Link to electronic resource at library
This is sort of a "moral panic" book, but there are some interesting parts. Worth skimming the chapter on the military-nintendo complex.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
it isn't new to me but still surprising
It seems to me that there has been a continuing pattern of militarization of society in the U.S. Hasn’t military combat been one of the most attractive stories in TV drama and films industries? We had, in the past, movies and TV series like James Bond, Combat, Rambo, Delta Force, Navy Seal, GI Jane, etc. I do not remember all those movies that came out in earlier days but I do remember that when we played battles we were mimicking American films. In a society where juntas used to rule the country, militarization of society was just common daily life. We were all virtual citizen soldiers. We had two to three hours of military training in high school, although the government later changed the curriculum and dropped the mandatory training from public school. I mean that militarization of society should not be considered a symptom exclusively of information society and game industry. ROTC has existed in college campus in decades. It has been on every corners of the planet where political and commercial interests met gun power. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware of, U.S.’s direct (military) and indirect (such as CIA) involvements in coups have been debating issue in almost every coup case. It will take long time to talk about this, so I will skip that part.
Of course, anyway, Stahl’s nice summary as to how fake reality in games become real reality in battle field tell us a dismal image of the modern entertainment industry, or industry-like society. Television reality cooked up through embedded reporters and publicities successfully maintain a low-intensity war at living rooms of all households. And after the news, juveniles, sometimes adults, of the household go back to their rooms to play more-than-real video games. Sooner or later, the juveniles would enlist army reserves. Who knows whether the juvenile later will be hired by private militia companies which provide security service when government officials visit a battle field for publicity purpose accompanying reporters? Chances are, if the juveniles are smart enough, they can be Dustin Hoffmans in the film “Wag the Dog,” and will be picked up to carry out low-intensity war. And there is money that energizes this seemingly never-ending loop.
Yes, I agree that the network has provided the best railway for the never-satisfied locomotive to race through all over the society and that “like reality’s most intimate counterpart, the dream, virtuous war requires a critical awakening if we are not to sleepwalk through the manifold travesties of war, whether between states or tribes, classes or castes, genders, or generations” (p. 127).
Of course, anyway, Stahl’s nice summary as to how fake reality in games become real reality in battle field tell us a dismal image of the modern entertainment industry, or industry-like society. Television reality cooked up through embedded reporters and publicities successfully maintain a low-intensity war at living rooms of all households. And after the news, juveniles, sometimes adults, of the household go back to their rooms to play more-than-real video games. Sooner or later, the juveniles would enlist army reserves. Who knows whether the juvenile later will be hired by private militia companies which provide security service when government officials visit a battle field for publicity purpose accompanying reporters? Chances are, if the juveniles are smart enough, they can be Dustin Hoffmans in the film “Wag the Dog,” and will be picked up to carry out low-intensity war. And there is money that energizes this seemingly never-ending loop.
Yes, I agree that the network has provided the best railway for the never-satisfied locomotive to race through all over the society and that “like reality’s most intimate counterpart, the dream, virtuous war requires a critical awakening if we are not to sleepwalk through the manifold travesties of war, whether between states or tribes, classes or castes, genders, or generations” (p. 127).
This is perhaps (certainly) off-topic with regard to today's readings, but I found this article about Google too interesting to pass up.
Apparently, a new variety of gas pumps (Pump 2.0?) will come equipped with an internet connection. Straying motorists will be able to pull into the gas station and use Google Maps to get back on course. Google claims that they won't be providing ad content, and I find that particularly interesting. It seems that this would be a perfect opportunity for Google's trademark ad-based form of income generation; who better to benefit from some well-placed suggestions regarding, say, where to stop for lunch in Iowa City than some guy on his way from Chicago to Des Moines who got off the highway, mixed up Muscatine and Lower Muscatine, and is now pulling into the service station after spending half an hour driving discombobulated-ly up and down the Coralville strip? Google claims that they're eschewing the profit motive out of pure altruism; simply because they want to provide services wherever and whenever people need them. I'm skeptical, of course, although I haven't yet settled on a solid conspiracy theory to explain why Google might be doing this. Is it just another way of ensuring that people are entirely dependent on Google's products and services - the way a dealer might give an aspiring junkie his first few hits for free? Or is there more to it?
