Just a little social experiment…. http://www.viddler.com/player/e243d2cb/ <!--
Okay, this was actually funny.
Monkey doesn't appreciate your devious troll tactics (Video)
Leave a Comment
Our Responsibility to Machines
In Jennifer Rhee’s How to Prevent a Robopocalypse, she reviews Wilson’s novels, How to Survive a Robot Uprising and Robopocalypse. The first is a survival guide that objectifies machines and portrays an image of a laser-shooting, red-eyed, silver skeleton robots of Terminator. There is an interesting shift from that to Robopocalypse in which Wilson gives machines a heart and tries to give them identity in the rebellion. The reference to the robot attack as a “rebellion” or an “uprising” alone adds a human element to the war instead of calling it a disaster or a mass malfunction.
If we were relate this to the zombie apocalypse craze that has recently taken hold of the whole freaking planet and has become somewhat annoying, then we would probably see it through the scope of How to Survive a Robot Uprising. We do not give the zombies a personality. We do not care about them as we shoot them between the eyes. In fact, we view the transformation from the living to the undead as one of shedding individuality and personality. The hardest part about killing a zombie is that it was once a human. For robots, this is not the case. Why, then, are there stories involving terminating robots and emotion?
The robots are human creations. It is almost the obligation we feel to a child or even to a pet (even though pets are less of a human creation than robots). Maybe it’s a matter of possession. We feel the need to take care of the things that we own. Maybe it’s a matter of guilt. In class, we discussed that the reason we laugh at animals is because we view them as humans. We attribute human qualities to these robots, so we feel guilty when our human-like creations are harmed. Either way, it is strange to me that there are so many references to caring about robots and not about caring about zombies even though zombies are closer to humans than robots are. This might be because robots are not constantly trying to eat you, but whatever. I’d be interested to see a shift to the caring-about-zombies’-feelings stage in which there is a narrative of a zombie uprising after which a peaceful relationship is formed between the humans and the zombies via a girl with… zombie eyes?
Thoughts on “Managed Labor”
There were two arguments in Emotional Labor that were significant to me as articulating emotions and their modality of expression as a form of labor. The first argument, involved the depiction of emotions as either privatized or commercialized in social interactions. And, the second involved the validation of emotion from others when it is expressed. For the first argument Hoschild explains that emotions can be either private or commercialized. Hoschild begins by explaining the effort to feel or to tap into emotions in everyday scenarios. She suggests that feelings are not “stored” and are “not independent of acts of management”(Hoschild 17).
Emotions are also used in “feeling rules” in order for individuals to assess what emotions are valid within a specific situation, lending currency to emotions. I thought that was interesting, partly in that I don’t necessarily my emotions “managed” or so managed to the extent to which I am not aware of it. With respect to the appropriateness of feeling, I imagine the management comes in how people express their emotions and what they are “managing” their emotions for. Some people are absolutely infuriated if they don’t get a grade that they feel they rightfully deserve, while others are unscathed. Could I then argue that one person is suppressing their genuine feelings, desensitized to appropriate reactions, or has not tapped into their feelings (therefore managing their emotions?). I think it is difficult to discern especially since a lot of reactions and behaviors that we associate with emotions are modeled for us as children. We then subjectively alter them to specific social interactions.
For the second aspect of having individuals feelings validated, Hoschild uses an example of the perceptions of men and women’s reactions to anger. The notion of an individual having their feelings rationalized versus having their emotions attributed as a purely visceral part of their personality was accurately portrayed in my view and could be applied to a variety of models. One question that I had about this double standard in emotion was in the treatment of individuals who consistently and inappropriately managed their emotions along traditional gender lines. If a woman consistently displayed narcissist aspects of managed emotion would she be masculine? Or, if a man was consistently altruistic would he then be feminine? Of course there are a variety of ways in which individuals can satisfy or resist the demands of managed labor, but the main questions that I had concerning this was in what ways do managed emotions constitute automatisms and how this could be in anyway different from individual personalities.
