#7: Bibliography for DIY

Focus: Simple work is good for us. One aspect of the DIY phenomenon is that people are realizing that relying so much on technology and distant corporations in our daily lives can be detrimental to our health and happiness.

Note: I can't figure out how to indent the second line of the citation. Using tab or spaces doesn't work here on Blogger.

*****************

Brende, Eric. Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology. New York: Harper, 2004. Print.

Karasek, Robert and Toeres Theorell. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books, 1990. Print.

Korten, David C. When Corporations Rule the World. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian; San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2001. Print

Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage-Random House, 1992. Print.

Thomas, J. Mark. Ethics and Technoculture. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987. Print.

#4: Political Shock

I am surprised by my results from the political compass test. My score puts me deep within the quarter labeled Left Libertarian. I'm supposed to support "voluntary regional collectivism." Yes, it is the segment I would have chosen for myself, but I thought I would lie closer to the middle. I thought I was more of a moderate. However, I can't say I'm disappointed to be placed so close to Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela.

I'm shocked to see Barack Obama and Mitt Romney so close to each other on the scale. I'm also surprised that I am so far away from Barack Obama, because I thought he represented my views a lot better than this test would indicate. I knew he wasn’t the extreme socialist liberal many people say he is, but I didn’t think he was a right-wing fascist! I’ve been hearing about how polarized our country has become, with the two parties growing further and further apart. The Republican and Democratic Parties seem so different from each other when you look at their platforms and consider how much time they spend fighting each other. I was beginning to feel rather comfortable thinking of myself as a Democrat and an Obama supporter, but this test makes me wonder. Perhaps this is a case of actions speaking louder than words, and they don’t represent me as well as I thought they did.

I was aware that the military is an area where I differ strongly from Barack Obama. However, it’s hard for me to imagine anyone getting elected who is anywhere near my opinions on that front. I think the amount of money our country spends on the military is obscene, especially when I consider what that money could be spent on instead, like education, healthcare, and reducing our national debt. Also, the havoc our military wreaks in other countries, especially on civilians, horrifies me. I don’t understand why we need to cause so much destruction in the name of “freedom” or whatever the hell we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes me so sad to think about the lives that are ruined at the hands of US citizens who think they are somehow doing a good thing and "serving their country."

This experience doesn’t make me reconsider my vote. I will definitely still vote for Obama (even though Kentucky is such a red state it won't make a difference) and tend to vote Democrat in general. I want to vote for one of the two major parties in races where there's a possibility of either major party candidate winning. It's more a matter of voting against the one I disagree with most. One reason I support President Obama is that I’m happy that he and his party have come out in support for gay marriage. Marriage may be outdated and irrelevant for many couples, but it’s clearly wrong in my eyes to have certain legal benefits offered to heterosexual couples and denied to homosexual couples. I think it’s discrimination, plain and simple.

It is helpful to know the names of some other people on the diagram that the political test provided. I don't think every thoughtful person would agree with where they put people on the diagram, but at least it's a place to start. Now that I have an idea of where people lie on the political scale, I can read more about the different political philosophies they represent. For example, I want to read some works by Nelson Mandela because I see he can be called a left libertarian like me. It would be interesting to explore this political philosophy more deeply in the context of South Africa's history. I'm especially interested in Mandela because he's the only person shown in the left libertarian quarter of the diagram to serve in political office. Since Barack Obama may not represent my views as well as I thought, I'd like to see an example of a political leader of a government who may more closely represent my views.

"My Understanding of Anarchism 3.0" describes Michael Benton's personal political philosophy that falls under the broad term anarchism. From what I can tell, this particular definition of anarchism corresponds strongly to the term left libertarian, so I am personally interested in learning more about this type of anarchism. I have heard many times from teachers and textbooks that anarchy basically means no government and chaos. Consequently, when someone suggested I read about anarchist economics, I wasn't very interested. I didn't see how anarchy could relate to my world, in which government is very present and necessary. Now I've been given an entirely different definition of anarchism and I find it intriguing. This description of anarchism has to do with community action, which is something I'm very interested in. In fact, Barack Obama's description of being a community organizer in his book Dreams from My Father was what really sold me on him as a president who could represent my values. As a community organizer, he encouraged people who thought they had no voice to take action to change their community in ways they wanted. Obviously, it would be better for someone who belongs to the community to play this role, but I think sometimes marginalized people get so used to being ignored that they give up and accept it as the status quo. They think no matter how hard they try, they won't win. Unfortunately in many cases they are right. It seems that money and power rule the world, unless there is a large enough group of people being obnoxious enough that they can't be ignored. This reminds me of the music video we saw in class of the student protests in Wisconsin about the teachers' union, when people were chanting so loudly and incessantly that it must have been hard to get work done in that government building. It was inspirational to see an example of people caring so much about something that they will unite across barriers of age and status to make their voices heard. If that's what anarchism is, I do want to read and hear more about it.

#2: Maybe "They" Aren't ALL Bad

In his book introduction called, “They Say,” Douglas Rushkoff challenges readers to think about how often we let people with power dictate our lives. He asks why we listen to them, and whether it’s a good idea to let them have such a strong influence over us. In answer to these questions, Rushkoff points out that people who tell us what to do don’t always have our best interests in mind. Often they want to get something from us, like money or votes, and their words my not be trustworthy. Rushkoff says that when consumers are coerced into buying something, they are often unaware that they are being influenced at all, because salespeople know techniques to subtly get buyers to do what they want. For a while in the eighties and nineties, Rushkoff believed that consumers were getting back the power over their thoughts which powerful people had seized through the media. With the internet and video cameras, average people had gained the ability to spread their own ideas, and they were getting too smart for advertisers’ old tactics of coercion. However, after a while advertisers learned to use the new media phenomenon to their advantage, once again coercing the general population to do what they wanted. Therefore, Rushkoff decided to write a book about how “marketers, politicians, religious leaders, and coercive forces of all kinds influence everyday decisions.” He wanted to help people recognize and resist the influence powerful people were exerting over them. One interesting piece of information he found was that coercion is now automated. Computers decide, based on our actions, how best to manipulate us. Rushkoff ended the introduction by revealing the ways he had used marketing techniques to get us interested in his book, without us being aware of them. In this way he proved to us that we aren’t as immune to marketing tricks as we’d like to think.

I agree with Rushkoff that it would be helpful for us to be aware of the techniques people use to get us to do what they want. It’s not good to be pushed around against our will, buying things we don’t really want, and voting for people just because they have the best PR people, and are the best at all the sales tricks. However, I don’t think powerful people are always as bad as he thinks they are. I think there are many politicians, doctors, and corporations that actually want to do quality work that benefits the common good. Why do people assume that huge categories of people and organizations are lying, cheating weasels? Why can’t there be scientists who want to develop high-quality, safe products, and companies who want to employ them? Sure, there are people who want to lie and cheat, but they’re always running the risk that they’ll get caught and lose a lot in terms of money and reputation. In the same way, I think many politicians want to make a positive difference in the world. Of course, to “play the game” of politics, they have to be savvy and let only their best side show, but once again, I think it’s arrogant to assume they’re all despicable, as Rushkoff seems to do. As a reader, I find myself reflecting, "He wants me to distrust huge groups of people, but why should I trust him?" 

In the first paragraph, Rushkoff asks us why we listen to "them." He defines "them" as "bosses, experts, and authorities." I think we do ourselves a disservice if we treat all experts like doctors, scientists, and other highly educated people as enemies without good reason. Rushkoff uses terms like “hunters,” “prey,” “weapons,” and “war” to describe the average person’s relationship with “them.” I think those terms are overly dramatic when referring to many experts, and can harm us if they lead us to think we know more than people who have devoted many years of their lives to studying things we know little about. Rumors spread like wildfire on the internet about things that can supposedly harm us, and they are often completely bogus. It’s bad for our mental health to be constantly worrying about every little detail of our lives. It can also be dangerous to disregard the advice of some experts just because we generally distrust them. For example, if someone decides to disregard the advice of a doctor because of a rumor, it could cost them their life. I believe there's a balance between looking out for ourselves and choosing to trust certain sources that we discern are reputable. I appreciate Douglas Rushkoff contributing his thoughts to the debate on this issue.