dewey begins by distinguishing between communications that are considered public (those that have consequences that affect a wide range of people and thus are relevant to a wide range of people) vs. those that are private(usually considered to be between a few people and generally are of no interest to the wider public). Most interactions would be considered "private"-although we often fail to see the public consequences to private interactions. For example, if two neighboring business owners decide to use a local field to dump waste that is a byproduct of their industry, they might have a private communication agreeing to this. However, these actions could have negative consequences for the people in the community-the waste could potentially poison the water system and cause health problems for decades.
Dewey argues that when such private actions have consequences for the larger public, than this action becomes public. It is then up to the state to utilize governing officials to get involved and enact regulations to stop the action in question. A collection of these officials constitute a government (private and representative roles of officials) which is organized "to care for the extensive and enduring indirect consequences of transactions between persons". They do this be emplying the resources (buildings, property, funds) that are known as the common wealth. And when the public is so organized (by the actions of officials) to control the consequences of such actions-it is referred to as the Populus.
Problems arise when you mix the human condition with the use of political power (and wealth). This generally leads to a public official using his position with the state to further personal objectives. Dewey argues that this is an integral part of human nature.
As Dewey states:
"The same causes which have lead men to utilize concentrated political power to serve private purposes will continue to act to induce men to employ concentrated economic power in behalf of non-public aims." (p. 82)
Simply put, power can corrupt public officials to act irresponsibly and disregard public consequences of their private actions based upon personal gain. This is unfortunately very true, and I would argue more so in the past year or so. I am thinking of special interest lobbyists and their monetary "consulting fees" paid to various politicians to affect the outcome of the voting on a bill.
When new publics come together in response to negative consequences that can be local in nature, new governments are formed to respond but often don't address the consequences for which they were formed because of instability or lack of focus due to pursuit of internal personal gain.
The formation of Deomocracy is in part a reaction to these problems which has merits, but has been underminded by collective forgetfulness of the founding democratic principles.
As Dewey puts it:
"Political democracy has emerged as a kind of net consequence of a vast multitude of responsive adjustments to a vast number of situations, no two which were alike, but which tended to converge to a common outcome".(p. 84)
In discussing the democratic state, Dewey brings in the example of a laissez-faire capitalist economy (which is based upon "the harmony of personal profit and social benefit"). It is a doctrine of Individualism, which signifies a minimum amount of governmental "interference" with industry and trade.
He then discusses "The Search for the Great Community"-the idealistic attachment of fundamental democracy as being based on a utopian ideal of "community". As he puts it"
"Wherever there is conjoin activity whose consequences are appreciated as good by all singular persons who take part in it, and where the realization of the good is such as to effect an energetic desire and effort to sustain it in being just because it is a good shared by all, there is in so far a community. The clear consciousness of a communal life, in all its implications, constitutes the idea of democracy". (p. 149)
Dewey argues that Science and the elite knowledge of technology have been controlled and manipulated by a ruling class of the elite, and until access is widened to the general public-this ruling class of the elite will retain power and will impact the formation of the "Great Community".
To quote Dewey again:
"But even the most shrewd and successful man does not in any analystic or systematic way-in a way worthy to compare with the knowledge which he has won in lesser affairs by means of the stress of experience-know the system within which he operates" (p.165)
This is exponentially resonant today-when you consider the speed in which technology (especially information technology) is advancing today, it is getting more and more impossible for even highly educated people to find the time to keep up with working knowledge to recent advancements.
What does this mean for the future? Will economic and political power be transferred to a smaller group of the educated elite? This has already happened to a large degree. Look at the incentive packages paid to the elite executives of Silicon Valley. Look at the millions that are paid to the founders of Facebook, a social networking site that is revolutionizing the way that Americans interact daily with each other. We are in an age of increasing social and economic Darwinism, where the brass ring is available to a smaller pool of eager hopefuls. In this sense Dewey's theories were frighteningly prophetic.
This week, we were required to read John Dewey's "The Public and Its Problems", which was originally published in 1927 by Henry Holt. Called "a classic in social and political philosophy", Dewey carefully deconstructs such commonly used words as "the public", "the state", and "political democracy".
While I found the text to be a bit overly dense and repetitive (and with a lack of clarifying examples of the principles outlined), one thing that kept coming to mind when I was reading was: Are these definitions relevant today? And to what extent has communication in today's age changed these definitions (if at all)? More on that later...