Seahorse Hilarity
I found this funny and relevant to our class. The ending is the best.
Bergson, Freud, and the Banana Peel
In the Bergson essay, the man who falls in the street is a victim of “mechanical elasticity” (10). The fact that he cannot adapt to his surroundings is funny to onlookers because it results in another automatic and unconscious movement: falling. Bergson claims that it is an “absence of feeling” that allows the onlookers to find humor in the fall (4). People are not able to empathize with the man falling, so they are able to make fun of him for it. The problem is that this lack of feeling implies some sort of automatic behavior itself. Feeling and sentiments are human qualities and give us some of our ability to adapt to situations. How is this automatic behavior used to ostracize a different automatic behavior?
In Freud’s Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Freud argues for comic relief. Humor (repetition and jokes) is a psychical release that allows people to relax and gives them pleasure. In relation to Bergson’s anti-automatic argument, laughter only serves the purpose to victimize those who behave automatically in order to force individuality and flexibility. If finding joy in repetition is not flexible but brings us pleasure, then there is no reason that we cannot shut our minds off and occasionally be automatic. It seems that Bergson is just on Henry Adam’s train of thinking that machines will take over the world so much that we cannot even trip over a banana peel because it is too automatic.
Here and There, Carried Away
I thought that the mobile aspect of shopping presented in Carried Away was particularly interesting. Previously, shopping and the purchase of goods for consumption were idealized for the ability of individuals to navigate various social classes (that they may not be a part of). Such that, buying an expensive garment or item grants entrance into a particular socioeconomic status an individual may not occupy. When Bowlby is describing Barnabooth, she describes how shopping and purchasing power facilitate mobility as “shopping figures as the antithesis of property in this sense, in that it represents a pure mobility of selves and objects” (Bowlby 21). In this way, people have the ability to move and reconstruct their lives simply through shopping. Property fixes an individual to a place while, shopping gives them the ability to move around. For me, this aspect of shopping is not simply the ability to dabble in wealthy lifestyles but to constantly recreate wealth or start anew.
This could be examined from an everyday example. For instance, in times of natural disaster the ability of individuals to rebuild their lives (if their homes are completely destroyed) is conditioned the amount of capital they have. Essentially your life becomes your purchasing power and ability to just re-buy things or purchase them again and start your life again. Specifically, “the maintenance or the making of roots and establishments”(Bowlby 22).
Along, with the ability to purchase things comes the pleasure associate with buying specific things. Bowlby discusses the relative delight a department store affords and the matter-of-fact approach that is taken with grocery shopping. Grocery shopping is interestingly not as pleasurable because it is out of necessity even though the same capital can be used in a department store. There isn’t any particular luxury associated with it since everyone does it. Granted, some people may spend particularly more on their groceries, food is food—and everyone eats. Shopping for clothing and other goods is commoditized by branding, that everyone cannot afford. Bowlby cites the example from Sister Carrie, in which Carrie is only interested in the money that she has to spend in excess. Carrie finds shopping for groceries dull ,but, dining on food in expensive restaurants luxurious. In this case the pleasure gained from consumption depends on the presentation (quality) of goods and environment of consumption.
Peer review
The peer review component of this research project is worth up to two points, which is as much as the draft is worth. That is to say: take it seriously. These are due on M 4/16.
There are three main reasons I have assigned this peer review component.
- A thoughtful review from a peer can help you revise substantively—that is, one goal is for you to receive a review yourself that will help you see your own work differently.
- The process of doing the review will give you perspective on the research process. Reading someone else’s work will give you a concrete point of comparison and distance on your own project.
- Giving generous, insightful feedback on someone else’s work is a valuable skill in its own right, and worth developing.
This review should take the form of a report, written in paragraphs, between two and four double-spaced pages in length.
Here’s what to do.
