From Studyplace

Contents 1 Discussion 2 Comment 3 Reaction papers 3.1 Marion Duignan 3.2 Aaron Chia-Yuan Hung 3.3 Jessica Lowden 3.4 Bianca Mona 3.5 Devayani Tirthali

[edit] Discussion

What is the difference between inheritance and devolution?

Give an example of the way your parents may be "devolving" their capital to you.

What might be an argument for the relationship between advanced industrialization and the "sexual revolution" or the entry of women into the salaried workforce?

[edit] Comment

We were talking about wikis in the last class, and the affordances and constraints it offers in allowing certain forms of communication. I was thinking, though, that we might also distinguish between the technology of wikis (i.e. the software that allows people to edit, the syntax it follows, etc.) and the social practice of using wikis. It might be a misleading to call StudyPlace a wiki because it leads people to think that it should prompt people to create Wikipedia-like articles, where authorship is slightly more concealed. We can use the wiki software to do any number of things; we can use it as a message board, or as a venue to play games, or even engage in synchronous chatting if, for some reason, two people do decide to simultaneously and continuously respond on one another's comments. We had talked about the meaning of an action as something that has to emerge through social interaction, so we shouldn't define the "meaning" (and purpose) of a wiki software to mean Wikipedia-like entries.

It leads me to wonder who decided the structure of Wikipedia, and whether the fact that is is called "Wikipedia" leads people to think of creating encyclopedia-like articles. Certainly, if I made an entry that isn't encyclopedia-like, I will be instructed to change (or more probably, it would be deleted). Aaron Hung 11:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Reaction papers

Assignment

Each reaction paper should be between 500 and 1000 words long. Each should minimally focus on one of the issues raised in one of the required readings in term of one of the other required or recommended readings. Maximally, and particularly as the course progresses, the reaction papers should cross reference more of the required or recommended readings, including those for earlier sections.

Guidelines

1. Write up your paper on a word processor like Microsoft Word
2. Find your name on the list and click on "Edit". It should open up a box that shows a space for you to enter text
3. Copy and paste your paper from the word processor onto the StudyPlace window
4. Click on "Show Preview" if you want to see what it looks like
5. Click on "Save Page" to finalize your changes
6. Email a copy of your paper to Professor Varenne and Aaron Hung. If you are stuck at any point, feel free to email Aaron.
7. Feel free to comment on other students' assignments. You can put your comments at the bottom of the other student's paper. Be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~. This will automatically sign and date your comment.

You can also watch a video tutorial of this on Youtube.

The assignment should be on StudyPlace by the time class starts on the day that it is due.

[edit] Marion Duignan

What is "technology"?

Some "thing" found or invented and when used enables some other thing to occur that couldn't or didn't occur beforehand.

What is "culture"?

The behaviors and beliefs held by a particular group of human beings.

What is "education"?

Any number of physical or mental experiences felt, witnessed, thought about, copied and/or practiced that leave such an impression on the mind as to change/influence a person or people's manner of thinking or acting.

Reaction 1

I’m annoyed at the semantical debate in “Difficult Collective Deliberations: Anthropological Notes Toward a Theory of Education” – just that “deliberate, deliberative, deliberating” part – it made me think of Marx’s beef with the Young-Hegelians over the use of ‘“phrases”…they themselves are only opposing other phrases, and that they are in no way combating the real (my emphasis) existing world when they are merely combating the phrases of this world.’ I understand the argument made for having to clarify a word and the seeming necessity – but the fact remains that the whole idea of debating semantically conjures up an affronting wall to my sensibilities and my eyes begin to glaze over. I'm definitely not a philosopher.

For sure the readings make one think – but to what effect? Having taught in a wide variety of educational venues I’ve seen how culture can and does dis-able. I can now label my own reactions and beliefs over time as to how I or the institutions I’ve worked for viewed students: deprived, different, and/or (culturally) disabled. The effect, of course, would be in my determining how I can best serve my students. Somehow, I’m still left feeling somewhat powerless - at least at this stage in my reading and ability to assess and implement what I've learned.

Now I’m more aware of how my culture tries to control me, how it does control me – how I go about some of the time really unaware and/or forgetting that I’m “moved” along. I myself have stepped in and out of the “line” my whole adult life and depending on the citizens I’ve encountered I’ve either been admired or scorned or held in bewilderment for the life and career paths I’ve chosen: Painter, Graphic Designer, Language Teacher, Vagabond. So, now that I can acknowledge that I’m a bona fide deviant (LOL) I can really appreciate and testify to Garfinkel’s idea that an active seeker is “continually obliged to leave aside earlier knowledge and habits to deal with the real condition now standing in the way.” My grandfather used to always say that the only thing we’re sure of in life is change. Life is an education and education is “change” and we’ve to continually hit the “refresh” button to know where we stand. I’m aware of how I have constantly had to hit my mental “refresh” button over the years so that I could make the appropriate decisions to enable my survival in the society I’ve chosen to live in – and having had a choice as to the society I could live in I chose this American one because it was familiar and ultimately had qualities I admired over and above the rest.

