The reading for tomorrow had an interesting focus that I am going to hone in on for the final blog post. For those who have not read the article, it focuses on the obsessiveness of that technology has in regulating our lives. It would humor me if I was allowed to highlight a potent example of this: In the nineteenth century, if someone wanted to go shopping that person had to gather up a cart or walk to the village and gather materials, and return home by dusk at the latest. The idea of returning late in the day was not a practical predicament to be in.

Compare this example to the shopping I did a few days ago. I was searching for the Cambridge Companion to Cormac McCarthy for research for my senior thesis. Not only was I able to buy it instantaneously through my kindle, but I could have done this at any point in the day. It could have been two in the morning, four in the afternoon, it really makes no difference; If I’m awake I can do nearly every activity at the push of a button. Now I am aware of the counter argument: “We still go to grocery shopping, which is really no different from the market example above.” To this I would respond by saying that while it true that the two activities share many qualities in common, the rise of twenty four hour grocery store has conflated the process to still meet the demands of the consumer. The first store that jumps to mind when discussing this trend is Winco, a location of much joy to the average college student.

I am not placing a value judgment on whether this regulation of activity to be continuous is good or bad. I see benefits and losses to it. With that said, I find it to be a topic of endless fascination.

I first want to say that the reading this week was one of my favorites that we have done this term. This is the case for several reasons: The first is because it was just a well-organized and well delivered argument, a well written piece by Dean. The second reason is because it highlights an internal thesis I have felt for a long time, that being the difference between political activism and political discourse.

Political activism can be defined as “The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause” (The American Heritage Dictionary). This can be understood in contrast too political discourse which is defined as: “The use of written or verbal communication in a political median” (The American Heritage Dictionary). The difference between discourse and activism can then clearly be seen in these definitions. Discourse is communication, whereas activism is a direct action.

Now I am not saying that the use of social media by the public does not further democratic ideals, in fact I believe that they further democratic ideals through facilitating discussion of importance issues. With that said, liking a movement on Facebook or following Hash-Tags are not to be constituted as political activism. This is as Jody Dean asserts a neo liberal fantasy; by the public contributing via social media they are now political activists. This is as Dean explains a fantasy. Activism requires from my definition, direct action. This is why picketing is a form of activism, and following a movement is not; because picketing is a form of direct political action.

In conclusion, this is the major flaw with leftist politics in America. They tend to be enveloped in in idealist fantasies. Signing petitions, following a movement are all good. Both of these things create a dialogue about the issues that surround our society. With that said, it is not activism. To be active is to demonstrate the change that one wishes to see in society, not just awareness of the change, but the conviction to act upon it

I would first like to assert that if you’re reading this and have not read Chris’s current blog post, I suggest that you exit the page and do so. First because it is excellent, and second because this project that we have embarked upon is coauthored, so it would not make sense to read them out of order.

The way I see it, there were several key problems with the guest lecture. The first was it ignored certain facts while simultaneously extorting others. I am going to examine some big assertions  and what I see as faulty claims throughout the lecture on Monday.

Google is Functioning through Gift Economics:

The basic answer is no. I see this as being an argument that is full of holes. (Kind of like Swiss cheese). First off, Google makes money off of us through collecting and distrusting our data. Whether or not advertisement block software is used in the equation, the user is still factored as a piece in googles massive puzzle. From this they get stock through advertising, by virtue of getting the use. So while it is true that Google does not ask for money in exchange for use of their services, they do get an implied return of the right to access data. This is independent of free will, which is an inherent component of a gift economy.  So google still is a product of a capitalist economy.

Self-Driving Cars and Gift Economics

As a handicapped citizen, who ironically can drive, I am a huge advocate for self-driving cars. I feel like there is a great potential for them to add safety to the road. With that said Google has been cited saying that self-driving cars still have a long way to go. We are nowhere near close to being able to “drive” an automated car by ordering the service on our iPhones as the guest lecturer suggested. He projected his argument way beyond the current capabilities of the technology. So much so that it causes me to question the fundamentals of his futuristic argument. (See link at the bottom of the page)

Gift Economy to Avoid the Hunger Games….

This was funny. It tried to enforce a popular cultural element as a method for supporting gift economics. There are a mirage of other methods for solving this problem that do not result in the Hunger Games or in a gift economy. Raising taxes, minimum salary guarantees, progressive public education reform. All of these could exist within a capitalist model and would be more effective than a gift economy, because at least reciprocity is expected and paid in my system. Additionally none of these could lead to the “Hunger Games” either. (Although I could personally envision a scenario where value being exchanged in unpredictable services could lead to mass starvation and elitist control.) Something tells me the hunger games will not be the next super bowl anytime soon.

The Avoidance of a Proximity Diameter and the Laws of the Current System

I am going to end on this big point because I feel like it connects the two blog posts pretty well. The first is that the administer for “Kindista” pointed out that gift economy was the predominate model of exchange in small tribal communities. I’ll give him this point completely. I cannot have been the only one that noticed that he failed to readdress this point when he was discussing how he was going to reintegrate a gift economy model outside of the Willamette Valley.   That is because this kind of system is not sustainable when we get into massive groups, despite how romantic it is. There is a reason why this was the preferred method with a small group, because reciprocity was always given. The recipient and giver did not have to even be aware of this, they just had to save one another lives during a lion hunt and the debt was repaid. Today, so many interactions are done interpersonally that this relationship cannot be developed. As a result this value system stands in replace of that honor code that is felt among a small community.

My closing point will be brief. It involves the fact that this system depends on current property laws to enforce a gift economy system. So a gift economy cannot even be established in our system unless it is wrapped in the comforting wings of capitalism. If I get my bike stolen in this system, I depend upon the authorities to hunt the thief (or loaner) out. I will probably not use Kindista after this experience; because Kindista’s method of enforcement is “no one will share with you.” Since society is more complicated than nap time, I fail to see this as being a sustainable system.    

In conclusion, I am open to the idea of any economic theory, but as a Political Scientist I feel as if it is my duty to seek the truth, no matter how qualified the speaker is.

Sources:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/

The Matrix has become a film that raises a mirage of philosophical issues. The most common application of the move in a classroom setting is to discuss it in the context of the brain in the vat argument: The idea that we cannot comprehend the nature of reality because our perceptions are deceptive in nature. For our purposes however, the Matrix can be discussed in terms of images, in particular the images that are the product of technological advancement. We really are surrounded by an assortment of images. At any given point in my day; I can log in to Facebook and see an endless stream of pictures and cat videos. These images can even be related to other searches that I have done throughout the week. A real life example of this occurred just the other day. I am in the market for a new suit for my cousins wedding. What should I see on the side of my Facebook but images of a suit; similar to the one I was viewing. Images have perpetuated themselves into the culture of everyday life, whether we like it or not.

I must be gaining a bold reputation on the blogs for being a “been better” thinker, so I would like to put forth the idea that I am not against technology in any regard. I am instead very critical of technology. Do I find the constant viewing of images by a public concerning; yes I do. I would however not go as far as to say that we are living in the matrix; where the nature of reality has been so saturated by these images that we are no longer able to assess the difference between our perceived reality, and what I will coin the actualized reality. However it is fair to suggest that are reality is being shaped in a sense by the constant flow of images that ebb across the screen. Again; I am not sure whether this is good or bad, and obviously the matrix is a hyperbolized metaphor, but the role that images play in the lives of everyday citizens is shifting rapidly, that much is evident.

Maybe I am the only one that felt this way after considering the Theodore’s occupation throughout the movie and his relationship with his OS Samantha. I saw these two concepts throughout the movie as being very intimately connected in that what we want from love and companionship can be bought. As the couple in the movie asserts, they enjoy the letters even while they know that it was written by someone other than each other.    The main focus I took from this is: For the right price in this future, we can get exactly what we want out of love. It can be perfect, or imperfect it is all a matter of personal preference. Essentially by paying a scribe to express my love, I can have someone engineer the feelings I desire out of my spouse. Personally, I find this a sad state for a society to be in.

Now to look at Samantha through this same lens, some parallels can be drawn. The first is that Samantha’s physical body is at least a machine; it can be bought and used for a price. It is through this purchase that Theodore is able to even instigate this relationship. By having this device he can now cultivate the type of relationship that he desired from his failed marriage, for the right price. The programmers of Samantha are then no different in their occupation then Theodore is in his. They both can create what people need out of a variety of relationships. Friendships, birthday parties, weddings all now have a system that can be re engineered by an outside party.

I can practically here the stroking keyboard in the comments section (Chris I look forward to discussing this). My critics will cite that flowers and other symbols of love are easily bought, and yet we do not see that as stripping them of their value.  I agree that symbols are bought and paid for and that this is a similar mechanization of capitalism. The main point of distinction between these symbols and Samantha is that the task still depends on me to facilitate the emotions I want my symbol to express. If I threw my flowers at my girlfriend and said “hope you enjoy these” something tells me she would not feel love regardless of me having purchased flowers. Samantha’s and Theodore’s future does not require the facilitation of the action, but the purchase itself, and I see a danger in this.

One of the elements that really stood out to me from the reading of Alone Together was the discussion that Turkle has regarding the evolution of texting as a means of communication as opposed to talking. “Texting offers just the right amount of access” (Turkle 15). This as the author notes is a huge shift from where society used to be. Talking on the phone was simply a solution to not being able to have face to face contact. Now texting is not only a substitute for talking on the phone or having a face to face conversation, but instead texting is the preferred method of communication in our society. Turkle notes that this is a comfortable zone for most people during the early part of the text. “The world is now full of modern Goldilocks’s, people who take comfort in being in touch with a lot of people who they also keep at way.” (Turkle 15). I found this very interest, mainly because of texting is presented in the culture we inhabit. It is framed as a way for us to keep in contact with hundreds of people through one platform. With that said, it provides a degree of separation that we typically don’t contemplate. By being connected with so many people, I feel spread thin, like I have few real connections. Half the people in my own Facebook don’t even have my phone number, and they certainly don’t know what my favorite book or band is. With that said have I really connected with them or is it just a pretense?

An example of this from my real life occurred on Thursday night of last week. I was talking to someone that I usually just text, none the less I found myself talking on the phone. Towards the end of our conversation, I remarked that it was sweet of her to call me since I knew she didn’t enjoy talking on the phone.

From this brief story I analyzed two elements, the first was the enjoyment I received by being on the phone. (I talk to this friend on a weekly basis, exchange plenty of messages. Yet, there was something more real about this interaction.) The second thing I noted was the fact that I felt the need to thank her for this interaction. (Again, we talk a lot, why should it surprise me that we were talking on the phone?) My answer to both of these questions  is because we broke the bay of separation that Turkle put forth on page fifteen, something neither one of us are very used to.

The question I have from this week’s reading, and what I feel we should ask ourselves, is: In a world of connections, how many do we truly have?

Welcome to your brand new blog at University of Oregon Sites.\n \n To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.\n \n For assistance, visit UO Blogs General Help or contact the Technology Service Desk (techdesk@uoregon.edu; 541-346-4357).\n \n