Mark, if this post doesn't suffice to eradicate the specter of a black mark beside my name, I promise to post something more on-topic later today.
Apparently, a new variety of gas pumps (Pump 2.0?) will come equipped with an internet connection. Straying motorists will be able to pull into the gas station and use Google Maps to get back on course. Google claims that they won't be providing ad content, and I find that particularly interesting. It seems that this would be a perfect opportunity for Google's trademark ad-based form of income generation; who better to benefit from some well-placed suggestions regarding, say, where to stop for lunch in Iowa City than some guy on his way from Chicago to Des Moines who got off the highway, mixed up Muscatine and Lower Muscatine, and is now pulling into the service station after spending half an hour driving discombobulated-ly up and down the Coralville strip? Google claims that they're eschewing the profit motive out of pure altruism; simply because they want to provide services wherever and whenever people need them. I'm skeptical, of course, although I haven't yet settled on a solid conspiracy theory to explain why Google might be doing this. Is it just another way of ensuring that people are entirely dependent on Google's products and services - the way a dealer might give an aspiring junkie his first few hits for free? Or is there more to it?
Mark, if this post doesn't suffice to eradicate the specter of a black mark beside my name, I promise to post something more on-topic later today.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Some fallacies in Ronfeldt and Arquilla's article
While they do make some valid points about the changing nature of warfare, some of R and A's assertions are either strikingly naive or too obviously emanating from their own presumable ideological narrative. To their credit, the timing of the article (2001) does account for some of these fallacies that are more evident in retrospect. I'll give some examples.
- From the very beginning they talk about the "dark side" (terrorists, druglords and other villains) and "bright side" (social activists, Zapatistas, Black Bloc anarchists and other presumably decent folk) of netwar, which is a ridiculously reductive (or doctrinaire) way of looking at things. People who go to initially peaceful protests and end up beaten by the cops because anarchists show up and cause trouble might disagree with the authors' naively idealistic portrayal of the Black Blocs. A lot of left-wingers see Black Bloc anarchists simply as ideologically confused middle-class troublemakers who travel around Europe looking for opportunities to stir up some aggro. On the other hand, what about groups like Hamas or FARC? Are they good or bad guys? They could be considered either social radicals or terrorists (and in the case of FARC, drug smugglers as well).
- They misinterpret the significance of acts of netwar such as the Battle of Seattle as examples of a dominant type of conflict. The Battle of Seattle and the subsequent anti-G8 protest-turned-riot in Genoa (which I'm surprised they don't mention) gave the authorities the excuse to encroach on civil rights and to deal more repressively than before with dissent. If anything, authoritarian and fascistic tendencies in Europe have become stronger after Genoa.
- "The network appears to be the next major form of organization - long after tribes, hierarchies, and markets" - wait a minute, but aren't tribes and markets deeply hierarchical?
- "Many centuries ago, for example, the rise of hierarchical forms of organization, which displaced traditional, consultative tribal forms, was initially attended, in parts of the world, by the rise of ferocious chieftains bent on military conquest, and of violent secret societies run according to rank" - this made my day. Where do these guys get their historical information? Video games?
- They mention the "new generation of social revolutionaries, radicals and activists" whose "identities and loyalties may shift from the nation state to the transnational level" - this is almost as bad as the previous quote. What do they mean by "new"? Like, for example, 19th century socialist or anarchist internationalists?
- "The Zapatista movement [..] shows that social netwar can put a democratizing autocracy on the defensive and pressure it to continue adopting reforms". Oh, really? I would love to hear about some socially progressive reforms undertaken by the Mexican "autocracy" as a result of Zapatista pressure.
- "Deterrence and coercion will not disappear entirely as tools of statecraft; but, more than often, persuasion will have to be tried". This is little more than liberal wishful thinking. The Russians have been very "persuasive" in Chechnya, haven't they?
- "For the United States and its friends and allies, one challenge will be to learn to network better with each other" - oh, god, not the Eurocentric "multipolar world" argument again (admittedly, this was 2001). Maybe it's just personal bias, but this sort of argument makes me cringe.