- Read the essay to get an overview of what it’s up to. Don’t bother marking it up, except perhaps to flag things that you’ll talk about in your peer review.
- Summarize what this essay is doing by answering the questions below. It is possible—indeed, probable—that the answers to these questions will not be immediately obvious from the draft you are reading. When it is unclear, note the unclarity, but use your brain and come up with a possible answer. Drafts always have gaps in them, but try to fill in the gaps. Be an active and generous reader, and assume that the author means the smartest possible version of what’s written. Even if you end up surmising something different from what the author meant, it will be helpful to the author to see how her words would be interpreted by an outside reader. In this section, do not evaluate: don’t say what’s “good” or “bad”; just make observations about what’s there.
- What is the central question that this research project asks?
- Why is that question important or worth investigating?
- What is the author’s strategy for finding out the answer? (In other words, describe the research procedure that the author undertook.)
- What is the author’s answer, so far?
- What kind of evidence does the author give to support her claims?
- Describe the most successful element of the draft, the thing that works the best, is the most interesting or striking, or the most insightful. Explain what is so successful about that aspect of the draft. That goodness may exist in potential form and require some revision or focus to become fully realized—this is okay.
- Offer two or three suggestions for improvement, explaining why you have made each suggestion. These suggestions could happen at the level of writing (clarify a concept, structure paragraphs more carefully, etc.) or at the level of research (narrow your focus, find evidence that speaks more directly to your research question, etc.). Do not give more than three suggestions, and choose carefully—pick the three that seem the most important to you. Don’t bother pointing out typos, etc.; that’s proofreading stuff, and the author can handle that herself.
- Conclude with any final thoughts you may have.
You may find yourself tempted to fixate on in-line corrections, typos, and minor quibbles. Those are easy criticisms to make. It is more difficult, but worthwhile, to offer a global sense of what the essay is trying to accomplish and evaluate the degree to which it succeeds. Aim for that, and be generous, insightful, and substantive.
Gender after the Typewriter
In the excerpt, On the typewriter, In the Cage, at the Ouija Board, I found the most interesting information in the section that described the invention and mass consumption of the typewriter. Although this information was presented in order to set up the later arguments about the protagonist of In the Cage and James’s personal secretary, the background information provided a look into the cultural reality of the early twentieth century. Analysis of this information can lead to a greater understanding of the social and cultural mindset of the era.
The author presents us with background information on the invention of the typewriter and its intended purpose. As the designer, Christopher Steele, stated: “(I)…have done something for the women who have always had to work so hard. This will enable them to more easily earn a living” (87). The typewriter was seen as the tool to women’s liberation, allowing them to enter the largely male workforce and successfully earn a living.
Although the typewriter did open up a new career field for women, additional information throughout the excerpt shows distinct obstacles for the goal of women’s liberation. For example, the typewriter was designed as an “amalgam of the sewing machine and the piano” (94), both distinctly domestic devices. This may have made women initially more comfortable with the device, but it served, in the long run, to emphasize the domestic aptitude and responsibilities of women, even in the office.
Another fact that seems to contradict this ultimate goal is the fact that women were expected to have certain “class respectability along with the typing skills” (88). Although technical schools were available for professional training, these schools emphasized appropriate attire and etiquette. Women of lower-classes or with scandalous histories had little to no chance of being hired by a respectable employer. Women did not have much chance of promotion or job progression, and possible employees were evaluated with guidelines that could have just as easily been applied to potential wives.
Overall, then, it seems that the typewriter produced a change in gender opportunities without affecting the gender boundaries themselves. The distinct differences between the male and female roles were preserved, but women were also given the chance to be more actively involved in their livelihood. Ultimately, this seemingly small step did give women the ability to gain a degree of independence, a fact that I think directly led to the eventual rise of feminism and the fight for equality.
