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

[Prashant Kumar]

Let me respond without the crassness. I did read the article. But it seems
to me that what she proposes - incorporating the methodology and at least
some of the focus of what is now called STS into American Studes - doesn't
seem especially exciting. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of the methods of
AS, but isn't the trend towards interdisciplinarity in the humanities
because people are now recognising the porousness and artificiality of this
sort of demarcation? If so, why does she want to import STS into AS?
Doesn't one, by relaxing disciplinary boundaries, automagically confer AS
status to STS works?

I get that her field hasn't studied this, but others have, and based on my
reading of the article, I don't undertand how ASTS would differ greatly
from STS works written on 'murican tech.

P.


On 5 April 2013 04:29, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

> Again, she's making the case that technology studies also be included in
> "American Studies," her specialty. I know you have institutional access.
> I'm surprised you didn't read the article. Why don't you check out her
> bibliography and some of her references?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
> To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 10:08 am
> Subject: Re: Techno Redemption (WAS Re: M&D c50 The Golem)
>
>              " 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."  "
>
>  See: literally anything written on the Manhattan Project.
>
>  As for : "Nor have they been written with a particular focus on
> interdisciplinary connections that embed everyday actions within their
> larger political and cultural systems"
>
>  Isn't this the very point of technology studies? WTF have the scholars
> she refers to been doing?
>
>  P.
>
>
> On 5 April 2013 00:38, Markekohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>  I second Alice on this. Carolyn seems wrong on the face of it. Pushing
>> for niche insights maybe.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>  *From:* alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
>> *Date:* April 4, 2013, 9:34:43 AM EDT
>> *To:* pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> *Subject:* *Re: Techno Redemption (WAS Re: M&D c50 The Golem)*
>>
>>    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/20130405/fab208a2/attachment.html>