Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Could Mumford be right on the female/passive/protective nature of the first "plastic"?
Well, could he? If you reread pages 140 and 141, it's tempting, isn't it? Even if he's wrong the basic principle of environment as the basis for innovation could often be true, even if not here. At minimum, you should be able to explain how his argument may be sexist, but not necessarily so.
Could Mumford be wrong that "discipline" was required for grinding?
Here's illustration of the kind of classic problem faced by Archaeologists as they try to discern the relationship between society and technology: the research thinks of X as the necessary condition to using a certain technology, when Y is really the reason, but there is no evidence of Y being present over X, so X is mistakenly assumed to be the reason.
For example, Mumford writes, in describing the process of grinding to make stone tools was "the patient application to a single task, reduced to a single monotonous set of motions, advancing slowly, almost imperceptibly..." (p. 137.2.4); And later, "Those who were ready to submit to this discipline would, it seems likely, also have the patience to watch the same plants, through the processes of growth, season by season... to achieve the same anticipated result." (p. 138.2.2)
He argues that establishing the patience to grinding of tools allowed people to soon after that grind grain, and thus, make bread (er, of a sort!). But is "patience" the only explanation? Could there be other differences between groups that would explain why some did grind [though without the bump, mind you!] and others didn't?
For example, Mumford writes, in describing the process of grinding to make stone tools was "the patient application to a single task, reduced to a single monotonous set of motions, advancing slowly, almost imperceptibly..." (p. 137.2.4); And later, "Those who were ready to submit to this discipline would, it seems likely, also have the patience to watch the same plants, through the processes of growth, season by season... to achieve the same anticipated result." (p. 138.2.2)
He argues that establishing the patience to grinding of tools allowed people to soon after that grind grain, and thus, make bread (er, of a sort!). But is "patience" the only explanation? Could there be other differences between groups that would explain why some did grind [though without the bump, mind you!] and others didn't?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Evidence of Unpredictable Outcomes of Technologies in the Sequence of the Very Earliest "Technics"
The way one might typically think of animal husbandry coming about would probably center around capturing animals, then separating out the weaker, smaller ones to prevent their breeding, and to promote the breeding of the bigger ones.
We probably don't think of the role of dogs in all that. Of training dogs, and then, perhaps, of training ourselves.
We also probably don't think of castrating male animals as being the first successful surgical procedures that allowed us to then perform surgery on ourselves, and to begin to see our bodies are technologically manipulable.
And, it's unlikely we'd think of fire leading to the domestication of dogs, which would then lead to "technics" that would be critical for, well, civilization! Mumford's descriptions of the plausible developments of our earliest technologies lets us consider the following sequence of innovations: walking hands-free upright >> mastering fire (can run away from fire while holding it at a distance from the body perhaps? any other ideas?) >> odoriferous food >> dogs attracted to the food >> selective rewarding of dogs >> use of dogs in herding >> sedentary agriculture >> concentration of wealth in cities >> yada yada >> more yada yada >> sex in the city / "Sex in the City," or just those kinds of cities and that kind of sex, i.e., our contemporary societies and cultures today!
The point is that Mumford shows repeatedly in this first half of "Technics and Human Development," that technologies are indeed ecological. He gives us evidence of how unpredictable the outcomes of technologies are as he traces sequence of our very earliest of technologies. Who knew technology X would lead to technology Z? Who knew dog training might be such a critical innovation for developing the sophisticated cultures and institutions we now have?
Of course, there are alternative paths of development--maybe dogs weren't that important--but the fact that many such paths are equally plausible means the sequences technological innovations are unpredictable. Moreover, we can see how they are ecological, since at each step we can see how an innovation (technology X) intentionally designed to do one thing, also unintentionally affects other things, which then produce a new context and environment of opportunities for subsequent innovations.
And that's why I originally scheduled us to read this text after Postman, but also thought it would work at the course's end, when we need to be reminded of technology's ecological nature when considering the specific technologies examined in our respective research papers, and when trying to understand and forecast the effects of our media, post-Meyrowitz's day of fewer channels, and the "web 2.0", i.e., the internet post-"Communities in Cyberspace".
What could our new contexts lead to? What is already emerging? Feel free to comment!
We probably don't think of the role of dogs in all that. Of training dogs, and then, perhaps, of training ourselves.
We also probably don't think of castrating male animals as being the first successful surgical procedures that allowed us to then perform surgery on ourselves, and to begin to see our bodies are technologically manipulable.
And, it's unlikely we'd think of fire leading to the domestication of dogs, which would then lead to "technics" that would be critical for, well, civilization! Mumford's descriptions of the plausible developments of our earliest technologies lets us consider the following sequence of innovations: walking hands-free upright >> mastering fire (can run away from fire while holding it at a distance from the body perhaps? any other ideas?) >> odoriferous food >> dogs attracted to the food >> selective rewarding of dogs >> use of dogs in herding >> sedentary agriculture >> concentration of wealth in cities >> yada yada >> more yada yada >> sex in the city / "Sex in the City," or just those kinds of cities and that kind of sex, i.e., our contemporary societies and cultures today!
The point is that Mumford shows repeatedly in this first half of "Technics and Human Development," that technologies are indeed ecological. He gives us evidence of how unpredictable the outcomes of technologies are as he traces sequence of our very earliest of technologies. Who knew technology X would lead to technology Z? Who knew dog training might be such a critical innovation for developing the sophisticated cultures and institutions we now have?
Of course, there are alternative paths of development--maybe dogs weren't that important--but the fact that many such paths are equally plausible means the sequences technological innovations are unpredictable. Moreover, we can see how they are ecological, since at each step we can see how an innovation (technology X) intentionally designed to do one thing, also unintentionally affects other things, which then produce a new context and environment of opportunities for subsequent innovations.
And that's why I originally scheduled us to read this text after Postman, but also thought it would work at the course's end, when we need to be reminded of technology's ecological nature when considering the specific technologies examined in our respective research papers, and when trying to understand and forecast the effects of our media, post-Meyrowitz's day of fewer channels, and the "web 2.0", i.e., the internet post-"Communities in Cyberspace".
What could our new contexts lead to? What is already emerging? Feel free to comment!
We're not tool-makers, We're... what?
Mumford would say we're identity-makers (views of ourselves) and ontology-makers (views the world). How do technologies help us do that, especially considering Postman's point (citing McLuhan, among others), that technologies are "ideological"?
Technology as Expression
Q: What does our tendency to invent expressions through language tell us about our inventiveness elsewhere? A: Those other inventions will be expressions too! But what does that mean? Expressions of what? And lets pick two different inventions as an examples to use during our discussion. (First one to post gets to name them!)
Technology as Expression vs. Communication
Mumford says we use language largely for expression, and not communication. What's the difference?
Mumford on humans being inherently technological
Are we inherently technological? It common for people to believe that. We used to be often called the only "tool-maker," before it was discovered other animals use tools. But then the argument was bumped up a level to mean that we're only one's complex technologies. That may be true, but Mumford points out that it's not the tools distinguish us, but something we invented before our first complex tools, and without which we probably couldn't have developed complex toos: language.
If we think about what language uses to define meaning, we'll see how to understand and use it, we'd need abilities that would also be necessary for developing complex technologies.
Grammer
Rhythm
Pitch and Intonation
Those variable qualities of speech allow us to put complex phrases together, just as we would put together pieces of a machine that operates across time and space. In essence, language was our first complicated machine, and Mumford argues that it's still our most complicated machine.
If we think about what language uses to define meaning, we'll see how to understand and use it, we'd need abilities that would also be necessary for developing complex technologies.
Grammer
Rhythm
Pitch and Intonation
Those variable qualities of speech allow us to put complex phrases together, just as we would put together pieces of a machine that operates across time and space. In essence, language was our first complicated machine, and Mumford argues that it's still our most complicated machine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)