Just caught this from a round-up of conservatives saying the country will end with each passing reform in the US.
“[T]he child will become a very dominant factor in the household and might refuse perhaps to do chores before six a.m. or after seven p.m. or to perform any labor.”
—Senator Weldon Heyburn (R-ID), in 1908, on why child labor should remain unregulated
That explains it! How I miss the days of Little One doing his 5am chores. And then the National Labor Relations Board stepped in. Now I can’t even get him to stuff bomb munitions before 8am.
Certainly one of the …what’s the right word? scarier? enlightening? …features of modern technology is Google autocomplete. From today’s NY Times:
WHY is the sky blue? Why do cats purr? And why did you get married? If you’re engaging in some year-end reflection, you’re not alone. These are among the mysteries people want explained.
We know this thanks to an “auto-suggest” feature many search engines now use. When you type even a single word into these search boxes, it gives you a list of suggested, presumably popular completions. Enter “Michelle,” for example, and you might get back Obama, Malkin, Pfeiffer.
Suggestions for the word “why” result in questions about the sky, cats and marriage (see above), along with “why do dogs eat grass” and “why do men cheat” and “why is pink the color for girls.” This labor-saving device — part fortuneteller, part shrink? — has opened a window into our collective soul. With millions of people pouring their hearts into this modern-day confessional, we get a direct, if mysterious, glimpse into the heads of our fellow Web surfers.
And it’s a glimpse that isn’t a pretty as these questions suggest. i remember a couple of autocompletes that I didn’t even want to think about the question, let alone the answer. (Play around a little bit and you’ll find that “how do I” and any verb leads invariably to a question about making one’s member bigger.)
Apparently, this Op-Ed in the Boston Globe by Kara Miller has been batted around quite a bit the last few days. I’m not going to comment on the split that Miller sees between American and foreign students, not least because it would mean having to take up a logic that seems to suggest we need to be perfect tools (in the pejorative sense):
Success is all about time management, and in a globalizing economy, Americans’ inability to stay focused and work hard could prove to be a serious problem.
Well, it is if you have a rather stilted notion of “success.” (Socrates: terrible at time management. Would often just stand gaping up at the sky on neighbor’s doorsteps while others went onto to the party.) But I do want to follow up on this:
Too many 18-year-old Americans, meanwhile, text one another under their desks (certain they are sly enough to go unnoticed), check e-mail, decline to take notes, and appear tired and disengaged.
Well, maybe in your class they are tired and disengaged. (Just kidding.) But it does amaze me how students do think I am a movie screen that doesn’t see them. You are right in front of me. I can see you. Don’t think you’re texting can’t be seen. Or that when you need to scratch the inside of your nose (nice way to put that) and you look around to check if other students see you, that somehow I don’t. I am not epiphenomenal!
Graham has a post up on McCluhan and I’m not going to wade into a debate on his work. But I was wondering about these two claims, made at different points in his post defending him from the charge of technological determinism:
(1) “It’s easy to see why people say he is. After all, McLuhan’s key principle is that background medium is everything, conscious content is nothing. And this does seem to imply that all our thoughts and actions are the marionettes of some invisible deeper medium.”
(2) “it can’t be determinism given that the future course of events is completely indeterminate for McLuhan. To be a true technological determinist, in other words, McLuhan would have to hold that one medium leads to the next and that leads to the next and that leads to the next, by an inner logic of the media that lies beyond human control.”
Of course, though, I think marionettes are unpredictable since human actions are not fully determined—thus in that analogy even if I took the object to be wholly controlled by the human hands working its strings (which I don’t), it still wouldn’t be predictable. And this brings me to (b). This is a genuine question, since I wonder if this discussion is led by an implicit premise that humans are free beings and objects, systems, and ideas are not. (Read his post with this in mind and you’ll see what I mean.) I note this because it’s a shorthand way of thinking about determinism that’s usually of a type that Graham is found to be critiquing.
Of course, all depends on what you mean by determinism. If you mean that human actions are epiphenomenal, Harman only notes that McCluhan thinks the future is contingent. But that only raises the questions of whether the various media are (a) determinative of human activity, and/or (b) the march of history (it’s “logic”) of one media to another is wholly predictable from within that logic. I think Harman is granting (a) but more importantly I want to think about (b) since in fact I think one can hold (a) and not think that the future of “objects” (according to this usage) is wholly determined.
Quantum mechanics is but one example; set theory another. These are means for thinking the ultimate indeterminacy ontologically (not just epistemologically) of the the future. And thus, I could see (and this is not an argument from within McCluhan’s work—but a larger point about the indeterminacy of systems) arguing for human actions being epiphenomenal without needing to argue that one media must lead into the next. This is not simply, say, on Sartre’s account that the practico-inert must dialectically relate to a certain human freedom, but rather that freedom is not simply human. This is, in a way, a point from which to think all of Continental philosophy on freedom after Nietzsche’s critique of free will. Give up that hobgoblin, and one must account for freedom not as a factum only of human existence. (Thus the whole thinking of the “free spirit” in spite of the will to power passing through, in a sense, the various overmen.) Thus I think McCluhan could argue (a) and still hold, as Harman says, that media are inherently “multifaceted. There are several possible ways in which it can be reversed.” This is not to give into (a) (not least because “epiphenomenal” is a philosophical term used too often to do the work for a number of other concepts), but simply to wonder about the non-relation between the two.
I just had a student hand in a final exam. Not only did I not know him but no one else does either. And wow that’s a really aspirational self evaluation he’s handed in here. It’s been a while since I’ve had someone show upjust for the final…
Ezra Klein has a quick post up on the cruelties of the Senate, noting how the intransigence of the right forces ill and infirm Senators to be wheeled into silly procedural votes, even when their intents are obvious:
Another example came last night, when the ailing Robert Byrd was wheeled in at 1 a.m. to break a filibuster on the manager’s amendment. Byrd’s presence was not required, especially considering that he’d clearly telegraphed his intention to vote to break the filibuster. But Republicans forced him to travel to the chamber. Indeed, shortly before he arrived, Sen. Tom Coburn headed to the floor to propose a prayer. “What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight,” he said. “That’s what they ought to pray.”