Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Syllabus
Those having trouble scrolling back to the syllabus links, this should take you there. Those who have a chance, check out this piece by Vandana Shiva as well. Lots to talk about tomorrow, see you then!
Monday, September 03, 2007
Provisional Syllabus
Critical Theory B: Nature in Theory, Fall 2007
Instructor: Dale Carrico; dalec@berkeley.edu
Course Site: http://tecblogging.blogspot.com/
Grade Breakdown:
Attendance/Participation 20%
Co-facilitate Class Discussion/Precis 20%
In-Class Report 20%
Final Exam: 40%
Week One | Introductions
August 30
Administrative Introduction, Personal Introductions
Week Two | Contemporary Environmentalist Idols and Transcendentalists Precursors
September 6
Curtis White, Idols of Environmentalism, Ecology of Work
Ralph Waldo Emerson, from Nature; Henry David Thoreau, from Walden
Week Three | Ecofeminism
September 13
Cathleen McGuire and Colleen McGuire, Ecofeminist Visions
Rosemary Radford, Ruether, Ecofeminism: Symbolic and Social Connections of the Oppression of Women and the Domination of Nature, from Carol Adams, ed., Ecofeminism and the Sacred
Catherine Keller, Dark Vibrations: Ecofeminism and the Democracy of Creation
Greta Gaard, Toward a Queer Ecofeminism
Week Four | Ecosocialism
September 20
An Ecosocialist Manifesto by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy
Joel Kovel, Why Ecosocialism Today?
Common Voice, Ecosocialism
James O'Conner: Selling Nature
Mike Davis, Slum Ecology
Walter R. Sheasby's Amazon Guide: "So You'd Like to… Replace Capitalism with Green Socialism"
Week Five | Natural Capitalism
September 27
Paul Hawken: Natural Capitalism
A Roadmap for Natural Capitalism, Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, Paul Hawken
Michael Albert: Natural Capitalism?
Wayne Normand and Chris MacDonald, Getting to the Triple Bottom Line
James Boyle, Enclosing the Genome
Peter Barnes: Capitalism, 3.0
Time to Upgrade
A Short History of Capitalism
The Limits of Government
The Limits of Privatization
Reinventing the Commons
Trusteeship of Creation
Universal Birthrights
Sharing Culture
Building the Commons Sector
What You Can Do
Week Six | Deep Ecology
October 4
Arne Naess, The Shallow and the Deep
Introduction to Deep Ecology, An Interview with Michael E. Zimmerman, by Alan Atkisson
E.P. Pister, The Rights of Species and Ecosystems
Church of Deep Ecology
Murray Bookchin, Social Ecology Versus Deep Ecology
Week Seven | Some Victoriana
October 11
Guardian UK Review: Victorian Holocausts
Amartya Sen NYT Review, Victorian Holocausts
Mike Davis, Victorian Holocausts, Chapter One.
Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying
John Stuart Mill, On Nature
Week Eight | Critique of Technological Society
October 18
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception
Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
John Zerzan, Agriculture
John Zerzan, Technology
John Zerzan, Why Primitivism?
Marc Stiegler, The Gentle Seduction
Week Nine | Bright Green or Dim?
October 25
Bruce Sterling, Viridian Design
Grist on Worldchanging's Bright Green Principles (read the Comments!)
Apple Computer: Fun for You, Toxic for the Environment
When 1st Life Meets 2nd Life
Kirkpatrick Sale, Lessons from the Luddites
The Californian Ideology
Week Ten | Toxic World
November 1
Al Gore on Silent Spring
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, The Obligation to Endure
Michael Braungart, Intelligent Materials Pooling: Evolving a Profitable Technical Metabolism
What Happened at Bhopal?
Alex Kirby, Contaminated Breastmilk
Blacksmith Institute, 10 Most Polluted Places
Week Eleven | Alternative Agricultures
November 8
Malcome Scully, The Destructive Nature of Our Bountiful Harvests
Introduction to Permaculture: Concepts and Resources
Deborah Madison, Grace Before Dinner
Ted Nace, Breadcast of Democracy
Jack Kittredge, Pesticides in Food
AMS/USDA, Organic Food Standards and Labels
Sustainable Agrigulture Delivers the Crops
Week Twelve | Extracting Ourselves from Extraction
November 15
Saul Landau, Ronald Reagan and Bottled Water
National Resources Defense Council, Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?
BBC: World Water Crisis
The Coming Water Wars: Demography and Water Resources
The Coming Water Wars: Chart
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels
Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency
Howard Kunstler, A Five Part Online Video Exploration: The Long Emergency
Chris Vernon, Agriculture Meets Peak Oil
Week Thirteen
November 22 Thanksgiving Holiday
Week Fourteen | The Death of Environmentalism
November 29
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, The Death of Environmentalism
Don't Fear the Reapers, A Grist Special Series on the Alleged Death of Environmentalism
Week Fifteen | An Inconvenient Truth
December 6
"An Inconvenient Truth" (Screening)
Closing Remarks Hand in Take Home Final Exam
Instructor: Dale Carrico; dalec@berkeley.edu
Course Site: http://tecblogging.blogspot.com/
Grade Breakdown:
Attendance/Participation 20%
Co-facilitate Class Discussion/Precis 20%
In-Class Report 20%
Final Exam: 40%
Week One | Introductions
August 30
Administrative Introduction, Personal Introductions
Week Two | Contemporary Environmentalist Idols and Transcendentalists Precursors
September 6
Curtis White, Idols of Environmentalism, Ecology of Work
Ralph Waldo Emerson, from Nature; Henry David Thoreau, from Walden
Week Three | Ecofeminism
September 13
Cathleen McGuire and Colleen McGuire, Ecofeminist Visions
Rosemary Radford, Ruether, Ecofeminism: Symbolic and Social Connections of the Oppression of Women and the Domination of Nature, from Carol Adams, ed., Ecofeminism and the Sacred
Catherine Keller, Dark Vibrations: Ecofeminism and the Democracy of Creation
Greta Gaard, Toward a Queer Ecofeminism
Week Four | Ecosocialism
September 20
An Ecosocialist Manifesto by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy
Joel Kovel, Why Ecosocialism Today?
Common Voice, Ecosocialism
James O'Conner: Selling Nature
Mike Davis, Slum Ecology
Walter R. Sheasby's Amazon Guide: "So You'd Like to… Replace Capitalism with Green Socialism"
Week Five | Natural Capitalism
September 27
Paul Hawken: Natural Capitalism
A Roadmap for Natural Capitalism, Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, Paul Hawken
Michael Albert: Natural Capitalism?
Wayne Normand and Chris MacDonald, Getting to the Triple Bottom Line
James Boyle, Enclosing the Genome
Peter Barnes: Capitalism, 3.0
Time to Upgrade
A Short History of Capitalism
The Limits of Government
The Limits of Privatization
Reinventing the Commons
Trusteeship of Creation
Universal Birthrights
Sharing Culture
Building the Commons Sector
What You Can Do
Week Six | Deep Ecology
October 4
Arne Naess, The Shallow and the Deep
Introduction to Deep Ecology, An Interview with Michael E. Zimmerman, by Alan Atkisson
E.P. Pister, The Rights of Species and Ecosystems
Church of Deep Ecology
Murray Bookchin, Social Ecology Versus Deep Ecology
Week Seven | Some Victoriana
October 11
Guardian UK Review: Victorian Holocausts
Amartya Sen NYT Review, Victorian Holocausts
Mike Davis, Victorian Holocausts, Chapter One.
Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying
John Stuart Mill, On Nature
Week Eight | Critique of Technological Society
October 18
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception
Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
John Zerzan, Agriculture
John Zerzan, Technology
John Zerzan, Why Primitivism?
Marc Stiegler, The Gentle Seduction
Week Nine | Bright Green or Dim?
October 25
Bruce Sterling, Viridian Design
Grist on Worldchanging's Bright Green Principles (read the Comments!)
Apple Computer: Fun for You, Toxic for the Environment
When 1st Life Meets 2nd Life
Kirkpatrick Sale, Lessons from the Luddites
The Californian Ideology
Week Ten | Toxic World
November 1
Al Gore on Silent Spring
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, The Obligation to Endure
Michael Braungart, Intelligent Materials Pooling: Evolving a Profitable Technical Metabolism
What Happened at Bhopal?
Alex Kirby, Contaminated Breastmilk
Blacksmith Institute, 10 Most Polluted Places
Week Eleven | Alternative Agricultures
November 8
Malcome Scully, The Destructive Nature of Our Bountiful Harvests
Introduction to Permaculture: Concepts and Resources
Deborah Madison, Grace Before Dinner
Ted Nace, Breadcast of Democracy
Jack Kittredge, Pesticides in Food
AMS/USDA, Organic Food Standards and Labels
Sustainable Agrigulture Delivers the Crops
Week Twelve | Extracting Ourselves from Extraction
November 15
Saul Landau, Ronald Reagan and Bottled Water
National Resources Defense Council, Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?
BBC: World Water Crisis
The Coming Water Wars: Demography and Water Resources
The Coming Water Wars: Chart
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels
Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency
Howard Kunstler, A Five Part Online Video Exploration: The Long Emergency
Chris Vernon, Agriculture Meets Peak Oil
Week Thirteen
November 22 Thanksgiving Holiday
Week Fourteen | The Death of Environmentalism
November 29
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, The Death of Environmentalism
Don't Fear the Reapers, A Grist Special Series on the Alleged Death of Environmentalism
Week Fifteen | An Inconvenient Truth
December 6
"An Inconvenient Truth" (Screening)
Closing Remarks Hand in Take Home Final Exam
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Readings for Week Two
A Provisional Syllabus for the Whole Term will be ready in a few days. But here's what we're covering next week:
Part One:
Curtis White: Idols of Environmentalism and Part Two: The Ecology of Work
Break
Part Two:
From Nature, by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nature, Beauty. Read more, if you like.
From Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, Where I Lives and What I Lived For, Spring, Conclusion. Read more, if you like.
It would be great to have at least a couple of folks step up to co-facilitate the discussion of these early texts. Talk to me after class tomorrow or e-mail me over the weekend if any of these texts appeals to you with special forcefulness.
Part One:
Curtis White: Idols of Environmentalism and Part Two: The Ecology of Work
Break
Part Two:
From Nature, by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nature, Beauty. Read more, if you like.
From Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, Where I Lives and What I Lived For, Spring, Conclusion. Read more, if you like.
It would be great to have at least a couple of folks step up to co-facilitate the discussion of these early texts. Talk to me after class tomorrow or e-mail me over the weekend if any of these texts appeals to you with special forcefulness.
Co-facilitating Discussions and Writing a Precis
One of the key assignments for our course will be your co-facilitation of class discussion of an assigned text. This assignment also requires that you generate a précis of the text you are taking responsibility for. This precis should provide a point of departure for your contribution to the discussion in class, and you will also hand it in to me at the end of the session.
Think of this precis as a basic paraphrase of the argumentative content of a text.
Here is a broad and informal guide for a precis, consisting of question you should ask of a text as you are reading it, and again after you have finished reading it. Don't treat this as an ironclad template, but as a rough approach to producing a precis -- knowing that a truly fine and useful précis need not necessarily satisfy all of these interventions.
A precis should try to answer fairly basic questions such as:
1. What is the basic gist of the argument?
2. To what audience is it pitched primarily? Does it anticipate and respond to possible objections?
3. What do you think are the argument's stakes in general? To what end is the argument made?
a. To call assumptions into question?
b. To change convictions?
c. To alter conduct?
d. To find acceptable compromises between contending positions?
4. Does it have an explicit thesis? If not, could you provide one in your own words for it?
5. What are the reasons and evidence offered up in the argument to support what you take to be its primary end? What crucial or questionable warrants (unstated assumptions the argument takes to be shared by its audience, often general attitudes of a political, moral, social, cultural nature) does the argument seem to depend on? Are any of these reasons, evidences, or warrants questionable in your view? Do they support one another or introduce tensions under closer scrutiny?
6. What, if any, kind of argumentative work is being done by metaphors and other figurative language in the piece?
7. Are there key terms in the piece that seem to have idiosyncratic definitions, or whose usages seem to change over the course of the argument?
As you see, a piece that interrogates a text from these angles of view will yield something between a general book report and a close reading, but one that focuses on the argumentative force of a text. For the purposes of our class, such a precis succeeds if it manages
1. to convey the basic flavor of the argument and
2. provides a good point of departure for a class discussion.
Think of this precis as a basic paraphrase of the argumentative content of a text.
Here is a broad and informal guide for a precis, consisting of question you should ask of a text as you are reading it, and again after you have finished reading it. Don't treat this as an ironclad template, but as a rough approach to producing a precis -- knowing that a truly fine and useful précis need not necessarily satisfy all of these interventions.
A precis should try to answer fairly basic questions such as:
1. What is the basic gist of the argument?
2. To what audience is it pitched primarily? Does it anticipate and respond to possible objections?
3. What do you think are the argument's stakes in general? To what end is the argument made?
a. To call assumptions into question?
b. To change convictions?
c. To alter conduct?
d. To find acceptable compromises between contending positions?
4. Does it have an explicit thesis? If not, could you provide one in your own words for it?
5. What are the reasons and evidence offered up in the argument to support what you take to be its primary end? What crucial or questionable warrants (unstated assumptions the argument takes to be shared by its audience, often general attitudes of a political, moral, social, cultural nature) does the argument seem to depend on? Are any of these reasons, evidences, or warrants questionable in your view? Do they support one another or introduce tensions under closer scrutiny?
6. What, if any, kind of argumentative work is being done by metaphors and other figurative language in the piece?
7. Are there key terms in the piece that seem to have idiosyncratic definitions, or whose usages seem to change over the course of the argument?
As you see, a piece that interrogates a text from these angles of view will yield something between a general book report and a close reading, but one that focuses on the argumentative force of a text. For the purposes of our class, such a precis succeeds if it manages
1. to convey the basic flavor of the argument and
2. provides a good point of departure for a class discussion.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Class discussions
I found some interesting similarities between Litman's arguments and arguments concerning basic income guarantee, and I wanted to kind of locate their connective tissue. Actually, I guess I should be more specific: there were moments during past class discussions regarding basic income guarantee that could have been applied to today's arguments, so I suppose this is actually more about the particulars of our class dynamic as opposed to texts that make certain claims.
That being said, I remember that when basic income guarantee became a topic of discussion, there were a number of reactions that sounded something like this: what incentive will there be to work certain kinds of jobs which "must be done" if the fiscal backing does not exist? Isn't it too close to an idealist, utopian myth that can't function because skill=monetary incentive fueling a desire to develop certain skill=application of skill? Won't there be too great of a leveling effect that will render individualism inactive because we will somehow [based solely on our income] lose a sense of "purposeful work"? Communism? Assimilation? Lack of definable, class and social differences?
All of these assumptions or fears have a definite weight and legitimacy, and should not be immediately dismissed because they are the product of our shared contemporary experiences and make a lot of sense in THIS CONTEXT (the context being contemporary life). What developed out of that argument, however, was the notion that how we identify "work" and what constitutes the process of working and production would have to become or WOULD become radically different because if you are paid simply to exist, then the activities you do everyday can BECOME what work means {a really really really great argument for Artists, with a capital A, D.C.).
Ok, so there's that. That in and of itself isn't the connection I'm trying to make. What connects these two discussions more directly is the ideology shift. There was an almost intrinsic agreement initially that determined what constituted "work" that wasn't necessarily a vocalized claim, but I think parallels could have been made among individual philosophies of what work represented to each of us that could form a sort of general consensus of what we think of as productive labor. Keeping that in mind, it was necessary for us to reaffirm what we dictate to be work in order for something like basic income guarantee to make any amount of sense.
Similarly, I found that the discussion of the Litman piece today required an adjustment of what we believe constitutes property and how we think about the exchange of information. I think it's interesting that Litman explained the history of copyright laws in order to kind of demonstrate that what are consider common-placed notions of intellectual property haven't actually existed for all that long. In the same way that [and this is not the best example, but something relatable to critical theory and the course overall], when we speak about Nature, we need to remember the history of how Nature developed as an ideology, we need to keep in mind that WE, the contemporaries of every historical moment, are the inventors of these compartments. Therefore, we have full license to change our minds.
This is oversimplified, obviously. It's not like flicking on a switch. But it is an interesting, gradual exercise that I feel can free us of a number of unnecessary binds.
Just a thought.
