Thoughts on Readings 4/22/09

Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus
An ancient Greek tragedy that has been read and reviewed since 415 BC. The plot deals with Prometheus, who is being punished for stealing fire, and for undermining the God of Gods, Zeus.

Aside from the formalities of the story, what is the narrative trying to tell us? What was Aeschylus trying to achieve? This is a tricky question with no clear answers, in my opinion.

The story seems to parallel the classic Western/Christian tale of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, except the fire that Prometheus stole seems to me to be more a metaphor for modern technology. We can use knowledge and technology to advance society, but what are the consequences that we don't even understand? Like many of the other writers (Dewey comes to mind) this seems to be a theme that reoccurs. However, this change seems to be happening in a evolutionary pattern--it almost seems destined by fate.

There seems to be a division among the dueling divinities, all the gods are battling (Zeus versus his brothers). So, against this background of a change of technology, there is this power stuggle.

While reading this I couldn't help but consider who the audience was for this ancient play. How was it received? Was it a religious experience seeing a play? Was it the retelling of an ancient legend? I suspect the latter, but it took on a heightened dimension seeing it unfold in dramatic form. The dramatist had to retell the story, inject it with ideologies, and create a perfect experience.

In researching this play, I saw that there were possibly two "sequel" plays in the trilogy, but that there is controversy of whether these plays actually exist. Which left me thinking, what would happen in Volume 2 and 3?? Does advancement and knowledge defeat raw power?? A constant struggle examined for centuries.......

Thoughts on Readings 4/15/09

The Public Sphere by Jurgen Habermas

Habermas discusses the historical/sociological formation of a new "bourgeois public sphere" that sprang out of the feudal sovereignty of the high middle ages. He says that in the eighteenth century the concepts of public sphere and public opinion arose for the first time. There was a split at this time whereby society appeared in clear contrast in motivations from those of the states. Similar to the distinction between "public vs. private" that was discussed in Dewey, this new construction created the concept of a collectivist public opinion.

As Habermas notes:

"The bourgeois public sphere could be understood as the sphere of private individuals assembled into a public body, which almost immediately laid claim to the officially regulated 'intellectual newspapers' for use against the public authority itself". (p. 352)

He goes further into the role that the development of a free press had on this. He states:

"The press remained an institution of the public itself, effective in the manner of a mediator and intensifier of public discussion, no longer a mere organ for the spreading of news but not yet the medium of a consumer culture". (p. 353)

Habermas stresses that the freedom of the public sphere was crucially linked to its' separation from the dominant hegemonic structure of both the church and the state. This public resource of information and ideas has collapsed in the face of consumerist culture (again, a common theme which shows itself again here).

The media transformed itself from a place where the public obtained its' ideas to a instrument of political power and a medium for advertisements which bolstered society's consumerist drives.

The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere by Zizi Papacharissi

The second reading this week (written in 2002) ties directly into the first and examines if the Internet can be seen as the tool to create a new "bourgeois public sphere". As Papacharissi states: "Does cyberspace present a separate alternative to, extend, minimize, or ignore the public sphere"?

The answer is complicated and far from definitive. First, Papacharissi states that cyberspace represents more of a "public space" than a "public sphere" and that the distinction in an important one to make. As a public space, the Internet provides the forum for political and social debate--"a virtual space enhances discussion; a virtual sphere enhances democracy". (p. 380)

I felt that this essay raised a number of interesting questions around the topic without answering any of them. Papacharissi brings in the findings of many disparate scholars (Dewey, Fraser, Tcqueville), all of whom seemed to present different ideas when applied to the topic at hand.

However I have to agree with Papcharissi that having vast amounts of information at one's fingertips does NOT create a perfect situation for a public sphere to take shape. As Papcharissi states:

"At the same time, access to the Internet does not guarantee increased political activity or enlightened political discourse. Moving political discussion to a virtual space excludes those with no access to this space. Moreover, connectivity does not ensure a more representative and robust public sphere". (p.382)

Every member of my family uses the Internet to different degrees and in different ways. I use it almost every day for academic research and communication, my father uses it to shop for accessories for his sail boat, my mother only uses it occasionally for email exchange, and my sister hardly uses it at all. Hardly the environment for a robust new public sphere.

Thoughts on Readings 4/8/09

The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen

Thorstein Veblen (pictured) was a noted Norwegian-American sociologist and economist who believed that economic structure is informed by a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" mentality. This is to say that he believed that the type of work that you perform is typically directly related to your social status and economic class.

Reading his "Theory of the Leisure Class" made me think almost immediately of the system of "wants" vs. "needs" that was described by Marcuse. In the system outlined by Veblen, we "want" that which will make our social standing greater in the eyes of our colleagues and compatriots. And this "want" expresses itself not only in physical possessions but attaining a level of physical surroundings that impresses upon others our social and economic status.

As Veblen puts it:

"In order to gain and hold the esteem of men it is not merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put on evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence. And not only does the evidence of wealth serve to impress one's importance on others and to keep their sense of his importance alive and alert, but it is of scarcely less use in building up and preserving one's self-complacency. In all but the lowest stages of culture, the normally constituted man is comforted and upheld in his self-respect by "decent surroundings" and by exemption from "menial offices". (p. 24)

Veblen asserts that the stratification of modern industrial society can be related to the simple social stratification of early tribal cultures. The inter-relationships operate in the same way, it is just that the potential rewards are much shinier. Veblen compares the role of women in barbarian society (their specific categorization as "trophies of war") to the modern view of the perfect "happy housewife" cooking and cleaning to make the domicile of her Wall Street warrior of a husband as pleasant an example of the "decent surroundings" mentioned in the quote above.