Dewey begins by distinguishing between communications that are considered public (those that have consequences that affect a wide range of people and thus are relevant to a wide range of people) vs. those that are private(usually considered to be between a few people and generally are of no interest to the wider public). Most interactions would be considered "private"-although we often fail to see the public consequences to private interactions. For example, if two neighboring business owners decide to use a local field to dump waste that is a byproduct of their industry, they might have a private communication agreeing to this. However, these actions could have negative consequences for the people in the community-the waste could potentially poison the water system and cause health problems for decades.
Dewey argues that when such private actions have consequences for the larger public, than this action becomes public. It is then up to the state to utilize governing officials to get involved and enact regulations to stop the action in question. A collection of these officials constitute a government (private and representative roles of officials) which is organized "to care for the extensive and enduring indirect consequences of transactions between persons". They do this be emplying the resources (buildings, property, funds) that are known as the common wealth. And when the public is so organized (by the actions of officials) to control the consequences of such actions-it is referred to as the Populus.
Problems arise when you mix the human condition with the use of political power (and wealth). This generally leads to a public official using his position with the state to further personal objectives. Dewey argues that this is an integral part of human nature.
As Dewey states:
"The same causes which have lead men to utilize concentrated political power to serve private purposes will continue to act to induce men to employ concentrated economic power in behalf of non-public aims." (p. 82)
Simply put, power can corrupt public officials to act irresponsibly and disregard public consequences of their private actions based upon personal gain. This is unfortunately very true, and I would argue more so in the past year or so. I am thinking of special interest lobbyists and their monetary "consulting fees" paid to various politicians to affect the outcome of the voting on a bill.
When new publics come together in response to negative consequences that can be local in nature, new governments are formed to respond but often don't address the consequences for which they were formed because of instability or lack of focus due to pursuit of internal personal gain.
The formation of Deomocracy is in part a reaction to these problems which has merits, but has been underminded by collective forgetfulness of the founding democratic principles.
As Dewey puts it:
"Political democracy has emerged as a kind of net consequence of a vast multitude of responsive adjustments to a vast number of situations, no two which were alike, but which tended to converge to a common outcome".(p. 84)
In discussing the democratic state, Dewey brings in the example of a laissez-faire capitalist economy (which is based upon "the harmony of personal profit and social benefit"). It is a doctrine of Individualism, which signifies a minimum amount of governmental "interference" with industry and trade.
He then discusses "The Search for the Great Community"-the idealistic attachment of fundamental democracy as being based on a utopian ideal of "community". As he puts it"
"Wherever there is conjoin activity whose consequences are appreciated as good by all singular persons who take part in it, and where the realization of the good is such as to effect an energetic desire and effort to sustain it in being just because it is a good shared by all, there is in so far a community. The clear consciousness of a communal life, in all its implications, constitutes the idea of democracy". (p. 149)
Dewey argues that Science and the elite knowledge of technology have been controlled and manipulated by a ruling class of the elite, and until access is widened to the general public-this ruling class of the elite will retain power and will impact the formation of the "Great Community".
To quote Dewey again:
"But even the most shrewd and successful man does not in any analystic or systematic way-in a way worthy to compare with the knowledge which he has won in lesser affairs by means of the stress of experience-know the system within which he operates" (p.165)
This is exponentially resonant today-when you consider the speed in which technology (especially information technology) is advancing today, it is getting more and more impossible for even highly educated people to find the time to keep up with working knowledge to recent advancements.
What does this mean for the future? Will economic and political power be transferred to a smaller group of the educated elite? This has already happened to a large degree. Look at the incentive packages paid to the elite executives of Silicon Valley. Look at the millions that are paid to the founders of Facebook, a social networking site that is revolutionizing the way that Americans interact daily with each other. We are in an age of increasing social and economic Darwinism, where the brass ring is available to a smaller pool of eager hopefuls. In this sense Dewey's theories were frighteningly prophetic.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Thoughts on Readings 2/4/09
Cyberspace and The American Dream by Dyson, Gilder, et al.
This article attempted to classify the current economic phase that the United States has entered because of the advent of the Information Age. According to the article, there are 3 "waves" of economy experienced by a modern society. The First Wave economy is one where land and farm labor are the "factors of production". In a Second Wave economy, the land is still a valuable entity but the labor becomes "mass produced" around machines and larger, more autocratic industries. The so-called Third Wave economy, the central resource is information-data, symbols, culture, ideology and values.