That being said, I remember that when basic income guarantee became a topic of discussion, there were a number of reactions that sounded something like this: what incentive will there be to work certain kinds of jobs which "must be done" if the fiscal backing does not exist? Isn't it too close to an idealist, utopian myth that can't function because skill=monetary incentive fueling a desire to develop certain skill=application of skill? Won't there be too great of a leveling effect that will render individualism inactive because we will somehow [based solely on our income] lose a sense of "purposeful work"? Communism? Assimilation? Lack of definable, class and social differences?
All of these assumptions or fears have a definite weight and legitimacy, and should not be immediately dismissed because they are the product of our shared contemporary experiences and make a lot of sense in THIS CONTEXT (the context being contemporary life). What developed out of that argument, however, was the notion that how we identify "work" and what constitutes the process of working and production would have to become or WOULD become radically different because if you are paid simply to exist, then the activities you do everyday can BECOME what work means {a really really really great argument for Artists, with a capital A, D.C.).
Ok, so there's that. That in and of itself isn't the connection I'm trying to make. What connects these two discussions more directly is the ideology shift. There was an almost intrinsic agreement initially that determined what constituted "work" that wasn't necessarily a vocalized claim, but I think parallels could have been made among individual philosophies of what work represented to each of us that could form a sort of general consensus of what we think of as productive labor. Keeping that in mind, it was necessary for us to reaffirm what we dictate to be work in order for something like basic income guarantee to make any amount of sense.
Similarly, I found that the discussion of the Litman piece today required an adjustment of what we believe constitutes property and how we think about the exchange of information. I think it's interesting that Litman explained the history of copyright laws in order to kind of demonstrate that what are consider common-placed notions of intellectual property haven't actually existed for all that long. In the same way that [and this is not the best example, but something relatable to critical theory and the course overall], when we speak about Nature, we need to remember the history of how Nature developed as an ideology, we need to keep in mind that WE, the contemporaries of every historical moment, are the inventors of these compartments. Therefore, we have full license to change our minds.
This is oversimplified, obviously. It's not like flicking on a switch. But it is an interesting, gradual exercise that I feel can free us of a number of unnecessary binds.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
I'm watching me
internet=panopticon?
well, maybe...
after getting past the wrong idea I originally had, I still cant see how the internet is parrelled to Foucault's panopticon. the thing that gets me is the freedom of activity in the participants. in the panoptic prison, the prisoners had no activity, ie- were stuck in a cell and therefore in the mechanism of the panopticon. Internet users however, have a very different experience. they are actively seeking out information to use in each persons own way. theres no coercion or intimidation(unless you bring up the recording industry suits) about viewing or creating websites as long as they confine to the law. true kiddie porn is off limits but I think it's for the best...really. other than that governments and organizations have no power (that I'm aware of) to control what content you consume. every so often I hear about how AOL or some other demon company sold customer activity lists to the CIA or FBI and I say get educated about how the net works, get a floating IP or change web providers! Or better yet lobby the government to change these invasive practices. anyway.
the internet is a decentralized network made up of many large corporate pages but far more personal sites and blogs. in the prison, it' a top down, one way, direct contact, 'oh my god I'm in a fucking prison with armed guards watching my ass' kind of place.
perhaps its something more. maybe its about ISP providers having the power to control content. if the internet is an ocean, then the providers are the boats that get everyone around. what if those boats only went to certain destinations?? destinations that those wanting to keep an eye on everyone wanted you to see and those that they did not. I do not think the latter is the case. there are many out there that have the knowledge of the behind the scenes stuff that really help keep info flowing in the face of restrictions. so log off myspace for once and check out hackaday.com or reddit.com or or or....hey! cheap DVD players on amazon..........
adam day
well, maybe...
after getting past the wrong idea I originally had, I still cant see how the internet is parrelled to Foucault's panopticon. the thing that gets me is the freedom of activity in the participants. in the panoptic prison, the prisoners had no activity, ie- were stuck in a cell and therefore in the mechanism of the panopticon. Internet users however, have a very different experience. they are actively seeking out information to use in each persons own way. theres no coercion or intimidation(unless you bring up the recording industry suits) about viewing or creating websites as long as they confine to the law. true kiddie porn is off limits but I think it's for the best...really. other than that governments and organizations have no power (that I'm aware of) to control what content you consume. every so often I hear about how AOL or some other demon company sold customer activity lists to the CIA or FBI and I say get educated about how the net works, get a floating IP or change web providers! Or better yet lobby the government to change these invasive practices. anyway.
the internet is a decentralized network made up of many large corporate pages but far more personal sites and blogs. in the prison, it' a top down, one way, direct contact, 'oh my god I'm in a fucking prison with armed guards watching my ass' kind of place.
perhaps its something more. maybe its about ISP providers having the power to control content. if the internet is an ocean, then the providers are the boats that get everyone around. what if those boats only went to certain destinations?? destinations that those wanting to keep an eye on everyone wanted you to see and those that they did not. I do not think the latter is the case. there are many out there that have the knowledge of the behind the scenes stuff that really help keep info flowing in the face of restrictions. so log off myspace for once and check out hackaday.com or reddit.com or or or....hey! cheap DVD players on amazon..........
adam day
Tomorrow's Readings:
Just a reminder, tomorrow is a Law Day.
We're discussing Jessica Litman's Sharing and Stealing and James Boyle's Enclosing the Genome?
Those of you who have not yet co-facilitated a class discussion really need to figure out how that is going to happen. Next week we will be reading selections from the Precarity issue of fibreculture. Look it over in advance and have a sense of the pieces you might be interested in talking about in class a bit.
We're discussing Jessica Litman's Sharing and Stealing and James Boyle's Enclosing the Genome?
Those of you who have not yet co-facilitated a class discussion really need to figure out how that is going to happen. Next week we will be reading selections from the Precarity issue of fibreculture. Look it over in advance and have a sense of the pieces you might be interested in talking about in class a bit.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Your Final Exam
Here is your final exam. Choose to answer two from the following four questions. Each of your answers should be approximately 3-4 pages long. You may spend as much time as you wish on the exam and you should use your texts to help substantiate your points. Stick to the questions and be sure to finish on time. You are to submit a physical copy of your exam to me on the last scheduled meeting of the course.
(a) Summarize what you take to be the key insight in any single one of the theoretical texts we have read over the course of the term and then show how that insight illuminates your reading of “The Gentle Seduction,” “Desk Set,” or “Colossus: The Forbin Project” (choose one).
(b) Summarize what you take to be the central argument of C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man” and then propose two other texts we have read over the course of the term that reiterate key features (these can include either strengths or limitations, depending on your viewpoint) of Lewis’ argument.
(c) Compare and contrast two works in which the theme of an emerging technologically facilitated “spiritualization” or “dematerialization” is central, but in each case importantly different, in your view of the arguments the authors are making.
(d) Compare and contrast two works in which the theme of an emerging technologically facilitated “global” or “planetary” perspective is central, but in each case importantly different, in your view of the arguments the authors are making.
(a) Summarize what you take to be the key insight in any single one of the theoretical texts we have read over the course of the term and then show how that insight illuminates your reading of “The Gentle Seduction,” “Desk Set,” or “Colossus: The Forbin Project” (choose one).
(b) Summarize what you take to be the central argument of C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man” and then propose two other texts we have read over the course of the term that reiterate key features (these can include either strengths or limitations, depending on your viewpoint) of Lewis’ argument.
(c) Compare and contrast two works in which the theme of an emerging technologically facilitated “spiritualization” or “dematerialization” is central, but in each case importantly different, in your view of the arguments the authors are making.
(d) Compare and contrast two works in which the theme of an emerging technologically facilitated “global” or “planetary” perspective is central, but in each case importantly different, in your view of the arguments the authors are making.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Next Week
Don't forget to click on the syllabus for the latest info about what we are reading and who will be facilitating discussion. If you are faciliating soon and your choice of texts isn't on the syllabus yet -- e-mail me to remind me so the information appears as soon as possible. Speaking of as soon as possible... that's when your blog-posts need to arrive for the first assignment. Kick it into gear, people.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Tomorrow... And Beyond!
Remember that for tomorrow you should have read and prepared to discuss C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man. Tomorrow I'll be bringing a blank syllabus on which students will be able to select presentation times for the remainder of the term, and texts from the online list that they would like to present (you can select a time without knowing yet exactly which text you will want to present -- but remember, when it comes both to times and texts, first come, first served). I am going to choose two texts for us to read and discuss next week, and I encourage students to come forward to present on at least one of them. The first text is a curious short story by Marc Stiegler called The Gentle Seduction. The second is John Perry Barlow's incredibly influential Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
The Language of the Future
These are the lyrics to Laurie Anderson's "The Language of the Future," from United States, which I discussed a little bit before class with a couple of you. We can take this up, among other things, next Thursday, should the shape of the conversation move us that way....
The Language of the Future
Last year, I was on a twin-engine plane coming from Milwaukee to New York City. Just over La Guardia, one of the engines conked out and we started to drop straight down, flipping over and over. Then the other engine died: and we went completely out of control. New York City started getting taller and taller. A voice came over the intercom and said:
Our pilot has informed us that we are about to attempt a crash landing.
Please extinguish all cigarettes. Place your tray tables in their upright, locked position.
Your Captain says: Please do not panic.
Your Captain says: Place your head in your hands.
Captain says: Place your head on your knees.
Captain says: Put your hands on your head. Put your hands on your knees! (heh-heh)
This is your Captain.
Have you lost your dog?
We are going down.
We are all going down, together.
As it turned out, we were caught in a downdraft and rammed into a bank. It was, in short, a miracle. But afterwards I was terrified of getting onto planes. The moment I started walking down that aisle, my eyes would clamp shut and I would fall into a deep, impenetrable sleep.
(YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE THIS ...
YOU DON’T WANT TO BE HERE ...
HAVE YOU LOST YOUR DOG?)
Finally, I was able to remain conscious, but I always had to go up to the forward cabin and ask the stewardesses if I could sit next to them: “Hi! Uh, mind if I join you?” They were always rather irritated -- “Oh, all right (what a baby)” -- and I watched their uniforms crack as we made nervous chitchat.
Sometimes even this didn’t work, and I’d have to find one of the other passengers to talk to. You can spot these people immediately. There’s one on every flight. Someone who’s really on your wavelength.
I was on a flight from L.A. when I spotted one of them, sitting across the aisle. A girl, about fifteen. And she had this stuffed rabbit set up on her tray table and she kept arranging and rearranging the rabbit and kind of waving to it: “Hi!”
“Hi there!”
And I decided: This is the one I want to sit next to. So I sat down and we started to talk and suddenly I realized she was speaking an entirely different language. Computerese.
A kind of high-tech lingo.
Everything was circuitry, electronics, switching.
If she didn’t understand something, it just “didn’t scan.”
We talked mostly about her boyfriend. This guy was never in a bad mood. He was in a bad mode.
Modey kind of a guy.
The romance was apparently kind of rocky and she kept saying: “Man oh man you know like it’s so digital!” She just meant the relationship was on again, off again.
Always two things switching.
Current runs through bodies and then it doesn’t.
It was a language of sounds, of noise, of switching, of signals.
It was the language of the rabbit, the caribou, the penguin, the beaver.
A language of the past.
Current runs through bodies and then it doesn’t.
On again.
Off again.
Always two things switching.
One thing instantly replaces another.
It was the language of the Future.
Put your knees up to your chin.
Have you lost your dog?
Put your hands over your eyes.
Jump out of the plane.
There is no pilot.
You are not alone.
This is the language of the on-again off-again future.
And it is Digital.
And I answered the phone and I heard a voice and the voice said:
Please do not hang up.
We know who you are.
Please do not hang up.
We know what you have to say.
Please do not hang up.
We know what you want.
Please do not hang up.
We’ve got your number:
One ...
Two ...
Three ...
Four.
The Language of the Future
Last year, I was on a twin-engine plane coming from Milwaukee to New York City. Just over La Guardia, one of the engines conked out and we started to drop straight down, flipping over and over. Then the other engine died: and we went completely out of control. New York City started getting taller and taller. A voice came over the intercom and said:
Our pilot has informed us that we are about to attempt a crash landing.
Please extinguish all cigarettes. Place your tray tables in their upright, locked position.
Your Captain says: Please do not panic.
Your Captain says: Place your head in your hands.
Captain says: Place your head on your knees.
Captain says: Put your hands on your head. Put your hands on your knees! (heh-heh)
This is your Captain.
Have you lost your dog?
We are going down.
We are all going down, together.
As it turned out, we were caught in a downdraft and rammed into a bank. It was, in short, a miracle. But afterwards I was terrified of getting onto planes. The moment I started walking down that aisle, my eyes would clamp shut and I would fall into a deep, impenetrable sleep.
(YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE THIS ...
YOU DON’T WANT TO BE HERE ...
HAVE YOU LOST YOUR DOG?)
Finally, I was able to remain conscious, but I always had to go up to the forward cabin and ask the stewardesses if I could sit next to them: “Hi! Uh, mind if I join you?” They were always rather irritated -- “Oh, all right (what a baby)” -- and I watched their uniforms crack as we made nervous chitchat.
Sometimes even this didn’t work, and I’d have to find one of the other passengers to talk to. You can spot these people immediately. There’s one on every flight. Someone who’s really on your wavelength.
I was on a flight from L.A. when I spotted one of them, sitting across the aisle. A girl, about fifteen. And she had this stuffed rabbit set up on her tray table and she kept arranging and rearranging the rabbit and kind of waving to it: “Hi!”
“Hi there!”
And I decided: This is the one I want to sit next to. So I sat down and we started to talk and suddenly I realized she was speaking an entirely different language. Computerese.
A kind of high-tech lingo.
Everything was circuitry, electronics, switching.
If she didn’t understand something, it just “didn’t scan.”
We talked mostly about her boyfriend. This guy was never in a bad mood. He was in a bad mode.
Modey kind of a guy.
The romance was apparently kind of rocky and she kept saying: “Man oh man you know like it’s so digital!” She just meant the relationship was on again, off again.
Always two things switching.
Current runs through bodies and then it doesn’t.
It was a language of sounds, of noise, of switching, of signals.
It was the language of the rabbit, the caribou, the penguin, the beaver.
A language of the past.
Current runs through bodies and then it doesn’t.
On again.
Off again.
Always two things switching.
One thing instantly replaces another.
It was the language of the Future.
Put your knees up to your chin.
Have you lost your dog?
Put your hands over your eyes.
Jump out of the plane.
There is no pilot.
You are not alone.
This is the language of the on-again off-again future.
And it is Digital.
And I answered the phone and I heard a voice and the voice said:
Please do not hang up.
We know who you are.
Please do not hang up.
We know what you have to say.
Please do not hang up.
We know what you want.
Please do not hang up.
We’ve got your number:
One ...
Two ...
Three ...
Four.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Syllabus for Critical Theory B, Fall, 2006
Critical Theory B, Fall 2006: Theory Faces Technoscience
Instructor: Dale Carrico, dalec@berkeley.edu; dcarrico@sfai.edu
Thursdays, 9.00-11.45; Office Hours: After class and by appointment.
Course Blog: http://tecblogging.blogspot.com/
Course Description
A technophile is a person to whom we attribute a naïve or uncritical enthusiasm for technology, while a technophobe is a person to whom we attribute a no less uncritical dread of or hostility to technology. But what does it tell us that there is no similarly familiar word to describe a person who is focused on the impact of technoscientific developments in a critical way that pays equally close attention both to their promises and their dangers? Is it really so impossible to conceive of a critical technocentrism equally alive to real promises and alert to real dangers?
Technoscientific change is an ongoing provocation on our personal and public lives. In this course we will focus our attention on some of the ways critical theory has tried to make sense of the ongoing impact of technoscience and technodevelopmental social struggle on public life, cultural forms, creative expression, and ethical discourse.
Our conversation this term will take as its point of departure the assumption that the basic categories through which we make sense of individual and collective agency, dignity, and claims of right are transforming under the pressure of emerging and converging digital networks, genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive medicine, developments in energy, manufacturing, materials science, automation, weapons proliferation, and so on.
Over the course of the term, we will survey some key interventions of critical theory into the problems, values, assumptions, and specificities of contemporary technoscience. Together with these theoretical texts, we will contemplate fiction, film, and policy-making that take up these problems and expresses these values and assumptions in different ways. These texts will sometimes be technophilic, sometimes technophobic. Sometimes they will be freighted with hyperbolic enthusiasm, sometimes with intimations of disaster. Some will see technological development as inherently superhumanizing, some as inherently dehumanizing. We will lodge our own interventions in a hope that refuses nostalgia and a critical realism that refuses the faith in inevitable progress.
In an important sense the course will truly be a collaborative performance, and so our more specific focus and problems and interests will depend in a significant measure on your own circumstances, concerns, and on the texts that you yourselves happen to respond to most forcefully. Every text that we are reading in this class is available online, and I am providing an overabundance of texts for you to choose from. The shape of our conversation, its pace, focus, order will reflect your choices and your responses. It remains to be seen just what conclusions we will find our way to by the end of the term and the end of this conversation.
Grade Breakdown:
Attendance/Participation/Quizzes: 20%
In-Class Presentation: 15%
Three Short Papers, approximately 3pp. each, posted to this blog: 40%
Final Examination: 25%
Texts
Christopher Allen, “Tracing the Evolution of Social Software”
Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron, “California Ideology”
John Perry Barlow, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”
Michel Bauwens, "The Political Economy of Peer Production"
Michael Berube, “Life As We Know It”
James Boyle, “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain”
James Boyle, “Enclosing the Genome?”
David Brin, “Three Cheers for the Surveillance Society!”
Jamais Cascio, “Leapfrog 101” and other entries under the "Leapfrog" keyword at Worldchanging
Jordan Crandall, "Operational Media"
Erik Davis, “Experience Design”
Jacques Ellul, excerpts from The Technological Society
fibreculture, any essay from Issue 5, "Multitudes, Creative Organisation and the Precarious Condition of New Media Labour"
Andrew Freenberg, “Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology”
Donna Haraway, “The Promises of Monsters”
Katherine Hayles, “Liberal Subjectivity Imperiled: Norbert Weiner and
Cybernetic Anxiety”
James Hughes, “Embrace the End of Work”
Don Ihde, "How Could We Ever Believe Science Is Not Political?"
Jeron Lanier, “One Half of a Manifesto”
Lawrence Lessig, “Preface,” and “What Things Regulate?” from Code
Lawrence Lessig, "Insanely Destructive Devices"
C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”
Jessica Litman, “Sharing and Stealing”
Steve Mann, “The Post-Cyborg Path to Deconism”
Paul D. Miller (DJ Spooky), “Material Memories”
Annalee Newitz, “Genome Liberation”
Bruce Sterling, “Viridian Design Speech”
Marc Steigler, “The Gentle Seduction”
Paul Virilio, Two Conversations
Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism”
Mark Winokur, “The Ambiguous Panopticon”
Christian Zemsauer, "Afro-Futurism"
Slavoj Zizek, “Bring Me My Philips Mental Jacket”
Slavoj Zizek, "No Sex, Please, We're Posthuman"
A Provisional Schedule of Meetings:
Week One, August 31
Administrative Introduction
Personal Introductions
Week Two September 7
Course Introduction
C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”
Week Three September 14
John Perry Barlow, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” DC
Marc Steigler, “The Gentle Seduction” Claudia
Week Four September 21
Kristin, Don Ihde, "How Could We Ever Believe Science Is Not Political?"
Michael Berube, “Life As We Know It”
Week Five September 28
Jamais Cascio, “Leapfrog 101” and other entries under the "Leapfrog" keyword at Worldchanging, David C.
David Brin, “Three Cheers for the Surveillance Society!,” Bronwen
Week Six October 5
Slavoj Zizek, “Bring Me My Philips Mental Jacket”
Slavoj Zizek, "No Sex, Please, We're Posthuman," Alla
Week Seven October 12
Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism,” Tony
Donna Haraway, “The Promises of Monsters,” Chika
Week Eight October 19
Lawrence Lessig, Insanely Destructive Devices, Grey
Paul Virilio, Two Conversations
Week Nine October 26
Annalee Newitz, “Genome Liberation,” Ates
Michel Bauwens, "The Political Economy of Peer Production"
Week Ten November 2
Katherine Hayles, “Liberal Subjectivity Imperiled: Norbert Weiner and Cybernetic Anxiety”
Jeron Lanier, “One Half of a Manifesto”
Week Eleven, November 9:
Desk Set
Week Twelve, November 16:
Colossus: The Forbin Project.
Week Thirteen: November 23: Academic and Administrative Holiday
Week Fourteen: November 30
Paul D. Miller (DJ Spooky), “Material Memories”
Mark Winokur, “The Ambiguous Panopticon”
Week Fifteen: December 7
Week Sixteen: December 14
Instructor: Dale Carrico, dalec@berkeley.edu; dcarrico@sfai.edu
Thursdays, 9.00-11.45; Office Hours: After class and by appointment.
Course Blog: http://tecblogging.blogspot.com/
Course Description
A technophile is a person to whom we attribute a naïve or uncritical enthusiasm for technology, while a technophobe is a person to whom we attribute a no less uncritical dread of or hostility to technology. But what does it tell us that there is no similarly familiar word to describe a person who is focused on the impact of technoscientific developments in a critical way that pays equally close attention both to their promises and their dangers? Is it really so impossible to conceive of a critical technocentrism equally alive to real promises and alert to real dangers?
Technoscientific change is an ongoing provocation on our personal and public lives. In this course we will focus our attention on some of the ways critical theory has tried to make sense of the ongoing impact of technoscience and technodevelopmental social struggle on public life, cultural forms, creative expression, and ethical discourse.
Our conversation this term will take as its point of departure the assumption that the basic categories through which we make sense of individual and collective agency, dignity, and claims of right are transforming under the pressure of emerging and converging digital networks, genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive medicine, developments in energy, manufacturing, materials science, automation, weapons proliferation, and so on.
Over the course of the term, we will survey some key interventions of critical theory into the problems, values, assumptions, and specificities of contemporary technoscience. Together with these theoretical texts, we will contemplate fiction, film, and policy-making that take up these problems and expresses these values and assumptions in different ways. These texts will sometimes be technophilic, sometimes technophobic. Sometimes they will be freighted with hyperbolic enthusiasm, sometimes with intimations of disaster. Some will see technological development as inherently superhumanizing, some as inherently dehumanizing. We will lodge our own interventions in a hope that refuses nostalgia and a critical realism that refuses the faith in inevitable progress.
In an important sense the course will truly be a collaborative performance, and so our more specific focus and problems and interests will depend in a significant measure on your own circumstances, concerns, and on the texts that you yourselves happen to respond to most forcefully. Every text that we are reading in this class is available online, and I am providing an overabundance of texts for you to choose from. The shape of our conversation, its pace, focus, order will reflect your choices and your responses. It remains to be seen just what conclusions we will find our way to by the end of the term and the end of this conversation.
Grade Breakdown:
Attendance/Participation/Quizzes: 20%
In-Class Presentation: 15%
Three Short Papers, approximately 3pp. each, posted to this blog: 40%
Final Examination: 25%
Texts
Christopher Allen, “Tracing the Evolution of Social Software”
Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron, “California Ideology”
John Perry Barlow, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”
Michel Bauwens, "The Political Economy of Peer Production"
Michael Berube, “Life As We Know It”
James Boyle, “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain”
James Boyle, “Enclosing the Genome?”
David Brin, “Three Cheers for the Surveillance Society!”
Jamais Cascio, “Leapfrog 101” and other entries under the "Leapfrog" keyword at Worldchanging
Jordan Crandall, "Operational Media"
Erik Davis, “Experience Design”
Jacques Ellul, excerpts from The Technological Society
fibreculture, any essay from Issue 5, "Multitudes, Creative Organisation and the Precarious Condition of New Media Labour"
Andrew Freenberg, “Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology”
Donna Haraway, “The Promises of Monsters”
Katherine Hayles, “Liberal Subjectivity Imperiled: Norbert Weiner and
Cybernetic Anxiety”
James Hughes, “Embrace the End of Work”
Don Ihde, "How Could We Ever Believe Science Is Not Political?"
