subtitle: How would you react if you were on the "rape wagon"[1] with Frankenstein and his big dick? What if he just wanted to go to the same place as you, and is really a swell guy that wouldn't even hurt anyone? Would you get off the wagon?
----------
In our discussions of relevant social groups, there has been some questioning of the inclusion of consumers (both in the sense of those that purchase and those that use) into breakdowns of these groups. Latour's book pulls out the paranoid in me, in regards to consumers in this light. We are not relevant to those with the power to offer or withhold technology (information, distribution of power...I could go on and on, but I will try my best to remain focused...). Sitting in "inscrutable seats of power" [2], politicians and businessmen decide for how what we will be allowed to use (and in vain attempts at further means of control, how we use the products they offer us; however, I am not jaded enough to believe that they have finally taken this away from us, no matter how hard they try). For example, we have the businessmen buttering their own bread: "While the automobile still seems to be the fastest (though costliest) solution for urban transportation in the short run, its very proliferation will increasingly cut down on its speed, which will soon become unacceptably slow; at the same time, automobiles will increase to dangerous levels the atmospheric pollution that they inevitably produce." (p. 31) [3] That's certainly one spin on cars, which I agree with on some levels, as I have been caught in both Baltimore and D.C. traffic. However, for all the economic spin (in regards to a businessman or group of businessmen selling their product), the weight of the automotive industry didn't budge one bit in the 70's and 80's with the idea of PRT's bouncing off their gargantuan necks like so many unnoticed gnats.
This leads me to my next paranoia: Political might. How much was the decision to scrap emergent technologies like the Aramis project the result of heavy-weight commercial entities--such as the automotive industry [4]--putting economic and political (again, can these two things realllllllly be separated?) pressure on leading politicians? "'I tell myself that if somebody came up with the idea of the automobile today and had to go before a safety commission and explain, I don't know, let's say, how to get started on a hill...! I just think how complicated it is: shifting gears, using the hand brake, and so on. He wouldn't stand a chance! He'd be told: 'It can't be done.' Well, everybody knows how to start on a hill! It's the same with Aramis. We hadn't gotten all the kinks out, but yes, I think it was doable. [no. 23]" (p.48) [5] Rather than ask whether or not a technology would be beneficial (in theory) or economic (in theory) this is the sort of bureaucratic insistence on the "impossibilities" of technology we are offered. It is a slight of hand. That the Aramis project lasted through four different administrations of French Government is a mystery to me. At the very first change in power, Giscard d'Estaing replacing de Gaulle in 1974 (p. 13), one would have thought that the project would have been capped right there and then. New power, new economic pressures...oops, budget cuts! Do I really need to research and list examples of this? We see it every 4-8 years here.
(I just ran out of time...will rant and rave more later...for now, watch out for Frankie! We know his intentions! And they are always the worst possible case...)
Elliot
[1] "Senator Wallace: 'Well, I'll tell you what happens, she gets raped! And the rapist has all the time in the world, in this automated shell of yours with no doors and no windows. You know what you've invented? You've invented the rape wagon!'" (p. 21) Why is it that when I read this passage, I was not remotely shocked that after a brief discussion of logistics, the very first place our politicians and supposed leaders go, is fear? At the very least, as I will quote above, the French politicians and business men offered up some tangible analysis of the Aramis project--although still not directly addressing the political and economic (if they can be separated) reasons why the project was ultimately scrapped--between finger wagging and blame shifting. On some levels I am proud of my ability to laugh at this caricature of US Political Discourse (really...how much of a caricature is it?), but I am also sickened. This is, on some base level, how our society functions: through waves of fear and cowering. And we just let ourselves be sucked into it.
[2] "Dogma." Kevin Smith. Viewaskew productions. (1999)
[3] I am unsure of any of you have seen the French new-wave film "Week End" by Jean-Luc Goddard (1967), but in the film there is a lengthy "pan and scan" shot that goes on for 15-20 minutes of automobile backup and carnage in the French countryside. It makes one wonder if this is being specifically referenced in this passage. If you have an hour and a half of free time, and are interested in seeing "A Clockwork Orange" without a plot, I highly recommend this experimental film.
[4] At some point this semester, I want to bring up the marriage of oil and automotive industries and the obvious lag in "greener" technologies. Am I again paranoid here? Am I seeing ghosts in the meadow?
[5] [no. 23] is M. Henne, "head of the bureau of technological studies of Aeroport de Paris".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment