From Warfare to Welfare

From Warfare to Welfare is Jennifer Light's critique that urban planning was significantly impacted by United States defense planning. The book is well written, easy to read, and captivating. The pictures of urban development from the past few decades also really help to drive home her point.

My problem with reading books like this is that they're hard to critically engage. A lot of historical research was done, and I don't have enough of a background in American History to argue other points. For instance, there are so many different facets presented about the technologies that were used as roadmaps to promote urban dispersion that it is difficult to go back and uncover ulterior explanations.

Perhaps this is one of the problems with being a younger student. A good deal of what I end up believing needs to be taken at face value, and critiqued at a later point.

The rhetorical turn that I enjoyed was Light's realization that urban planning was only marginally effected by defense. That is, although the book focused on the interests of individuals like city planners and politicians to collaborate and work towards a common defense goal, it never materialized. It's a great bit of stake inoculation that makes the whole book more effective.

More on archetypes within the Digital Sublime

Mosco identifies the trickster archetype within the rhetoric of internet myths. But what other archetypes can be discovered? For instance, I believe his trickster may have roots in Jungian psychoanalysis. If so, are there instances of the wise old man archetype or the earth mother?

I've been thinking about these questions for a while; I'm not sure of the answer. Perhaps these would be good questions for Mosco.

The Trickster in the Digital Sublime

I really like the idea of a myth incorporating a trickster. It could also be a useful tool for analysis in the future. Identifying tricksters or mischief makers seems like it could be a useful tell for finding myths in society. For instance, some NexGen Librarians have come under fire for being upstarts within the profession. Using Mosco's myth analysis, what does this tell us about how the librarian profession views itself? What what ways are the NexGen librarians tricksters?

The Digital Sublime

Any time I hear the phrase "the end of," I'll think of the Digital Sublime. Mosco explores myths of cyberspace and discusses the rhetoric of authors who prolong the illusion of a technologically deterministic future. By discussing myths of cyberspace embodied by 'the end of history, geography, and politics' and also comparing cyberspace to past technologies like the telegraph, radio, telephone, and television, the reader is first galvanized to doubt the prolonged impact of the Internet, and then primed for Mosco's counterpoint; things really aren't all that different than they used to be.

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this one. One problem that I have with the book is that it focuses on issues at the macro level. Yes, Mosco does make his point that the Internet won't change a whole lot of the social sphere, but I would have liked to see more inclusion of real individuals from within the social sphere. Instead of focusing so heavily on Fukuyama's End of History and Daniel Bell, how about some anecdotal evidence to coincide with the argument?

As an aside, the Thor myth that he uses to tie the book together was useful for keeping my attention through the entire book. Also, I found the myth sections of the book much easier to read that the final analysis of the socio-political events that contradict the cyberspace myths. Perhaps that is one of the main lessons I learned from the book. Myths are more alluring because they are easier to remember, more predictable, and more fun.

Neff & Stark "Permanently Beta"

Neff wins my applause for combining a shitload of subjects that are interesting, fun, and relevant, and then combining them with rhetoric. The final article assigned for 810 this week is about the rhetoric of production in the Internet; specifically the never-ending beta stage, the community development rhetoric, and design in process product. Culture, technology, rhetoric...I'm envious of her work.

For her visit to class I'm interested in her academic background, how she became interested in the subjects she writes about, and what kind of support she gets from her department. Additionally, I'd like to know how she feels about the constructionist nature of her work. Any research is prone to criticism from others (that's an understatement), but it seems as though the type of work she does may draw more criticism towards its methods than other research. I'd really like to know how she defends herself against critics.

I'm really looking forward to the visit.

Neff's Entrepreneurial Labor

Models and new media workers really are the same people. Neff, et al depict a great way to advance an academic career: pick two interesting, but seemingly unrelated subjects, then compare and contrast.

Again, as with Neff's last article, I'm forced to wonder if more is going on than meets the eye. Neff traces two rhetorics for employment and says they are the same. But are all new media entrepreneurial jobs like this?

Another thing that bothered me about this article was that the modeling occupation can become enveloped by new media content producers. They overlap in many ways, because although models aren't coders, they can provide the cultural content that these coders are developing. Neff also doesn't limit her analysis to new media workers as programmers, so it would be easy to see how models could belong to both industries simultaneously. I guess this isn't really so much of a problem, but I would have liked to see this angle built on.

Finally, how about comparing academics to these two occupations. We can see some overlap in the work between models, new media entrepreneurial labor, and academics. For instance, academics need to constantly keep reading and honing their skills in much the same way that programmers need to continue to learn new skills. The compulsory networking that Neff talks about is also vital for academic work. So in my mind, there is now another question that needs to be answered. How far do the categories that Neff draws about models and new media workers extend throughout the postindustrial workforce? For instance, is there glamour to be seen in working in the electronics department in Wal-Mart?

Neff's Changing Place of Corporate Culture

Who knew that new media was fueled by after-hours parties? Moreover, who knew that schmoozing and tabloids fueled the industry? Interestingly enough, Neff argues that after hour parties had a fundamental role for the growth and geographic space of new media.

I'm not entirely convinced. There seems to be something missing from this analysis. People working within the same industry attending similar events in nearby location. Are the parties really a key ingredient for the geography of new media, or is it possibly more of a side effect? I like the argument that creativity breeds creativity and that is a reason why these business that were 'liberated' by network technology remained geographically close. But this creativity would not only occur at parties. It seems as though the parties may be an ingredient in a bigger social phenomena.

Perhaps Neff isn't trying to argue that the parties are a driving force, but they should still be considered in the stew of industrial productivity. That is, the parties are driving industry, but are still an important part of the entire process.