- but here's the WORST paragraph in the whole text: middle of page 25. For one thing, I can't understand why any educated person would quote Samuel Huntington uncritically (after all, he's basically a far-right loon with a disturbingly reductive understanding of history, the academic equivalent of Ann Coulter). And the "broad contention between Western liberal ideas [...] versus Muslim convictions" is a concept that doesn't really make sense. There is no single set of "Western" or "Muslim" values. Furthermore, free market economics and globalization can cohabit perfectly well with sharia, face veils and beheadings - think Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. As for the "terrorist mindset" being "tribal, medieval and absolutist" and "challenge the 21st century with 13th century ideals" that's also a bit laughable. 13th century Baghdad was probably more cosmopolitan and progressive than any place in Europe. And radical Islam is based more on a form of extremist egalitarianism than on "absolutist" principles.
- "But while the United states may have the edge in the 'battle of the story'..." - but do they? The neoconservative ideological assumptions that influenced Bush's foreign policy aren't dominant any longer even in the US, let alone the entire world.
- From the very beginning they talk about the "dark side" (terrorists, druglords and other villains) and "bright side" (social activists, Zapatistas, Black Bloc anarchists and other presumably decent folk) of netwar, which is a ridiculously reductive (or doctrinaire) way of looking at things. People who go to initially peaceful protests and end up beaten by the cops because anarchists show up and cause trouble might disagree with the authors' naively idealistic portrayal of the Black Blocs. A lot of left-wingers see Black Bloc anarchists simply as ideologically confused middle-class troublemakers who travel around Europe looking for opportunities to stir up some aggro. On the other hand, what about groups like Hamas or FARC? Are they good or bad guys? They could be considered either social radicals or terrorists (and in the case of FARC, drug smugglers as well).
- They misinterpret the significance of acts of netwar such as the Battle of Seattle as examples of a dominant type of conflict. The Battle of Seattle and the subsequent anti-G8 protest-turned-riot in Genoa (which I'm surprised they don't mention) gave the authorities the excuse to encroach on civil rights and to deal more repressively than before with dissent. If anything, authoritarian and fascistic tendencies in Europe have become stronger after Genoa.
- "The network appears to be the next major form of organization - long after tribes, hierarchies, and markets" - wait a minute, but aren't tribes and markets deeply hierarchical?
- "Many centuries ago, for example, the rise of hierarchical forms of organization, which displaced traditional, consultative tribal forms, was initially attended, in parts of the world, by the rise of ferocious chieftains bent on military conquest, and of violent secret societies run according to rank" - this made my day. Where do these guys get their historical information? Video games?
- They mention the "new generation of social revolutionaries, radicals and activists" whose "identities and loyalties may shift from the nation state to the transnational level" - this is almost as bad as the previous quote. What do they mean by "new"? Like, for example, 19th century socialist or anarchist internationalists?
- "The Zapatista movement [..] shows that social netwar can put a democratizing autocracy on the defensive and pressure it to continue adopting reforms". Oh, really? I would love to hear about some socially progressive reforms undertaken by the Mexican "autocracy" as a result of Zapatista pressure.
- "Deterrence and coercion will not disappear entirely as tools of statecraft; but, more than often, persuasion will have to be tried". This is little more than liberal wishful thinking. The Russians have been very "persuasive" in Chechnya, haven't they?
- "For the United States and its friends and allies, one challenge will be to learn to network better with each other" - oh, god, not the Eurocentric "multipolar world" argument again (admittedly, this was 2001). Maybe it's just personal bias, but this sort of argument makes me cringe.
- but here's the WORST paragraph in the whole text: middle of page 25. For one thing, I can't understand why any educated person would quote Samuel Huntington uncritically (after all, he's basically a far-right loon with a disturbingly reductive understanding of history, the academic equivalent of Ann Coulter). And the "broad contention between Western liberal ideas [...] versus Muslim convictions" is a concept that doesn't really make sense. There is no single set of "Western" or "Muslim" values. Furthermore, free market economics and globalization can cohabit perfectly well with sharia, face veils and beheadings - think Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. As for the "terrorist mindset" being "tribal, medieval and absolutist" and "challenge the 21st century with 13th century ideals" that's also a bit laughable. 13th century Baghdad was probably more cosmopolitan and progressive than any place in Europe. And radical Islam is based more on a form of extremist egalitarianism than on "absolutist" principles.
- "But while the United states may have the edge in the 'battle of the story'..." - but do they? The neoconservative ideological assumptions that influenced Bush's foreign policy aren't dominant any longer even in the US, let alone the entire world.
ECHELON
Perhaps everyone but me already knows all about this, but I did not discover it until this past summer. Its relevance to our subject matter will be obvious, as it demonstrates that the attempt at total surveillance is not science fiction, even if the reality of it might fall short of what some of the surveillants would hope. I first read about it because someone was claiming that it picks up transmissions from baby monitors, too.
The info is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
Learning history through videogames...and the result would be???
Just going to post a short one today since I'm presenting tomorrow.
I decided to post something that I won't be talking about tomorrow so I won't be repeating myself.
The question I had from reading Stahl's article was the role videogames could play in teaching history,
Learning through videogames is not a new concept. Cultural critics such as Steven Berlin Johnson has already said that videogames help players to learn how to strategize or to make quick decisions. In fact, there are many studies out there that argue on the positive effects videogames have on learning. What I find interesting though, is that the content of learning through videogames is mostly focused on learning skills (rather it is social, financial, or political) rather than classroom knowledge. This sounds right because learning through videogame is mostly done through roleplaying...experimenting with new identities. However, after reading Stahl's article, I began to question whether it would be possible to learning classroom materials through videogames. Out of every subject, history (and maybe political science to some extent) seems to be the best candidate to become the classroom material that videogames can teach. After all, a lot of videogames that Stahl talks about are based on historical events (WWII, Vietnam War, Persian War, etc.). So for instance, a player playing Delta Force: Black Hawk Down would learn at least a historical fact that event occurred in Mogadishu, Somalia. But then the question is even though the player may be learning historical facts, will s/he be learning the historical truth (the historical context)? Especially in the era of what Stahl calls "gametime," when the temporal space between real world events and the release of videogames on those events is closing down? Isn't history an interpretation of an event, a result that comes from a long period of reflection? If there is no reflection, the historical content (not the facts but the rhetorics) in the videogames would just be echoes of the dominant rhetoric of the current event. Learning history through videogames would be great since players would get to learn the historical facts. The part I'm worried about is whether they'll learn the historical truth...especially in the era of BUSH and his cronies.
I decided to post something that I won't be talking about tomorrow so I won't be repeating myself.
The question I had from reading Stahl's article was the role videogames could play in teaching history,
Learning through videogames is not a new concept. Cultural critics such as Steven Berlin Johnson has already said that videogames help players to learn how to strategize or to make quick decisions. In fact, there are many studies out there that argue on the positive effects videogames have on learning. What I find interesting though, is that the content of learning through videogames is mostly focused on learning skills (rather it is social, financial, or political) rather than classroom knowledge. This sounds right because learning through videogame is mostly done through roleplaying...experimenting with new identities. However, after reading Stahl's article, I began to question whether it would be possible to learning classroom materials through videogames. Out of every subject, history (and maybe political science to some extent) seems to be the best candidate to become the classroom material that videogames can teach. After all, a lot of videogames that Stahl talks about are based on historical events (WWII, Vietnam War, Persian War, etc.). So for instance, a player playing Delta Force: Black Hawk Down would learn at least a historical fact that event occurred in Mogadishu, Somalia. But then the question is even though the player may be learning historical facts, will s/he be learning the historical truth (the historical context)? Especially in the era of what Stahl calls "gametime," when the temporal space between real world events and the release of videogames on those events is closing down? Isn't history an interpretation of an event, a result that comes from a long period of reflection? If there is no reflection, the historical content (not the facts but the rhetorics) in the videogames would just be echoes of the dominant rhetoric of the current event. Learning history through videogames would be great since players would get to learn the historical facts. The part I'm worried about is whether they'll learn the historical truth...especially in the era of BUSH and his cronies.
Lessig Talk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)