I am struck by the super importance of communication as being education – that communication at all levels is ultimately all education – I like Marx’s line that “the real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections.” It ties into nearly what all the authors I’ve read so far in this class have mentioned or alluded to – the sociability– the movement – communication – politics of education. It’s all the aspects of living life. I’m getting sociologists, philosophers and anthropologists all mixed up now – it seems Marx was a bit of an anthropologist really, don’t you think?

--Marduignan 12:30, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Aaron Chia-Yuan Hung

We can consider the relationship between “technology” and “culture” by revisiting the “chicken and egg” discussion we had in class, during which we used the analogy to ponder what comes first: a technology, or the industry that produces it. This same analogy can be used with regards to “technology” and “culture” because it highlights the complex relationship between the two.

The technological deterministic view is generally associated with Marx (Marx, Engels, Pascal, Lough, & Magill, 1938), who had argued that all human societies face two constraints: natural and historical. Natural constraints refer to the physical environment, seasonal conditions, and natural resources that human societies find themselves in. It can also include biological constraints that humans are born with, which makes it easier (but not impossible) to live in certain environments over others. Historical constraints are the consequences of history that societies find themselves in. For example, the Europeans’ landing and settlement in America is a historical event that cannot be undone, and its consequence will continue to shape the future development of human history. These constraints are embedded within the material conditions of society, which permeate all fabric of society.

While these constraints limit human societies, it does not mean that we do not have the ability to shape their future. In Marx’s view, what has distinguished humans from animals is our ability to use technologies to extend beyond these constraints by letting us produce our own means of subsistence. Consequently, this makes technology (specifically, access and control) a crucial part of our existence, as it affects our means of production. As the means of production determine our material conditions, technology plays a crucial role in shaping societies.

Latour was also interested in how science and technology permeate society. He suggests that communities that engage in scientific practice produce what ultimately become “facts” in society. The traditional view of science sees it as a neutral endeavor, whereby the scientific method allows scientists (who know the method) to find out some truth in nature. But since our biology limits what our senses can perceive, we have to use instruments to access these otherwise invisible worlds. Within the design of these equipment is embedded the assumptions of nature that are accepted within the scientific community. Thus, Latour and Woolgar’s (1986) view differs from the traditional view in that they focus on the social practice of science. Their study of laboratory life shows us a set of rules and guidelines that govern the community that does scientific work, including what counts as accepted methodologies, equipment, language, and so on, which differ from what might be understood by laypeople, or even scientists in another discipline of research.

Both Marx’s and Latour’s view of technology takes us down two ways of looking at technology and culture. Marx’s view focuses more on the problem of access, for example, our present concern with the “digital divide”, and the haves and the have nots. It suggests that having access to technology means having control over the means of production and material conditions of society. Latour’s view looks at technology and science as tools and ideas that transform the way a society understands the world. It is not simply that scientists discover features of the natural world; it is also that technologies give us access to ways of thinking about the world and, consequently, our relationship with one another. This can best be understood through Varenne and McDermott’s (1995) argument of “culture as disability”, where they suggest that culture causes divides to happen when we try to distinguish a certain group of people from another. This resonates with Marx’s interpretation when we look at how technology and science allows us to make certain distinctions “valid”. For example, people who believe in standardized testing believe that it is a scientific way of discriminating academic performance. These beliefs create their own forms of divide, which often relates to those who have access to certain technologies (e.g. computers, the internet) or services (e.g. tutoring).

Another way to look at is it to focus on the social practices that emerge around a particular piece of technology. A technology is useless if there isn’t a community of people using it. This group of people will not only define its use today but also its possible trajectory in the future. The trajectory is uncertain because people may not always accept a preordained use, and different uses could lead to different outcomes. It might be useful to consider some of the differences between a scientific fact and a technology. With the exception of equipment made specifically for scientific practice, technologies are the concrete representations of science that laypeople have access to. The community of people using a particular technology is looser, and is not always concerned in establishing a set of rules on how to use a technology. By this, I mean that while it is likely that there will always be a group of people who want to tell others how to use a technology, not everyone might accept its decision. Institutions that try to regulate copyright, for example, will always have to deal with people who do not want to abide by the law (or their interpretation of the law).

In other words, people can interpret science and technology in their own way but since the scientific community is smaller and has a more specific set of practice, it is easier to ostracize a scientist for not doing it properly. There are people who continue to believe the flat earth theory, or that the moon landing was staged, but these people are usually considered unscientific morons. It is easier to screw around with technology, either because people don’t care or because there is harder for institutions to assert their authority.

---

Another note: I edited out this paragraph to reduce the word count. Also, it sounded like it was contradicting what I was saying:

Since the success of a technology often depends on the social practices that surround it, a technology that does not have a social practice connected (or a very small one), is in danger of failing. This has nothing to do with whether the technology is good or bad, but whether people have been able to incorporate it into their lives. If we trace the history of technology, we can see many inventions that never permeated society because there was not a critical mass to use it. For example, both electric and gas refrigerators were introduced to the public, and in many ways, the gas refrigerator was better, safer, and quieter, but because the large electric companies manufactured the electric refrigerators (General Electric was a big part of the industry, and not surprisingly, wanted more people using electricity), it turned out that we have electric refrigerators today (Cowan, 1985).

---

References

• Cowan, R. S. (1985). How the refrigerator got its hum. In D. A. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum (pp. 202-218). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Marx, K., Engels, F., Pascal, R., Lough, W., & Magill, C. P. (1938). The German ideology. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
• Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1995). Culture "as" disability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(3), 324-348.

[edit] Jessica Lowden

Culture, technology and science hold vastly different places in the lexicon of modern life. Culture is viewed as something which is passed down through generations, which is distinct to certain groups of people and which is not necessarily based on facts, but is an understanding of how people interact with one another based on certain group norms. Science, on the other hand, is generally accepted to be based on hard facts which have been proven by scientists working in labs and through other tools of verification. Technology is similarly viewed as tangible objects which have been developed through applying concrete principles of science. However, as McDermott and Varenne (1995) and Latour and Woolgar (1986) demonstrate, culture and science are both defined by people and by people accepting each other’s interpretations of what constitutes culture and scientific fact.

Latour and Woolgar (1986) and McDermott and Varenne (1995) highlight the fact that culture and science are defined predominantly by those already engaged in their use. Scientists and cultural groups have already accepted certain sets of facts and assumptions as truisms upon which further enhancement and definition will take place. Yet, even the baseline facts were at one point only opinions which were posited as new ideas. Eventually these opinions and propositions became so accepted across cultural or professional groups that they came to be believed as facts. The boundaries of culture and science provide people with a framework within which to live their lives, yet, this acceptance of “fact” can have detrimental effects when it limits continued questioning or constricts the ability of groups of people.

“When anthropologists instinctively celebrate the coherence of culture, they imply that all the people in a culture are the same, as if stereotyping is a worthy practice as long as it is done by professionals” (McDermott and Varenne, p. 326, 1995).

Anthropologists are not alone in the general stereotyping of culture, since most members of society consider themselves to be part of a society which operates under the assumptions of a distinct defining culture. Yet, this culture only serves the majority of the group and can severely hamper those who are not part of the majority. This is clearly demonstrated by McDermott and Varenne (1995) in their article Culture “as” Disability. In this article, the authors point out that it is actually definitions of culture and common practice that serve to disable individuals and not the actual “disability” of the individual. The authors effectively use the example of the H.G. Wells short story, “The Country of the Blind,” where a sighted man inadvertently becomes part of a community of blind people. Here the physical attribute of being blind is considered the norm and having sight is considered a disability. This example clearly demonstrates the concept that it is not physicality which determines disability, but it is what is considered normal or abnormal which determines disability.

In a similar fashion, in their book, Laboratory Life, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar use an anthropological lens to explore the inner workings of a science laboratory. Here, Latour and Woolgar also witness the group mentality of accepting certain tenets as facts because they have been accepted by the collective group of scientists who are working in a similar field. Science is generally thought to be outside the realm of social science and therefore somehow outside the same scrutiny as social theories. Science is supposedly a realm based on physical truisms and therefore not open to debate once a truism has been proven through experiment. Yet, these experiments are determined inside a social setting since they are based on mutual acceptance by a group of scientists. Despite this social aspect of scientific discovery, Latour’s anthropological study is an anomaly rather than the norm. Latour however maintains his type of study is necessary since, “a body of practices widely regarded by outsiders as well organized, logical, and coherent, in fact consists of a disordered array of observations with which scientists struggle to produce order” (p. 36, 1986).

Both McDermott and Varenne and Latour and Woolgar ask the reader to abandon some of their preconceived notions of culture and science to examine the “mythology” of accepted facts. In both writings, the authors demonstrate not only the danger, but also the ease with which populations accept things as facts. Latour and Woolgar note, “Beyond a certain point, persistent questioning by the newcomer about ‘things that everybody knew’ was regarded as socially inept” (p. 77, 1986). Members of cultural or professional groups easily accept the established norms solely because they have been the norms for so long. The authors do not ask the reader to completely abandon all of their beliefs, but rather to be cognizant of the idea that at one point even these “facts” were regarded as new ideas subject to verification. McDermott and Varenne particularly point out the dangers of becoming too deeply entrenched in cultural definitions of normal since these definitions necessarily define groups as abnormal. This definition stigmatizes the group and only serves to further separate, alienate and disable the group. Realization of these negative consequences is critical in regards to education, which is meant to be an enabling rather than a disabling force in society. Assumptions need to be critically examined to determine their consequences for all groups in society and not just those who benefit from the commonly accepted norms.

JAL2169 11:35, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Bianca Mona

What is culture and technology?

The McDermott and Varenne article was by far the most interesting readings. I was engaged instantly and wanting to know more about the developments each case study. I found it appealing because of the many real life stories that further illustrated the connections between culture and disabilities. Also, anthropological viewpoint was refreshing. From this angle the facts of the cases were presented in an open-mined perspective. I was further amused by the articles because of ability to challenge me to expand my definition of culture.

I discovered that culture, rather its low culture various “high” Culture, dictates abilities (or lack there of), language/communication, education, habits, and beliefs. So often I find myself limiting culture to just race and religion, but I was reminded that culture is developed and creates patterns that manifest over time. These patterns turn into a set of norms/ideals that the group follows.

Culture should be recognized and celebrated but can de destroyed when one tries to alter the characteristics of another’s culture than the culture can be destroyed. For instance, when hearing devises are imposed on a deaf community then the culture of the lifestyle can change significantly. Imagine future generations not being able to engage with the elders because of their lack of knowledge of signing. This would also affect the methods in which members of the deaf community learns.

Technology stems from the development and needs of those within a certain community. With that, I began thinking about current trends of combining culture and technology and instantly thought of the hip-hop generation. This musical culture which it almost entirely dependent on various forms of technology. What started with a boombox, speakers and turntables has usurped with the development of MP3 players, i-pods, i-tunes, limeware, personal computers, etc.

[edit] Devayani Tirthali

I liked how Marion defined technology “some "thing" found or invented and when used enables some other thing to occur that couldn't or didn't occur beforehand”. Marx differentiates men from animals on the basis that ‘they produce their means of subsistence’. They create the ‘things’ that when used allow them to expand their means of susbsistence. In spite of the natural constraints (geological, climate as well as human bodily constraints) governing our means of subsistence, we have the ability to shape our future. At a very basic level technology or tools are these means that human beings produce to go beyond the given means.

Marx also believes that the way in which men produce their means of subsistence is influneced by the given means of subsistence and how their actions modify these means of subsistance. So the technology is introduced to alter/expand the possible ways of leading life, which in turn alters the possibilities available to create new tools and the interdependence thus continues.

Marx believes that the mode of production is not just production of physical existence but a form of expressing our life. The history of the mode of production, as well as the beliefs and facts created by us, affect what we produce and how we produce it.

McDermott & Varenne (1995) introduced the idea of culture as disability. The example of Martha’s Vineyard shows how concept of deafness as disability developed through time. It shows how, when certain ability is believed to be a given in a culture, other people not having that ability are pushed outside the box. The kind of tools/technology we create, I think is affected by these beliefs. At the same time it also reinforces the distinctions.

The kind of tools/technology created to overcome the constraints is based on the beliefs about what is ability and what is a constraint. This distinction further affects what we produce and how we produce. For example: being non-deaf is normal so not able to listen at longer distances is a biological constraint. To cure it the technology of telephones was invented. If we thought deafness was normal (similar to the blind world that Nunez experienced), we would consider soemthing else as a biological constraint (like seeing at a distance) and would produce different tools from the same set of means of productions available to us.

The concept about disability also affects/promotes tecnological advances like hearing aids. These advances further reinforce the different-ness or outsideness of the ‘disabled’.

• Marx, K., Engels, F., Pascal, R., Lough, W., & Magill, C. P. (1938). The German ideology. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
• Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1995). Culture "as" disability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(3), 324-348.