Jeron Lanier, “One Half of a Manifesto”
Lawrence Lessig, “Preface,” and “What Things Regulate?” from Code
Lawrence Lessig, "Insanely Destructive Devices"
C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”
Jessica Litman, “Sharing and Stealing”
Steve Mann, “The Post-Cyborg Path to Deconism”
Paul D. Miller (DJ Spooky), “Material Memories”
Annalee Newitz, “Genome Liberation”
Bruce Sterling, “Viridian Design Speech”
Marc Steigler, “The Gentle Seduction”
Paul Virilio, Two Conversations
Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism”
Mark Winokur, “The Ambiguous Panopticon”
Christian Zemsauer, "Afro-Futurism"
Slavoj Zizek, “Bring Me My Philips Mental Jacket”
Slavoj Zizek, "No Sex, Please, We're Posthuman"
A Provisional Schedule of Meetings:
Week One, August 31
Administrative Introduction
Personal Introductions
Week Two September 7
Course Introduction
C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”
Week Three September 14
John Perry Barlow, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” DC
Marc Steigler, “The Gentle Seduction” Claudia
Week Four September 21
Kristin, Don Ihde, "How Could We Ever Believe Science Is Not Political?"
Michael Berube, “Life As We Know It”
Week Five September 28
Jamais Cascio, “Leapfrog 101” and other entries under the "Leapfrog" keyword at Worldchanging, David C.
David Brin, “Three Cheers for the Surveillance Society!,” Bronwen
Week Six October 5
Slavoj Zizek, “Bring Me My Philips Mental Jacket”
Slavoj Zizek, "No Sex, Please, We're Posthuman," Alla
Week Seven October 12
Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism,” Tony
Donna Haraway, “The Promises of Monsters,” Chika
Week Eight October 19
Lawrence Lessig, Insanely Destructive Devices, Grey
Paul Virilio, Two Conversations
Week Nine October 26
Annalee Newitz, “Genome Liberation,” Ates
Michel Bauwens, "The Political Economy of Peer Production"
Week Ten November 2
Katherine Hayles, “Liberal Subjectivity Imperiled: Norbert Weiner and Cybernetic Anxiety”
Jeron Lanier, “One Half of a Manifesto”
Week Eleven, November 9:
Desk Set
Week Twelve, November 16:
Colossus: The Forbin Project.
Week Thirteen: November 23: Academic and Administrative Holiday
Week Fourteen: November 30
Paul D. Miller (DJ Spooky), “Material Memories”
Mark Winokur, “The Ambiguous Panopticon”
Week Fifteen: December 7
Week Sixteen: December 14
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Syllabus for Critical Theory A, Spring, 2006
Critical Theory A
Subject, Object, Abject
Spring 2006
Tuesdays, 9.00-11.45
Instructor: Dale Carrico, dalec@berkeley.edu
Office Hours: Before and after class and by appointment.
Course Description
Just what is the relationship of argument to interpretation? “Interpretation” derives from the Latin interpretatio, a term freighted with the sense not only of explication and explanation, but translation. What are the conventions that govern intelligible acts of interpretation, translation, argumentation? What are the conventions through which we constitute the proper objects of interpretation in the first place? And who are the subjects empowered to offer up interpretations that compel our attention and conviction? What happens when objects object to our interpretations and demand the standing of subjects themselves? How does the interpretation of literary texts differ from the interpretation of the law? How does it differ from a scientist’s interrogation of her environment? Or from any critical engagement with the “given” terms of the social order in which one lives? Or even from the give and take through which we struggle to understand one another in everyday conversation? These are questions with which we will begin our survey of some of the themes, problems, and conventions in the rhetoric of interpretation. Where we will have arrived by the end will of course be very much a matter open to interpretation.
Schedule of Meetings
Jan 24 Introduction
Donna Haraway, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs”
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html
Jan 31 Diagnostic Essay Due, 2-3pp.
Discuss Haraway, “Manifesto for Cyborgs”
Feb 7 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
Feb 14 Marx and Engels, The German Ideology (continued)
Feb 21 Roland Barthes, Mythologies
Feb 28 Barthes, Mythologies (continued)
Mar 7 Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”
March 13-17 Spring Break
Mar 21 Paper Due, 4-5pp. due
Screen film They Live, John Carpenter, dir.
Discuss film.
Mar 28 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish
Apr 4 Conclude discussion of Foucault, Discipline and Punish
Begin discussion of Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality
Apr 11 Discuss Foucault, History of Sexuality (continued)
Apr 18 Franz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
Apr 25 Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (continued)
May 2 Carol Adams, “Preface” and “On Beastliness and a Politics of
Solidarity,” from Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense
of Animals
Judith Butler, Giving an Account of Oneself
May 9 Paper Due, 4-5pp
Butler, Giving an Account of Oneself
Concluding Remarks.
Subject, Object, Abject
Spring 2006
Tuesdays, 9.00-11.45
Instructor: Dale Carrico, dalec@berkeley.edu
Office Hours: Before and after class and by appointment.
Course Description
Just what is the relationship of argument to interpretation? “Interpretation” derives from the Latin interpretatio, a term freighted with the sense not only of explication and explanation, but translation. What are the conventions that govern intelligible acts of interpretation, translation, argumentation? What are the conventions through which we constitute the proper objects of interpretation in the first place? And who are the subjects empowered to offer up interpretations that compel our attention and conviction? What happens when objects object to our interpretations and demand the standing of subjects themselves? How does the interpretation of literary texts differ from the interpretation of the law? How does it differ from a scientist’s interrogation of her environment? Or from any critical engagement with the “given” terms of the social order in which one lives? Or even from the give and take through which we struggle to understand one another in everyday conversation? These are questions with which we will begin our survey of some of the themes, problems, and conventions in the rhetoric of interpretation. Where we will have arrived by the end will of course be very much a matter open to interpretation.
Schedule of Meetings
Jan 24 Introduction
Donna Haraway, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs”
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html
Jan 31 Diagnostic Essay Due, 2-3pp.
Discuss Haraway, “Manifesto for Cyborgs”
Feb 7 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
Feb 14 Marx and Engels, The German Ideology (continued)
Feb 21 Roland Barthes, Mythologies
Feb 28 Barthes, Mythologies (continued)
Mar 7 Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”
March 13-17 Spring Break
Mar 21 Paper Due, 4-5pp. due
Screen film They Live, John Carpenter, dir.
Discuss film.
Mar 28 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish
Apr 4 Conclude discussion of Foucault, Discipline and Punish
Begin discussion of Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality
Apr 11 Discuss Foucault, History of Sexuality (continued)
Apr 18 Franz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
Apr 25 Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (continued)
May 2 Carol Adams, “Preface” and “On Beastliness and a Politics of
Solidarity,” from Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense
of Animals
Judith Butler, Giving an Account of Oneself
May 9 Paper Due, 4-5pp
Butler, Giving an Account of Oneself
Concluding Remarks.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Wendy Brown
For Thursday, I would like everybody to read the first two and then the final two short pieces of the Brown book Politics Out of History. For those who are curious, if we had stuck to the syllabus and devoted another week to the Brown I would have also assigned Chapters 4 and 5. But as it is this will give us plenty to talk about. The Chapters for Thursday, then, are "Politics Out of History," "Moralism as Anti-Politics," "Democracy Against Itself," and "Specters and Angels." Enjoy!
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Wikipedia: Critical Theory
Mabel pointed out to me that the Wikipedia entry for the term Critical Theory covers much of the same ground I rambled on about last week in our Introductory discussion. She's right, it's really pretty good. Check it out if you want a concise refresher or overview of the history, problems, methods of critical theory.
Syllabus
Critical Theory A
Critique, Subjection, Prostheses
Fall 2005
Thursdays, 9.00-11.45, Conference Room
Instructor: Dale Carrico, dalec@berkeley.edu
Office Hours: Before and after class and by appointment.
Sept 1 Introduction
Donna Haraway, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs”
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html
Sept 8 Diagnostic Essay Due, 2-3pp.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
Sept 15 Marx and Engels, The German Ideology (continued)
Sept 22 Roland Barthes, Mythologies
Sept 29 Barthes, Mythologies (coninued)
Oct 6 Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”
Oct 13 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish
Paper Due, 4-5pp. due
Oct 20 Foucault, Discipline and Punish (continued)
Oct 27 Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality
Nov 3 Foucault, History of Sexuality (continued)
Nov 10 Judith Butler, Undoing Gender
Nov 17 Butler, Undoing Gender (continued)
Nov 24-25 Thanksgiving Holiday
Dec 1 Wendy Brown, Politics Out of History
Take Home Exam Due
Dec 8 Brown, Politics Out of History (continued)
Dec 15 Concluding Remarks
Donna Haraway, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs” (revisited)
Paper Due, 4-5pp.
Critique, Subjection, Prostheses
Fall 2005
Thursdays, 9.00-11.45, Conference Room
Instructor: Dale Carrico, dalec@berkeley.edu
Office Hours: Before and after class and by appointment.
Sept 1 Introduction
Donna Haraway, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs”
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html
Sept 8 Diagnostic Essay Due, 2-3pp.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
Sept 15 Marx and Engels, The German Ideology (continued)
Sept 22 Roland Barthes, Mythologies
Sept 29 Barthes, Mythologies (coninued)
Oct 6 Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”
Oct 13 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish
Paper Due, 4-5pp. due
Oct 20 Foucault, Discipline and Punish (continued)
Oct 27 Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality
Nov 3 Foucault, History of Sexuality (continued)
Nov 10 Judith Butler, Undoing Gender
Nov 17 Butler, Undoing Gender (continued)
Nov 24-25 Thanksgiving Holiday
Dec 1 Wendy Brown, Politics Out of History
Take Home Exam Due
Dec 8 Brown, Politics Out of History (continued)
Dec 15 Concluding Remarks
Donna Haraway, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs” (revisited)
Paper Due, 4-5pp.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Four Aims of Argument
I've gotten a couple of questions about the reference in the Mid-Term to the "Four Aims of Argument." This is NOT a reference to the "Four Habits of Argumentative Writing." Here's a hint: One of the four "Aims" is -- Persuasion.
See everybody tomorrow morning in Dwinelle 188. Be on time!
See everybody tomorrow morning in Dwinelle 188. Be on time!
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Text of the Midterm Exam
For those few of you who were unable to attend class Thursday, this is the text of the take-home mid-term examination I distributed then. You are to hand it in Tuesday morning when you arrive in class. Remember, we are screening a film Tuesday in Room 188 of Dwinelle Hall. Please arrive on time, because the running time of the film demands we get right underway.
You still have plenty of time to complete the exam. It is adapted from an exam I have administered to students in my Rhetoric 10 course, and they are able to complete it, without notes or other resources at their disposal, in under three hours.
Your Name:
Rhetoric 110
Summer, 2005
Midterm Examination
Part I (50 pts., total)
Section 1: Short Answer (20 pts.)
1. Describe the three rhetorical appeals, ethos, logos, and pathos.
2. Name the four Aims of Argument, as we have discussed them in class.
3. Name the four “Master Tropes”
4. What is the difference between a syllogism and an enthymeme?
5. What distinguishes a hypothetical from a categorical syllogism?
6. What is the inductive leap?
7. What is the difference between a scheme and a trope?
8. According to the Toulmin Schema, what is an argument’s warrant?
9. What is the difference between a paradox and an oxymoron?
10. What is the difference between the fallacies of division and composition?
Section 2: Identifications (10 pts. [incl. 2 free pts.])
Identify the form of the inference (the logical argument) in each of these syllogisms, and say whether they are valid or fallacious.
1. P, then q.
Not p.
So, not q.
2. If a, then b.
B is the case.
Thus, so is a.
3. S, then t.
Not t.
And hence, not s.
4. x, then y.
x
Therefore, y.
5. Circle the antecedent in this proposition:
If you studied for the exam, then I expect you will do quite well on it.
6. Is the following a deductive or inductive argument?
“Self-esteem appears to be at least a necessary condition for happiness. All the happy people I’ve known, whatever their other differences in personality and goals, seem to have basic self-esteem, whereas people who don’t have that trait never seem to be happy.”
7. Which of the following two sentences is a Trope and which a Scheme? Indicate your answer by putting a “T” or “S” in the space in front of the sentence.
“Band-Aids: Your child’s new body-guards.”
“I am stuck on Band-Aids, ‘cause Band-Aids stuck on me.”
8. What type of deductive syllogism is the following argument?
“According to the union contract, either we have to close the plant on labor day, or we have to pay the workers twice the regular pay. But we have too much work to close the plant, so we’ll have to pay the workers double time.”
Section 3: Matching
Matching Fallacies (10 pts. [incl. 1 free pt.])
1. Ad Ignoratiam
2. Ad Populum
3. Ad Misericordiam
4. Ad Baculum
5. Ad Verecundiam
6. Denying the Antecedant
7. Undistributed Middle
8. Petitio Principii
9. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
___ Teacher to Student: “And, finally, in reconsidering your position, you might want to remember who gives out the grades in this course.”
___ Parent to Child: “Fine. Go ahead. Quit school. Why should you care if you are breaking a poor parent’s heart?”
___ Why are you so skeptical about the existence of UFOs? Nobody has ever proved they don’t exist!”
___ Time is money, and time heals all wounds. So, it’s no surprise that money heals all wounds.
___ Anarchy would be a fine and beautiful system for society to adopt, if men were angels. Alas, they are not.
___ The Golden Rule is a sound moral principle, since it’s basic to every system of ethics in literally every known culture.
___ Order is indispensable to justice, for justice can only be achieved in the context of a social and legal order.
___ “I must say I’m not surprised Tara slipped on that banana peel and broke her leg, when not five minutes before I watched her step on a crack, walk under a ladder, cross a black cat’s path, and break her compact mirror without giving it a second thought.”
___ You should buy the new Bottle Blond Boyz Album. All the kewl kids are.
Matching Figures (10 pts.)
1. Prosopopeia
2. Litotes
3. Metaphor
4. Auxesis
5. Hyperbole
6. Metonymy
7. Alliteration
8. Assonance
9. Antanaclasis
10. Oxymoron
___ Summer session courses go on for an absolute eternity.
___ O miserable abundance, O beggarly riches! -- John Donne, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions
___ Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believe how much it altered her appearance for the worse. – Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub
___ And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window panes. – T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”
___ The prosecutor was a missile, zeroing in on his culminating point.
___ “Tho’ we’re apart, you’re a part of me still.” – lyrics of the song, Blueberry Hill
___ …and with firm confidence in justice, freedom, and peace on earth that will raise the hearts and the hopes of mankind for that distant day when no one rattles a saber and no one drags a chain. – Adlai Stevenson, acceptance speech, 1952
___ Progress is not proclamation or palaver. It is not pretense nor play on prejudice. It is not the perturbation of a people passion-wrought nor a promise proposed. – Warren G. Harding nominating William Taft in 1912.
___ It shreds the nerves, it vivisects the psyche – and it may even scare the living daylights out of more than a few playgoers. – Review in TIME, 1966
___ Whales in the wake like capes and Alps Quaked the sick sea and snouted deep. – Dylan Thomas, “Ballad of the Long-Legged Bait”
Part II (50 pts, total)
Section 1: Exercises (15 pts.)
A. Reconstruct the following arguments by identifying their conclusions and their premises. Then identify whether or not the arguments are valid.
1. The TELEBEARS system asks me all sorts of questions when I dial in. And we all know that if a computer were a conscious being it would ask me all sorts of questions. So TELEBEARS must be a conscious being.
2. If the United States completes a missile defense system before the rest of the world does, they wil gain enormous leverage over all other nations in any confrontation. For if the US completes its defensive shield firsdt, they will pose a credible threat of a first strike, and if they pose such a threat they will gain enormous leverage.
B. For each of the following enthymemes: 1. Supply the missing premise or conclusion. 2. Identify whether the missing element is a major premise, a minor premise, or the conclusion.
1. He must be annoyed, because he’s scowling all the time.
2. Mary crossed the picket line, so her lamb must have crossed it too.
3. New Yorkers are well-mannered, and no well-mannered people are uncivilized.
4. True freedom demands responsibility, and that is why most folks dread it.
5. No enthymemes are complete, and so this argument is incomete.
Section 2: Toulmin Schema (15 pts.)
Construct a strategy of support using the Toulmin Schema for the following enthymeme: “”Serpents make vile pets, because they cannot be trusted.” Be sure to identify all the parts of the Toulmin Schema, the claim, the stated reason, and to supply a plausible warrant, qualification, grounds, etc. [By “construct a strategy of support” I mean simply to provide an argument, but one which exhibits all the characteristics the Toulmin Schema identifies for analyzing arguments.]
Section 3: Short Essay (20 pts.)
