I have decided to posit some of the thoughts, ruminations, ideas that move through my head on a given day. Don't worry, each entry is only a sentence or two (or sometimes three) in length.
Pondering the Interstices between technology and U.S. culture/lifestyles...I would be interested in learning of any books which do an excellent job of delving into this topic. I've read Future Shock, The Third Wave, The Singularity is Near, and The Americans: The Democratic Experience among others. However, I am more interested in discerning the ways in which current technology has altered (and continues to change) Americans' views of reality, their work habits, lifestyles, etc. In other words, I would like to find a work which focuses on the last 30 years or less of changes.
My take on Relativism/Post-Modernism...Granted, this meme provides a lot of valuable information/insight into the interconnections between culture and values, beliefs, perspectives. It is obvious that my value system and personal philosophy are determined in part by the fact that I live in the U.S. Nonetheless, people who subscribe to the view that all values, beliefs, etc. are relative (and culture dependent) are in error. Some portion of every society's (and most individuals') values and beliefs derive from transcendent aspects related to human nature and the fact that people are not hermits (and thus have to live in a community). Given that fact, I am surprised at how many people seemingly support notions of pure relativism/extreme post-modernism (or whatever you'd like to call it).
On Commodification and Nature...Most of my ancestors were likely much more connected than I am to nature, to their society, and perhaps even to their families. Whether Paleolithic polytheists or 14th Century Christians, their lives depended upon their intimate interactions with nature (ie. tilling the soil), were enhanced and maintained by centuries old traditions, and revolved around their insular, close-knit families. We moderns might consider these individuals to be backward, primitive, benighted, or any of a hundred other, derogatory phrases. Personally, I believe that while most of my ancestors' lives were probably nasty, brutish, and short, they nonetheless had access to nodes of meaning and joy that are almost alien to me--cut off as I am from these experiences by technology, consumerism, and the commodification of society.
Why I Like Lord of the Rings...The trilogy has a lot of flaws, which include a lack of character development and depth, female roles/views, etc...Despite these issues, the book does a wonderful job of extolling and analyzing "good." Tolkien achieves this feat in part by contrasting a nuanced, multi-faceted "good" vs. a one dimensional, oppressing evil, thereby at once differentiating good acts from bad ones but demonstrating that goodness comes in many flavors and strengths.
Ok, enough for today...
Thursday
Contradictions Implicit/Explicit in Neo-Conservativism
From my perspective, many U.S. neo-conservatives seem to adhere to personal philosophies that are inauthentic. In some cases, their stated beliefs conflict with their everyday actions. In other instances, they espouse viewpoints, which change based on the situation. This issue might not be important, as most of us, unless we are zealots, adhere to a personal philosophy/belief system that contains contradictions or incoherence. If we did not, we would have a hard time getting along in this complex world. Nonetheless, it seems to me that some of the contradictions are so vast, that they might contribute to societal (or individual) malaise, unease, or present citizens with a crisis of faith moment when they do try to rectify the conflicting mix of ideas.
I think I should provide some caveats to this post. First, as I promised in my first post, I am writing this post "off the top of my head." I have neither researched this subject ahead of time nor have I put days worth of thought into it. All aspects of my hypothesis, upon deep reflection, may be incorrect. At the same time, I grew up in a familial/societal structure which contained elements from both conservative Catholicism and evangelical Christian faiths. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that I was immersed in neo-conservative ideology, especially as it applies to the market/economy. Finally, my thesis may only be applicable to a small minority of Americans instead of to a large cohort of individuals as I claim.
With that said, here are some of the contradictory elements that seem to redound with many neo-conservatives...
1) They espouse federal controls over social issues, ie. an amendment to the Constitution to prevent gay marriage, while at the same time deriding federal initiatives to intervene in the market as a breach on personal liberties.
2) They extol the virtues of a "free market." Yet they do not support initiatives, such as increasing the IRS' budget, which would improve corporate transparency, promote honesty on both the part of individuals and companies, and increase public access to information. These things are necessary perquisites if the participants "in a free market" are going to be able to interact with each other on an equal footing.
3) They argue for the teaching of Creationism in schools, yet they wholeheartedly support pharmacological agents, epidemiological studies, and other thing which are derived from the theory of evolution. As an example, researchers use the tenets of evolution to help them understand and develop vaccines or other remedies for a host of diseases. They also support scientific and industrial infrastructures which rely on the belief that the earth is billions of years old, ie. the oil industry or most everything in geology.
4) They argue that people (or at least themselves) should let God control their lives; they say, "I leave everything in God's hands." Yet they exert a high level of control over their own lives, via things like micro-managing their personal lives or the actions of their businesses, and by doing things like buying life insurance policies and putting their trust in medicine to heal them. Further, they support government and private programs to control/understand everything from the weather to space. It is likely that previous generations, especially those living before the 20th century, would have disparaged most of these current day initiatives as interfering with God's plan.
These represent some of (what I consider to be) the major contradictions in neo-conservative thought. Perhaps only a few people adhere to these schizophrenic beliefs or maybe a new, conservative theory has addressed these contradictions. If not, I think they need to be addressed.
Anthony
I think I should provide some caveats to this post. First, as I promised in my first post, I am writing this post "off the top of my head." I have neither researched this subject ahead of time nor have I put days worth of thought into it. All aspects of my hypothesis, upon deep reflection, may be incorrect. At the same time, I grew up in a familial/societal structure which contained elements from both conservative Catholicism and evangelical Christian faiths. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that I was immersed in neo-conservative ideology, especially as it applies to the market/economy. Finally, my thesis may only be applicable to a small minority of Americans instead of to a large cohort of individuals as I claim.
With that said, here are some of the contradictory elements that seem to redound with many neo-conservatives...
1) They espouse federal controls over social issues, ie. an amendment to the Constitution to prevent gay marriage, while at the same time deriding federal initiatives to intervene in the market as a breach on personal liberties.
2) They extol the virtues of a "free market." Yet they do not support initiatives, such as increasing the IRS' budget, which would improve corporate transparency, promote honesty on both the part of individuals and companies, and increase public access to information. These things are necessary perquisites if the participants "in a free market" are going to be able to interact with each other on an equal footing.
3) They argue for the teaching of Creationism in schools, yet they wholeheartedly support pharmacological agents, epidemiological studies, and other thing which are derived from the theory of evolution. As an example, researchers use the tenets of evolution to help them understand and develop vaccines or other remedies for a host of diseases. They also support scientific and industrial infrastructures which rely on the belief that the earth is billions of years old, ie. the oil industry or most everything in geology.
4) They argue that people (or at least themselves) should let God control their lives; they say, "I leave everything in God's hands." Yet they exert a high level of control over their own lives, via things like micro-managing their personal lives or the actions of their businesses, and by doing things like buying life insurance policies and putting their trust in medicine to heal them. Further, they support government and private programs to control/understand everything from the weather to space. It is likely that previous generations, especially those living before the 20th century, would have disparaged most of these current day initiatives as interfering with God's plan.
These represent some of (what I consider to be) the major contradictions in neo-conservative thought. Perhaps only a few people adhere to these schizophrenic beliefs or maybe a new, conservative theory has addressed these contradictions. If not, I think they need to be addressed.
Anthony
Saturday
Digitized Literature and the Changes that May Come
I made these comments in response to a blog post on More Red Ink, entitled, "More on the Death of Science Fiction." The blog article is located at:
http://martyhalpern.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-on-death-of-science-fiction.html
Anyway, I felt my response was worth posting on my blog.
http://martyhalpern.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-on-death-of-science-fiction.html
Anyway, I felt my response was worth posting on my blog.
Personally, I think that the death of certain types of science fiction writing, ie. dime novels, pulp fiction magazines, is mainly due to changes in culture and technology. I think another shift is occurring now as literature becomes digitized. Will future readers, who grew up with a Kindle in one hand and a notepad in the other, be content with perusing through pages upon pages of text? Perhaps they will demand that e-stories become more interactive, with numerous, imbedded videos (perhaps even interactive videos that allow the viewer to control some aspect of their denouement).
Anthony
Thursday
Do Fringe Groups Benefit Society?
I penned this reflection a few months back as part of a requisite for one of my graduate classes. However, I think the comments are relevant to (pertinent for) a wider audience. Keeping to my promise to strive for "authenticity," I did not redact it for content, though I did edit it for grammar, sentence structure, etc. With that said, I have decided to alter some parts of this entry to protect the privacy of the individual mentioned in the text --Anthony
However, I question whether the benefits that accrue from these fringe/radical groups outweigh the negatives in today’s socio-political environment. For one thing, the damage that these individuals do when they manage to push their ideas, unadulterated, onto Americans has to be weighed against the good that they do. As a somewhat dated example, radical evangelicals in some localities in the South, from the 1830s to the early 1900s, were successful in passing (state/local) ordinances against Catholics, Jews, and other religious groups. More importantly, society only benefits from hosting radical elements when its leadership is composed of moderates who are adept at creating and implementing legislation, which incorporates good ideas from numerous stakeholders on both sides of the aisle. I think (or so I have been told) that the Nixon and Ford era Congresses fit this model. Today, state and federal legislatures seem to contain few moderates; the legislation that is passed is often a poorly concocted amalgamation that is heavily skewed by radical views (from one side or the other). In this environment, radical groups from Green Peace to the Tea Party are doing a better job at precluding real dialogue on issues than they are at facilitating richer, more vibrant discussions among Americans.
Ms. A is obviously passionate in her critiques of *** companies, especially as it regards their relationships with ***, universities, and other components of the *** industry. I feel that many of her hypotheses, especially regarding *** control over the dissemination of *** information, are fairly accurate. Nonetheless, Ms. A’s perspective, in my opinion, is quite provincial; she does not (or will not) recognize the many benefits that accrue to Americans from these relationships. I have no doubt that some of her solutions to these problems would be worse than the current status-quo.
Regardless of the merits of her beliefs, Ms. A has an unquestioned right to express them and to solicit funds to further her causes. Ms. A is one of tens of thousands (or perhaps hundreds of thousands) of Americans, on both the right and the left, who actively espouse radical positions. These individuals, and the organizations they run, have been a fixture in the U.S. for centuries. Most experts would likely contend that they benefit discourse on key subjects by forcing Americans to countenance a more cosmopolitan view of these issues, be it pharmacy-doctor interactions or some other topic, than they would otherwise do. Further, extremists have been successful in bringing attention to otherwise overlooked societal problems. For instance, would the U.S. have banned DDT if environmentalists, such as Rachel Carson, had not brought the issue to the fore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)