On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:40:35 -0500 Sam Lanfranco
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Firmly held opinions on the social role of information and communication
> technology (a.k.a. "the internet") suffer from a problem. They assume (or
> presume) that one is either "for it" or "against it", or still trying to
> make up one's mind.
Some views suffer from a terrible tendency to
generalisation and reductionism. I actually don't think
that all firmly held views suffer from this problem.
> There is a grave error in analysis, or oversight, here that puts us on a
> very slippery slope. First, my dialectical vision (thought and practice
> are the furnace from which we forge our reality) of ICT is that it is a
> space for social process, and one in which humans are able to REPRODUCE
> MOST OF THE GOOD AND BAD that they have forged in the literal, religious
> and psychological territories we now inhabit.
I don't disagree but I have to say that I do find some of
the the rhetorical devices irksome such as invoking the
support/involvement of the audience i.e. its "us on a
slippery slope". It reminds me very much of an evangelical
witness. The terms used are very black and white: GOOD AND
BAD", grave, saints etc. " All we need is a bit of
brimstone.
> I don't think it is inherently benevolent. If I and those
I work with
> thought that we would be sitting on a sunny beach drinking rum and
> celebrating the fact that this particular technology is going to save us.
> The fact that we are in the trenches trying to push
> history this way, rather than that way, is evidence
> that we do not see it as an "inherently benovolent"
> technological force.
Can anyone join? Sounds like a righteous group. Except that
I might have to give up drinking.
> We see it as a battle ground for common struggle. To miss that point is to
> miss everything. To just have firmly held opinions is a luxury of those
> for whom the outcome doesn't really matter. That is part of the "If I'm
> okay, eveything must be okay", or "Nothing can be done so nothing matters"
> crowd.
See my first comment about generalisation and reductionism.
Problem with battle grounds is that they usually
involve spilling someone's blood and usually because
someone has a vision that conflicts with another persons
vision. You could substitute religion or ideology for
vision.
> In fact, the metaphysical element in the vision (and all
"visions" have
> this element) is that it is a territory in which the forces of democracy
> and accoutability need to carry on the self-same fights that we carry out
> on a day to day basis in literal space.
Do you ever get to relax or do "we" gloriously sacrifice
ourselves on the altar of "democracy and accountability"
> To understand this is not to see this space as inherently benovolent,
> quite the reverse. It is to see it as a high stakes territory. To not
> understand this and sit firmly in the technophobe or technophile camp is
> to be away frolicing at the beach while the world burns.
Whoops - I went away to the beach on the weekend with
my family - we even did a bit of frolicing - I
actually saw it as time well spent, but am I now
condemned to the flames? (pun intended :->)
> We have two choices, to sit and wait (in vain) for deliverance, while
> having this or that firmly held opinion, or to get in the trenches and
> work.
Does this mean that only those in the trenches will be
delivered?
>While many of us in the trenches will be see to lean
this way or
> that way on a give day, we do believe that the right place to be is in the
> trenches. The struggle to realize a potential is quite different from a
> belief that things will come of their own accord.
>
> At least, that is the view from the trenches.
Can I suggest that the view from the trenches might be
a little limited? Why not climb out of the trenches
and walk up the hill and look out on the fields on the
other side of the battlefield. There are animals
grazing and crops growing and people working. Walk
down the hill and talk to the people working there.
They might not be dead keen on going to war, but they
are probably helping to build their community space.
My view on trench warfare is that it is bloody and
senseless. I much prefer the position taken by my
grandfather in the 1st World War - he went as an
ambulanceman who did not bare arms.
Craig
An agnostic peasant on the information battlefield
---------------------------------------------------------
Craig Silva, Electronic Outreach Program Officer
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Melbourne Australia
e-mail: [log in to unmask], Tel: 61 3 9345 3211
Post: PO Box 154, Carlton Sth Victoria. 3053. Australia
---------------------------------------------------------
|
