Brooke Marcy

 

 

Summery of Eugenics: The Second Wave, Fleshmachine, Critical Art Ensemble

 

 

The essay, Eugenics: The Second Wave, Fleshmachine, Critical Art Ensemble, begins by looking at how, though dormant, eugenics has been waiting for the right time to reemerge into society.  The essay asks the question, “Why cant the body be constructed to best serve “the dominant values of culture?”  Eugenics has faced several problems, such as being associated with the Nazi regime, and a lack of acceptance by the general pubic who, though having no problem accepting medical advancements to support life, have a problem with science acting in the role of the creator. So in order to be accepted, eugenics must discover a way to sell medical intervention in creation, as well as, maintenance of the human body.

 

Fredrick Osborn stated in the early 30s that the only way for eugenics to find acceptance would be for the people “to come to eugenics.”  Osborn believed that the development of the “consumer economy” and the nuclear family would eventually lead to a renewed interest in eugenics. Just as food, shelter and healthcare are looked at as consumer products, so too could eugenics.  Human consumption has become a status symbol and when combined with the nuclear family “ the production of reproduction begins to significantly change.” Unlike the nuclear family, the extended family is seen as a threat to the “capitalist imperatives of production,” thus the continuation of the nuclear family structure is encouraged.

 

The education process plays an important role in keeping people tied to nuclear units, and in teaching children how to become active members of the workforce.  Children are separated from working parents at an early age allowing them “more time with their socializers-education services and mass media-than with significant others.”  People are led to equate work success with “satisfaction,” causing work to become more important than relationships.  The concept of the nuclear family fits in well with eugenics by placing an emphasis on creating a quality child and eventually a quality “satisfied” worker.

 

In the past, eugenic has been looked at as an option only available to the wealthy, leaving the middleclass to fend for themselves.  Yet recently there has been a change in thinking, now it is believed that in order for the developments of eugenics to continue, eugenics must become accessible to the middleclass.  Since middleclass people tend to be covered by healthcare, they are an acceptable option for eugenics, unlike the lower class that usually have no healthcare and over reproduce on their own.

 

The media is supporting a “eugenic consciousness” by creating gentler approaches to advertising, promising to help clients produce healthier “happier” children.   Since the word ”happy has been replaced with the word “productive,” a happy child is a productive child, and “a happy child parent relationship” is based on consumption and production. 

 

Most parents want absolute control over their children’s lives, indicating that control before birth would also be desirable. With eugenics women are guaranteed fertility even if they have been told that they would not be able to have children.  More money is spent on creating fertility than researching what causes infertility; this creates a greater demand for fertility products.  Eugenics also allows a woman to remain fertile longer, giving her  “more uninterrupted time to establish herself in the workforce,” and for a woman who have waited too long, eugenic practices are a renewed hope.

 

It is important keep medical breakthroughs within national bonds, insuring that any proceeds will affect the national economy. This being so, then action is required for “the time is right for eugenics practices to flourish on a macro as well as on the micro levels of society.” 

 

Many promises have been made concerning the use of eugenics, but few promises are, as they seem.  For example, eggs and sperm are considered donations because it is not ethical to profit from creation; on the other hand, implanting an embryo costs a large amounts of money. Just as people can choose to manipulate their babies’ genes they can also reduce the number of fetuses that they are carrying.  Often time’s more than one embryo is implanted, and if more than the desired amount of fetuses attach, they can be removed for health reason or desired outcome allowing the consumer to get what they paid for.

 

Now is the time for Osborn’s theories to become realities. Reproduction can be looked similarly to other consumer product dictated to us by “pan capitalist ideological inscription.”  Yet, none of this has come to pass, and will not, until the public is convinced that eugenics is a beneficial to a productive existence.

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm! by Paul Virilio

 

In his essay, Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm!,” Paul Virilio begins by examining how real space and geosphere have been taken over by real time, changing our ideas about the world.   He notes that humans have already broken the barriers of sound and heat, yet breaking the barrier of light is impossible, and if done, would discombobulate the living and history.  He examines how democracy is based on the stability of “the city” and how the dominance of real time will change our perspective, switching us from distance perspective to a contact or “tactile perspective.”  He sees the build-up of superhighways as causing a new “phenomenon: loss of orientation,” and how reality is being split into reality and virtual reality, threatening individual orientation.  Virilio notes that this loss of orientation is a negative with potential to dramatically affect democracy and society as a whole.

 

Virilio believes that “globalization” is a fraud and that what actually exists is the “perspective of real time,” which indicates, we are living in a “one-time-system.”  He defines “one-time-system” as being the same thing as global time. Virilio next examines how history no longer exists in a specific time or place and instead occurs instantaneously in universal time. Distances and surfaces are no longer boundaries, and cyberspace allows local time and global time to become one.  Virilio proposes that “such deconstruction of relationships with the world is not without consequences for the relationship among its citizens themselves.”  He believes that for every gain there is a loss, and if we are not aware of the loss, than the gains become obsolete.

 

Virilio believes that a loss of control over reason associated with human interactions with multi media and computers could cause the formation of an “information bomb.”  This “information bomb” will need some form of dissuasion to counter the unlimited information.  Virilio sees this dissuasion as coming in the possible form of an accident,  which the stock market crash can be seen as a precursor.  He believes that the problem is not the information but the interactivity, thus computers are not the problem, but rather computer communication.

 

Virilio points out that “ the suggestive power of virtual technologies is without parallel, “ and this build up of “ a computer communication narco-economy” has great potential to destabilize the economy. He also questions the advancements in entertainment and there effect on the population. He believes we need to “acknowledge that the new communication technologies will only further democracy if, and only if, we oppose from the beginning the caricature of global society being hatched for us by big multinational corporations throwing themselves at a breakneck pace on the information superhighways.”

 

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Beyond Postmodernism by John Armitage

 

In his essay, Beyond Postmodernism, John Armitage looks at the work of the French cultural theorist Paul Virilio.  Armitage notes that many of Virilio’s theories, such as ‘dromology’ and ‘logic of acceleration,’ are misunderstood. His essay defends Vililio’s theories and suggests “that they exist beyond the terms of postmodernism and that they should be conceived of as a contribution to the emerging debate over ’hypermodernism’.”

 

Armitage begins by outlining Virillio’s biography starting with his birth in 1932. He notes the effects Hitler’s Blitzkrieg had on Virilio, and how early in his career, he spent time working as a stained-glass artist alongside Matisse.  In 1950, Virilio converted to Christianity and later studied phenomenology with Merleau-Ponty.  Virilio’s first major work was Bunker Archeology, which was a study of the architecture of war.  His concepts included ‘military space’, ‘dromology’, and the ‘aesthetics of disappearance’.  Though not a trained architect, Virillio was nominated Professor at the Ecole Speciale d’Architecture. Though producing many works, Speed & Politics: An Essay on Dromology, The Aesthetics of Disappearance etc, Virilio’s theories are just now being realized by the “English speaking world.”

 

Armitage states, “the importance of Virilio’s theoretical work stems from his central claim that, in a culture dominated by war, the military-industrial complex is of crucial significance in debates over the creation of the city and special organization of cultural life.”  Virilio states that the stationary and fortified cities of the feudal era, have been superseded by today’s cities, because weaponry itself has become transportable, thus creating a “war of movement.” He notes that this new form of city has changed how people and the city are governed. Virilio also proposes that it was not the economy that spurred the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but rather “a military, spatial, political and technological metamorphosis.”

 

Many of Virilio’s theories are based on his belief in the ‘gesalt theory of perception,’ which lead to his theory of ‘oblique function’. In the 1970s, Virilio began looking at how  communication and military technology was changing and effecting society. Virilio’s work, in the 1980s and 1990s, focused on the notions of “disappearance; the fractalization of physical space, war, cinema, logistics, and perception.” During that time,  he also concentrated on the acceleration of the ‘techno culture’ and its ramifications, and he equated the “third age of military weaponry” with the every growing technologies such as the internet. “ Armitage points out that Virilio does not consider himself a social theorist, but rather a “critic of the art of technology.”

 

Next Armitage looks at Virilio’s “dromocratic conception of power.” Virilio states that the foundation of society is not only the political economy of wealth but also the political economy of speed.  He looks at what he terms “infowar” and how the threat of “unspecific civilian enemies” is used to justify spending to increase the advancements of communication technologies.  Virilio believes that,” in the near future it will no longer be war that is the continuation of politics by other means, it will be the integral accident that is the continuation of politics by other means.”