Write an essay of approximately two pages in length [students who received the handout will probably produce handwritten essays that cover the blank space of the page on which this question appears, plus the back of the sheet, as necessary] analyzing the following passage from Frederixk Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. Your essay should identify what you take to be the central claim of the passage, and then discuss how Douglass uses figurative language to make his claim and express it more forcefully.
“It was called by the slaves the Great House Farm. Few privileges were esteemed higher, by the slaves of the out-farms, than that of being selected to do errands at the Great House Farm. It was associated in their minds with greatness. A representative could not be prouder of his election to a seat in the American Congress, than a slave on one of the out-farms would be of his election to do errands at the Great House Farm. They regarded it as evidence of great confidence reposed in them by their overseers; and it was on this account, as well as a constant desire to be out of the field from under the driver’s lash, that they esteemed it a high privilege, one worth careful living for… The competitors for this office sought as diligently to please their overseers, as the office-seekers in the political parties seek to pelase and deceive the people. The same traits of character might be seen in Colonial Lloyd’s slaves, as are seen in the slaves of the political parties.”
You still have plenty of time to complete the exam. It is adapted from an exam I have administered to students in my Rhetoric 10 course, and they are able to complete it, without notes or other resources at their disposal, in under three hours.
Your Name:
Rhetoric 110
Summer, 2005
Midterm Examination
Part I (50 pts., total)
Section 1: Short Answer (20 pts.)
1. Describe the three rhetorical appeals, ethos, logos, and pathos.
2. Name the four Aims of Argument, as we have discussed them in class.
3. Name the four “Master Tropes”
4. What is the difference between a syllogism and an enthymeme?
5. What distinguishes a hypothetical from a categorical syllogism?
6. What is the inductive leap?
7. What is the difference between a scheme and a trope?
8. According to the Toulmin Schema, what is an argument’s warrant?
9. What is the difference between a paradox and an oxymoron?
10. What is the difference between the fallacies of division and composition?
Section 2: Identifications (10 pts. [incl. 2 free pts.])
Identify the form of the inference (the logical argument) in each of these syllogisms, and say whether they are valid or fallacious.
1. P, then q.
Not p.
So, not q.
2. If a, then b.
B is the case.
Thus, so is a.
3. S, then t.
Not t.
And hence, not s.
4. x, then y.
x
Therefore, y.
5. Circle the antecedent in this proposition:
If you studied for the exam, then I expect you will do quite well on it.
6. Is the following a deductive or inductive argument?
“Self-esteem appears to be at least a necessary condition for happiness. All the happy people I’ve known, whatever their other differences in personality and goals, seem to have basic self-esteem, whereas people who don’t have that trait never seem to be happy.”
7. Which of the following two sentences is a Trope and which a Scheme? Indicate your answer by putting a “T” or “S” in the space in front of the sentence.
“Band-Aids: Your child’s new body-guards.”
“I am stuck on Band-Aids, ‘cause Band-Aids stuck on me.”
8. What type of deductive syllogism is the following argument?
“According to the union contract, either we have to close the plant on labor day, or we have to pay the workers twice the regular pay. But we have too much work to close the plant, so we’ll have to pay the workers double time.”
Section 3: Matching
Matching Fallacies (10 pts. [incl. 1 free pt.])
1. Ad Ignoratiam
2. Ad Populum
3. Ad Misericordiam
4. Ad Baculum
5. Ad Verecundiam
6. Denying the Antecedant
7. Undistributed Middle
8. Petitio Principii
9. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
___ Teacher to Student: “And, finally, in reconsidering your position, you might want to remember who gives out the grades in this course.”
___ Parent to Child: “Fine. Go ahead. Quit school. Why should you care if you are breaking a poor parent’s heart?”
___ Why are you so skeptical about the existence of UFOs? Nobody has ever proved they don’t exist!”
___ Time is money, and time heals all wounds. So, it’s no surprise that money heals all wounds.
___ Anarchy would be a fine and beautiful system for society to adopt, if men were angels. Alas, they are not.
___ The Golden Rule is a sound moral principle, since it’s basic to every system of ethics in literally every known culture.
___ Order is indispensable to justice, for justice can only be achieved in the context of a social and legal order.
___ “I must say I’m not surprised Tara slipped on that banana peel and broke her leg, when not five minutes before I watched her step on a crack, walk under a ladder, cross a black cat’s path, and break her compact mirror without giving it a second thought.”
___ You should buy the new Bottle Blond Boyz Album. All the kewl kids are.
Matching Figures (10 pts.)
1. Prosopopeia
2. Litotes
3. Metaphor
4. Auxesis
5. Hyperbole
6. Metonymy
7. Alliteration
8. Assonance
9. Antanaclasis
10. Oxymoron
___ Summer session courses go on for an absolute eternity.
___ O miserable abundance, O beggarly riches! -- John Donne, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions
___ Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believe how much it altered her appearance for the worse. – Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub
___ And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window panes. – T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”
___ The prosecutor was a missile, zeroing in on his culminating point.
___ “Tho’ we’re apart, you’re a part of me still.” – lyrics of the song, Blueberry Hill
___ …and with firm confidence in justice, freedom, and peace on earth that will raise the hearts and the hopes of mankind for that distant day when no one rattles a saber and no one drags a chain. – Adlai Stevenson, acceptance speech, 1952
___ Progress is not proclamation or palaver. It is not pretense nor play on prejudice. It is not the perturbation of a people passion-wrought nor a promise proposed. – Warren G. Harding nominating William Taft in 1912.
___ It shreds the nerves, it vivisects the psyche – and it may even scare the living daylights out of more than a few playgoers. – Review in TIME, 1966
___ Whales in the wake like capes and Alps Quaked the sick sea and snouted deep. – Dylan Thomas, “Ballad of the Long-Legged Bait”
Part II (50 pts, total)
Section 1: Exercises (15 pts.)
A. Reconstruct the following arguments by identifying their conclusions and their premises. Then identify whether or not the arguments are valid.
1. The TELEBEARS system asks me all sorts of questions when I dial in. And we all know that if a computer were a conscious being it would ask me all sorts of questions. So TELEBEARS must be a conscious being.
2. If the United States completes a missile defense system before the rest of the world does, they wil gain enormous leverage over all other nations in any confrontation. For if the US completes its defensive shield firsdt, they will pose a credible threat of a first strike, and if they pose such a threat they will gain enormous leverage.
B. For each of the following enthymemes: 1. Supply the missing premise or conclusion. 2. Identify whether the missing element is a major premise, a minor premise, or the conclusion.
1. He must be annoyed, because he’s scowling all the time.
2. Mary crossed the picket line, so her lamb must have crossed it too.
3. New Yorkers are well-mannered, and no well-mannered people are uncivilized.
4. True freedom demands responsibility, and that is why most folks dread it.
5. No enthymemes are complete, and so this argument is incomete.
Section 2: Toulmin Schema (15 pts.)
Construct a strategy of support using the Toulmin Schema for the following enthymeme: “”Serpents make vile pets, because they cannot be trusted.” Be sure to identify all the parts of the Toulmin Schema, the claim, the stated reason, and to supply a plausible warrant, qualification, grounds, etc. [By “construct a strategy of support” I mean simply to provide an argument, but one which exhibits all the characteristics the Toulmin Schema identifies for analyzing arguments.]
Section 3: Short Essay (20 pts.)
Write an essay of approximately two pages in length [students who received the handout will probably produce handwritten essays that cover the blank space of the page on which this question appears, plus the back of the sheet, as necessary] analyzing the following passage from Frederixk Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. Your essay should identify what you take to be the central claim of the passage, and then discuss how Douglass uses figurative language to make his claim and express it more forcefully.
“It was called by the slaves the Great House Farm. Few privileges were esteemed higher, by the slaves of the out-farms, than that of being selected to do errands at the Great House Farm. It was associated in their minds with greatness. A representative could not be prouder of his election to a seat in the American Congress, than a slave on one of the out-farms would be of his election to do errands at the Great House Farm. They regarded it as evidence of great confidence reposed in them by their overseers; and it was on this account, as well as a constant desire to be out of the field from under the driver’s lash, that they esteemed it a high privilege, one worth careful living for… The competitors for this office sought as diligently to please their overseers, as the office-seekers in the political parties seek to pelase and deceive the people. The same traits of character might be seen in Colonial Lloyd’s slaves, as are seen in the slaves of the political parties.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)