Techno Redemption (WAS Re: M&D c50 The Golem)

[alice wellintown]

This simply isn't true. American scholars have studied this matter in great
depth. Moreover,  the issue of stewardship is an essential part of the
study of technics in America, and in nearly every department at
Universities in America. the ethics, the ideological forces embedded in
technics is the focus of intense scholarship. I can provide a long list of
the books I've read on this. Most of these are common on syllabi at
Amrfican colleges.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:34 AM, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

>
> "Slow and Low Progress," or Why American Studies Should Do Technology
> *Author: *de la Peña, Carolyn
> *Publication info: *American Quarterly 58. 3 (Sep 2006): 915-941,981.
>
> This essay suggests that scholars in American studies have something to
> learn from Mary Shelley. We in the United States frequently tell stories of
> technological redemption and technological damnation. We do not, however,
> spend much time considering stories of technological stewardship. A legacy
> of positivism has embedded our political, social, and cultural systems with
> a disturbing patina of technological "neutrality." And, in many ways, we as
> scholars have contributed to this legacy of positivism by failing to
> critique technology as both substance and ideology in American cultural
> life. The field of American studies has largely left questions of
> technology to others, in spite of our early leadership in innovative
> methods of technological analysis and cultural critique. And while
> discipline-based inquiries into technology have been immensely useful at
> revealing particular histories and consequences of American technology,
> they have not been primarily focused on issues of diversity, equity, and
> justice that are fundamental to our field. Nor have they been written with
> a particular focus on interdisciplinary connections that embed everyday
> actions within their larger political and cultural systems
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> To: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>
> Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:47 pm
> Subject: Re: M&D c50 The Golem
>
>
>  “The function of science fiction is not only to predict the future, but
> to prevent it."   Ray Bradbury
> *
> *On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, wrote:
>
>> A' and it's worth pointing out that if Doc Frankenstein would've just
>> cut the monster a little slack and exercised a little responsibility for
>> his creation, things might have turned out better. Is it too late? I'd like
>> to know.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> To: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>
>> Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 10:09 pm
>> Subject: Re: M&D c50 The Golem
>>
>> Mary Shelly resurrected the Golem most nobly. And it still has legs.
>>
>>  Frankenstein is about hubris, as is the Golem.
>> Technology is Modern Hubris.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130404/af24e6ae/attachment.html>