Work, Mind, Body “In the Cage”
I think that In the Cage, contains an interesting portrayal of work as a feature of the body and mind. Earlier in the week, an observation was made that the telegraphist (originally doesn’t have a title). In the introductory paragraph of In the Cage, we only have a sense of what she does through a description of her daily activities at work. She does not immediately have a title, instead it is inferred from the identification of the “…the other telegraphist…”. Her work is generally menial and boring to her, until she picks up on the scandal between Captain Everard and Lady Bradeen. The highlights of her day are the rare moments in which people she knows from outside of work, come into send telegraphs. Specifically: “That made it an emotion the more lively—… to see any one come to whom she knew, as she called it, outside, and who could add something to the poor identity of her function” (James 117). Her work is repetitive and even physically tiring as her forearm aches with the constant motion of reaching across the counter, giving out stamps, and finding change (James 117). Later, her feelings about her work change and the environment around her becomes increasingly anxious.
The passage I discussed for my close reading follows this idea that the city seems to awaken for the telegraphist as she now has affairs that lie outside of her work. Previously, her engagement and her work life are all she has to define her life. While the labor of the work is still very repetitive and tedious she seems to be completely disconnected with her reality as she prepares to encounter Everard. While the previous passage contains mostly details pertaining to her work setting, the latter passage about her work is intercut with her own thoughts outside of work. The telegraphist has a voice; we hear her own thoughts to herself, and also her intentions. This differs from the introduction into which she is confined to her cage and recounts the same occurrences day after day.While in the previous instance work is a feature of her body that she can’t escape, her new sense of purpose affords her the ability to compartmentalize her life with affairs that lie outside of work, essentially separating her mind from her body.
Working “In the Cage”
I’d like to make a connection between James’s In the Cage and Metropolis. The theme for the week is work, and it only seems necessary that I should define it and redefine it. The Merriam-Webster definition is, “activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something.” Merriam-Webster’s more physics-geared definition is “the transference of energy that is produced by the motion of the point of application of a force and is measured by multiplying the force and the displacement of its point of application in the line of action.” ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/work)
Both of these definitions involve an endpoint or some sort of productivity. In Metropolis, we see that the workers are doing mundane and somewhat pointless tasks. Although this is definitely seen as work in the film, it does not necessarily create a result. It mostly functions as a sort of class enforcer. The people who work (perform physical labor) are in a lower class than those who do not.
In In the Cage, the protagonist’s work and even her future husband’s work, also enforces her class. She is a telegraphist and her husband is a grocer. Their wages and the simplicity of their labor force them into a lower class.
Something else to note is that the workers in both the film and the novella are being trapped in their positions. The workers in the film are confined by the city below and forced by Frederson and somewhat by Grot. The protagonist in the novella is forced by her inability to get specialized training and later by the customers (She stays in the position to resolve the situation with Everard). In this way, work seems to no longer be a voluntary “exert[ion of ] strength” or “transference of energy,” but a forced position that has no end but to define the worker’s status and therefore his or her way of life.
What do students want from a library?
Power outlets and better signage.
At least that’s what a study at the University of Connecticut found.
Bibliography specs
The purpose of the preliminary bibliography is to give a sense of the direction your research is taking—which sources have been helpful to you so far, where you’re focusing your investigations, etc.
There’s no minimum number of sources (because more is not necessarily better—it’s not like you get a point for each source or something), but ten or fifteen is the right ballpark. Remember that some of these sources are going to turn out to be irrelevant, and some others are going to end up pointing you to new, important sources.
Have separate sections for primary and secondary sources.
Please use either MLA or Chicago style. I don’t care which, but be consistent.
Question: Can (or rather, may) I cite Wikipedia?
The short answer is: not on this bibliography. (I’m sure there’s a Wikipedia entry on your research topic, but including it won’t tell me anything about where your research is going.) In general, however, I fully subscribe to Alan Liu’s excellent Wikipedia policy, which is described here.
The usual rules apply. Use a legible non-Cambria font; double-sided printing is fine, etc.
Gratuitous robot video:
