Archive for December 2007

X-ers Agonistes

December 18, 2007

There is quite a lot of buzz lately about the generational implications of the Obama candidacy. Some of this has come from the usual MSM suspects – these offerings in the Washington Times being typical of the genre:11/08/07 and 12/15/07

There have also been interventions from the odious Andrew “RawMuscleGlutes” Sullivan, the barebacking neocon, and the equally odious and opportunistic Markos Moulitsas, soi-disant prince of new politics in the blogosphere.

Sullivan’s entry is characteristically overlong, but essentially boils down to this bit of retail wisdom: “If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.”

Moulitsas’ contribution, typically, is shrill, provocative and puerile. In this screed, he defines an entire generation of people born between 1945 and 1964 thusly: “The Boomers are a schizophrenic, narcissistic generation that was more privileged than any before it; they had to work less to get more than their fathers had, and then derided their fathers for their submission to a corporate structure that provided them with their privilege.”

This sort of stuff from the likes of Sullivan and Moulitsas (both similar species of right-wing opportunists) should come as no surprise. Yet, I am constantly amazed at the currency that boomer bashing has. The way that this discourse dovetails nicely with the neo-liberal agenda was explored a few years back by Margaret Gullette in a piece for The Nation.  Playing the Age Card

In connexion with this alleged generational Kulturkampf, I noted some interesting comments on Barbara O’Brien’s blog.

Advertisements

Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens.

December 13, 2007

I simply could not let this pass without comment: HR 847, a bill introduced by Steve King (R-IA), and passed by the House on Tuesday 12/11/07.

I had missed this malign bit of political sycophancy when it first appeared. To see a bit more about the antics of this cretinous tribune of the heartland, check out this post on AlterNet.

Doris Lessing

December 12, 2007

Over at Library Juice, there is a post about Doris Lessing’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech.  In it, Lessing briefly mentions the Internet.  She does this in the context of observations about the gap in cultural capital (the most basic kind – books, schools, teachers) between the West and the impoverished developing world.  The Library Juice post, however, takes this passing reference and runs with it – saying that she “questions the Internet.”  Horror of horrors! 

 Her speech (really a sort of literary essay) is,  as one would expect, brilliant, incisive, and heartbreakingly clear-eyed.  Yes, she does speak of the decline of reading and notes the correlation between a decline in reading and general cultural literacy evinced in the modern West and the rise of “computers, the Internet, and TV.” But, these are commonplace observations, and clearly Lessing implicitly acknowleges their nuances.  She notes that the technological revolution “is not the first revolution we, the human race, has dealt with.” Yet, it is different compared with the print revolution, which, she observes, “did not take place in a matter of a few decades, but took much longer, changed our minds and ways of thinking.”

I realise that the people at Library Juice are not trying to paint Lessing as some sort of Luddite, but I was a bit dismayed to see this aspect of her speech portrayed this way in the headline of the post.  It seemed to distort the nature of her remarks, which were much more expansive – and important – than an aside about the societal and cultural implications of technology. 

Perhaps it was the seemingly dismissive way that Lessing referred to the Internet, which she said “has seduced a whole generation into its inanities” that got under the skin of the technophiles at Library Juice.  Unfortunatley, these sorts of remarks – especially when they are made by anyone over the age of fifty –  always seem to elicit hostility all out of proportion to their intent. 

Certainly, it is not untrue that the Internet, while providing revolutionary access to information and ‘publishing’ to millions, has also facilitated a metastasizing of the trends of commodity fetishism, and consumer-driven dumbing down of cultural space.  You don’t need to read Adorno to understand that Facebook does not really empower social and political change as much as it indulges consumerist self-absorption.

  In any case, Lessing’s remarks are important – not least because one of the most important writers of the twentieth century is offering insight about our society and culture from the perspective of the end of her career.  And the fact that she is still able to contribute to a vital conversation about the moral and ethical issues of cultural politics is, I think,  a cause for celebration.  Having said that, I’m still pleased that the people at Library Juice noted her remarks, and that they recognized their importance – even if they got the tone a bit wrong.  

Critical Librarianship

December 11, 2007

Toni Samek, who teaches at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Alberta, has written a new book: Librarianship and Human Rights: A Twenty-first century guide.  She also chairs the Advisory Board on Intellectual Freedom of the CLA.  

Her book is grounded in the idea of critical librarianship, which sees librarians and as active participants in struggles for human rights – especially those enunciated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For Samek, the core values of librarianship are connected with information ethics and global information justice. Moreover, these values are necessarily linked with issues of intellectual freedom, intellectual property, censorship, academic freedom, workplace speech, and national security policies – to name a few. There’s an interview with Samek over at PLG Reads, in which she expands on these ideas.