There were some interesting ideas explored in the article. One thing that I agree completely on is the need to somehow place a value on the "intellectual property" that exists in cyberspace. In my previous career, I worked with representatives from the talent unions mostly associated with telelvision (AFTRA and WGA mainly), and this was a primary issue of contention between the producers and the union representatives and for reasons that were patently obvious. All of this creative capital is produced by writers (and sometimes by actors performing voices), put up and basically sold on the Internet, which leads to higher revenues for the producers involved. Since this was a radical new frontier, producers essentially left payments for the creators out of the equation. This issue has still not been resolved to anyone's satisfaction-and there are rumors of potential strikes in the near future unless equitable compensation is addressed for all parties involved.
Now, I would like to address a few things about the article that I vehemently DISAGREE with. In the section entitled "The Essence of Community", Dyson et al. argue that the reason behind the fraying of the social fabric of information-age society is simply because we are in the transitional stages between one society and another. It goes on to imply that this is a problem that will likely resolve itself as the next generation comes of age since they have never lived in a world without cyberspace and online socialization. This is a major oversimplification of a complex problem in my opinion.
The article goes on to say:
"Socially, putting advanced computing power into the hands of entire populations will alleviate pressure on highways, reduce air pollution, allow people to live further away from crowded or dangerous urban areas, and expand family time".
What? The most glaring problem is that advanced computing will "expand family time". How do you figure that?? If anything, social scientists are now arguing that the computer has caused families to spend LESS time together than at any point in our nation's history! So many teens are living their social lives in cyberspace to the detriment of their overall social development for interactions that occur in "real time". Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites are becoming the virtual "Town Square" for most teens today, and this is causing harm to their overall social maturity. Just taking a look at the amount of time teens spend on these sites will bear this idea out.
Another thing that seems ridiculous is the statement that the power of individuals to use computers will reduce air pollution. I doubt that, the evidence just doesn't support such a conclusion. Just because computers have completely transformed the way that we live our daily lives, studies have shown that Americans drive as much or more than they did 30 years ago. Pressure on the highways has INCREASED, not decreased.
The article goes on to discuss the role of government in defining property rights in cyberspace, and that this should be a "central" task of government. Since the article was written in 1996, I would note that we have many more pressing issues to address with the Obama Administration with our economic situation being what it is today.
Interesting to note that the accounting rules written for tech companies were written during the 1930's and did not account for the rapid depreciation of assets. With the rapid evolution of technologies, computer products become obsolete in a timetable that is 6 months or less. You simply cannot apply the 5 year product depreciation timetable to IT products in today's marketplace. The tax laws should be flexible enough to recognize the changing marketplace to allow for companies to decrease their losses and remain viable.
An Introduction to the Information Age by Manuel Castells-Chapter 10
An overview of the structure and dynamics of the "Network Society" as Castells terms it. He states early on that the society emerged because of the convergence of 3 independent processes:
1.) The Information Technology Revolution
2.) The restructuring of capitalism and of statism in the 1980's.
3.) The cultural social movements of the 1960's and their 1970's aftermath.
He argues that now we are living in a informational, global economy that is characterized be an uneven geography.
He believes that there is a new economic term that should be used in intellectual circles: The Fourth World. This is a world that includes most of Africa, rural Asia, Latin American shanties, South Bronx, etc. This is predominately populated by women and children. This is a world of disenfrancisement, of social polarization and social exclusion.
He also goes into a discussion of "real virtuality" in which cultural expressions of all kinds are increasingly "enclosed in or shaped by this world of electronic media". This has a potent manifestation in the world of politics, and he correctly recognizes that "the media have become the essential space of politics".
I agreed with much of what he was saying, although I have to admit to being lost by his discussion of "the redefinitions of the foundations of life, time and space". According to Castells, information technology is engaged in a "relentless effort to annihilate time". I had a problem grasping all of this, perhaps because of the lack of concrete examples to support this theory.
Digital Maoism by Jaron Lanier
A diatribe against the use of Wikipedia as a information source, and the "chaos" and "hive mentality" that it uses to create entries that in many cases contain innaccurate representations. He calles Wikipedia a "online fetish site for foolish collectivism". I think his ego is clouding his judgement. I personally find it to be a very useful tool as a graduate student-sometimes I use it to enhance my note taking-to look up something discussed in class that I am unfamiliar with-and even to refer me to additional resources for a paper I am writing. I find the links at the bottom of a Wiki entry to be VERY useful from time to time.
This article attempted to classify the current economic phase that the United States has entered because of the advent of the Information Age. According to the article, there are 3 "waves" of economy experienced by a modern society. The First Wave economy is one where land and farm labor are the "factors of production". In a Second Wave economy, the land is still a valuable entity but the labor becomes "mass produced" around machines and larger, more autocratic industries. The so-called Third Wave economy, the central resource is information-data, symbols, culture, ideology and values.
There were some interesting ideas explored in the article. One thing that I agree completely on is the need to somehow place a value on the "intellectual property" that exists in cyberspace. In my previous career, I worked with representatives from the talent unions mostly associated with telelvision (AFTRA and WGA mainly), and this was a primary issue of contention between the producers and the union representatives and for reasons that were patently obvious. All of this creative capital is produced by writers (and sometimes by actors performing voices), put up and basically sold on the Internet, which leads to higher revenues for the producers involved. Since this was a radical new frontier, producers essentially left payments for the creators out of the equation. This issue has still not been resolved to anyone's satisfaction-and there are rumors of potential strikes in the near future unless equitable compensation is addressed for all parties involved.
Now, I would like to address a few things about the article that I vehemently DISAGREE with. In the section entitled "The Essence of Community", Dyson et al. argue that the reason behind the fraying of the social fabric of information-age society is simply because we are in the transitional stages between one society and another. It goes on to imply that this is a problem that will likely resolve itself as the next generation comes of age since they have never lived in a world without cyberspace and online socialization. This is a major oversimplification of a complex problem in my opinion.
The article goes on to say:
"Socially, putting advanced computing power into the hands of entire populations will alleviate pressure on highways, reduce air pollution, allow people to live further away from crowded or dangerous urban areas, and expand family time".
What? The most glaring problem is that advanced computing will "expand family time". How do you figure that?? If anything, social scientists are now arguing that the computer has caused families to spend LESS time together than at any point in our nation's history! So many teens are living their social lives in cyberspace to the detriment of their overall social development for interactions that occur in "real time". Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites are becoming the virtual "Town Square" for most teens today, and this is causing harm to their overall social maturity. Just taking a look at the amount of time teens spend on these sites will bear this idea out.
Another thing that seems ridiculous is the statement that the power of individuals to use computers will reduce air pollution. I doubt that, the evidence just doesn't support such a conclusion. Just because computers have completely transformed the way that we live our daily lives, studies have shown that Americans drive as much or more than they did 30 years ago. Pressure on the highways has INCREASED, not decreased.
The article goes on to discuss the role of government in defining property rights in cyberspace, and that this should be a "central" task of government. Since the article was written in 1996, I would note that we have many more pressing issues to address with the Obama Administration with our economic situation being what it is today.
Interesting to note that the accounting rules written for tech companies were written during the 1930's and did not account for the rapid depreciation of assets. With the rapid evolution of technologies, computer products become obsolete in a timetable that is 6 months or less. You simply cannot apply the 5 year product depreciation timetable to IT products in today's marketplace. The tax laws should be flexible enough to recognize the changing marketplace to allow for companies to decrease their losses and remain viable.
An Introduction to the Information Age by Manuel Castells-Chapter 10
An overview of the structure and dynamics of the "Network Society" as Castells terms it. He states early on that the society emerged because of the convergence of 3 independent processes:
1.) The Information Technology Revolution
2.) The restructuring of capitalism and of statism in the 1980's.
3.) The cultural social movements of the 1960's and their 1970's aftermath.
He argues that now we are living in a informational, global economy that is characterized be an uneven geography.
He believes that there is a new economic term that should be used in intellectual circles: The Fourth World. This is a world that includes most of Africa, rural Asia, Latin American shanties, South Bronx, etc. This is predominately populated by women and children. This is a world of disenfrancisement, of social polarization and social exclusion.
He also goes into a discussion of "real virtuality" in which cultural expressions of all kinds are increasingly "enclosed in or shaped by this world of electronic media". This has a potent manifestation in the world of politics, and he correctly recognizes that "the media have become the essential space of politics".
I agreed with much of what he was saying, although I have to admit to being lost by his discussion of "the redefinitions of the foundations of life, time and space". According to Castells, information technology is engaged in a "relentless effort to annihilate time". I had a problem grasping all of this, perhaps because of the lack of concrete examples to support this theory.
Digital Maoism by Jaron Lanier
A diatribe against the use of Wikipedia as a information source, and the "chaos" and "hive mentality" that it uses to create entries that in many cases contain innaccurate representations. He calles Wikipedia a "online fetish site for foolish collectivism". I think his ego is clouding his judgement. I personally find it to be a very useful tool as a graduate student-sometimes I use it to enhance my note taking-to look up something discussed in class that I am unfamiliar with-and even to refer me to additional resources for a paper I am writing. I find the links at the bottom of a Wiki entry to be VERY useful from time to time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
