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

[alice wellintown]

A bad habit. To get the attention of her readers this scholar employs the
common hook, a claim that isn't total BS but one that does not square with
the truth. Is she ignorant of the truth? Perhaps. More likely, she has
developed the habit too common in scholarship today, she has introduced a
fine hyperbole, fine in the sense that she is splitting hairs. While she
provides history, she ignores the obvious, that is, as you note here P, the
competition from every special area of study, along with the major trends
after the 1960s, from feminism, to cultural studies, to hyphenated-American
studies from an ever expanding pluralism, made the study of technics a
minor, not major focus.
On Thursday, April 4, 2013, Prashant Kumar wrote:

> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130405/a567451c/attachment.html>