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

[Prashant Kumar]

I would say that *scholarship* generally doesn't have the wherewithal
necessary to tie all those things together. The problem is methodological;
the more moving pieces you add, the harder it is to say anything really all
that insightful - nevermind substantiable. And let's keep in mind the
reductionistic/holistic dichotomy to which you allude is itself the product
of reductionistic thinking.

The speed at which influence propagates, the scale, and the ways it changes
scholarship and scholars are all not irrelevant, and, I fear, confounding
factors. The methodology intimated in that article will produce great
narratives, but I remain skeptical.

P.


On 5 April 2013 14:06, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

>
> To quote her:
>
> "The assumption that culture is technology's most important product is
> unique to our field. American studies scholars who work on technology are
> not bound to tell the story of particular objects; nor are they limited by
> particular historical periods. They begin with questions about the present,
> questions about how we imagine ourselves and how that imagination is
> facilitated by technological forms. In so doing they have arrived at
> counterintuitive insights that enable individuals to better evaluate the
> actual impact of technologies on their daily lives."
>
> It's almost the inverse of the Sokal Affair
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
>
> Let's face it, Postmoderism took a big hit with that one, but I would
> maintain that reductionist science did not fare so well, either. There has
> been a chill- let's call it A Cultural Divide, just to keep things
> Pyncho-snovian- since then, whereafter, each side retreated to their so
> called neutral corners. And what was/is at stake? Beyond funding,
> everything. STS is not eclectic enough for my taste. Okay, it's not hip
> enough. It can't keep up with the beat the way American studies can. It
> doesn't do literature for one thing, except maybe SF, not to mention
> hip-hop, social media, etc. STS, as insightful as it is, does not have the
> wherewithal to tie these disparate but rapidly evolving phenonmenon
> together.
>
> But these hugely transformative phenomenon are technologically based, and
> it is technology which underlies them and ties them together. She's saying
> that American studies is, by its very eclectic nature, able to cover this
> effect of technology. AS has the ability to make clear the technological
> basis of culture in all its quirkiness and grandeur. American studies has
> the critical fire power to deal with arrogance on both sides of the divide
> and not lose track of the fact that it is technology which is making that
> possible, right here, right now. AS is not afraid of being
> self-conscious- but ecourages it. It is sturdy enough to acknowledge that
> its way of seeing things has been partly created by technology- some of its
> "truth" is shaped by the technology it uses in it's investigation; sturdy
> enough because it does not take itself for granted. This is particularly
> important as technology itself lurches toward self-consciousness.
>
> The article is wonderful, and too long and involved to quote at length,
> but spends time discussing the role that technology has played in shaping
> cultural phenomenon from labor relations to racism to ideas about
> transcendence, among much other relevant topics, including an implicit
> yearning for redemption.
>
> I was reminded of Mondaugen's story- the stout Afrikaaner, on horseback,
> with rifle slung across his lap, making clear the source of his
> self-righteousness: "Our Redeemer." But was it his race, his genes, his
> culture, his rifle, what, that made feel redeemed? Not sure, except that he
> seemed only capable of conceiving of redemption in terms of dominance. And
> what was the source of his dominance?
>
> American studies can make sense of the non-linear- the rude intrusion of
> capital based technology into the mythos of the American Pastoral: the
> splintering of Huck and Jim's raft by the steamboat, without losing sight
> of The System on which both are co-dependent, and which is co-dependent on
> them- the idealism that underlies them both, and its place in the American
> Dream.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
> To: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>
> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 8:25 pm
> Subject: Re: Techno Redemption (WAS Re: M&D c50 The Golem)
>
>  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.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130408/4f2339bd/attachment.html>