 

Armitage examines Virillio’s theory that, “ modern vision and the contemporary city are both products of military power and time-based cinematic technologies of disappearance.”  Virilio sees the city as being overexposed by technology and that the cinematographic field is causing fractured perspectives. He points out how war and cinema have become inseparable, and how cinematic images have become substitutions for the real images of war, creating an “infowar.”  Virilio states,” military perception in warfare is comparable to civilian perception and, specifically, to the art of filmmaking.”  This being the case, people “no longer believe their eyes” and the belief in ones own perceptions of reality has been transformed into a belief of the “technical sight line.”

 

Virillo looks at the differences between video screens and “real perspectual objects,” like mirrors, noting the differences between “classical optical communication” and “ electro-optical communication.” Armitage then examines Virilio’s proposal that real time has taken over real space, and the development of what Virilio terms “polar inertia.” He uses Howard Huges as the perfect example of a human being who has allowed ”polar inertia” and technology to replace an active and interactive existence.  He even notes that armies now “watch battles from the barracks” and that “today the army only occupies the territory once the war is over.”

 

Armitage examines Virilio’s concern that in the future the distinction between the human body and technology will be lost; he calls this the “transplant revolution.”  He believes that there is a possibility that not only will body parts be substituted by machines but so to will human functions.  Armitage points out that Virillio does not see men and women as separate entities but rather the human body as a whole.

 

In Virilio’s latest work, Armitage examines his theory that “ while war was a failure both for Europe and for NATO it was a success for the United States.”  He believes that the US used Kosovo as an experiment, testing out new “informational and cybernetic tools, “ in hopes of reaching their goal of “Global Information Dominance.”

 

Armitage next looks at why Virilio’s work should not be labeled as “postmodern cultural theory.” He believes the Virilio is not “reacting against modernism” or against the international style.  Virilio states, postmodernism “has been a ‘catastrophe’ in architecture and has nothing to do with his phenomenological grounded writing,” and that his own work is based on “the modernist tradition of arts and sciences.”  Virilio sees no bases for connection with anti-humanism, structuralism, or theorists like Derrida, and he has no interest in the structural linguistics of Saussure. Armitage notes, “unlike the poststructural theorists, Virilio is a humanist and a practicing Christian.”  Virillio does not condemn modernity but rather views his work as a “critical analysis of modernity, but through a perception of technology which largely…catastrophic, not catastrophist.”

Virilio even defines modernity differently than most postmodernist, and his primary focus is on how the speed of modernity affects technology and society.

 

Armitage concludes by examining how Virilio’s work “remains true to the principle of hope with regards to making sense of history.” He looks at the differences between Virilio and Mcluhan, pointing out that they have little in common. Armitage notes that Virilio’s work cannot be looked at in terms of postmodern cultural theory, instead he should be looked at as a cultural theorist addressing “ hypermodernism.” To understand Virilio’s work one must abandon assumption based on modernist and postmodernist thought, and concentrate on his “work on acceleration through the excessive intensities and placements inherent within hypermodern cultural thought about the military-scientific complex.”

 

Finally, Armitage proposes a brief critique of Virilio’s work and the controversy surrounding his ideas. Deleuze and Guattari look at Virilio’s ideas as problematic. Harvey believes Virillio (and Baudrillard) “seem hell-bent on fusing with time-space compression and replacing it in their own flamboyant rhetoric.”  Harvey sees Virilio’s theories as being limited and likely to rest not on his similarities to Nietsche but “with his differences.”  Yet, Virilio’s theories are beginning to collide with other cultural theorists like Krokers. Armitage states that though his theories are debatable, Virilio “ is one of the most important and thought- provoking cultural theorists on the contemporary battlefield” and that “ his theoretical positions and cultural sensibilities concerning technology thus remain beyond the realm of even cultural theory.”

 

 

 

 

This is not a summery of The Corporation by Brooke Marcy

 

An interesting thing happened while I was watching The Corporation, I began personifying corporations and thinking of them in terms of being human.  What would a corporation look like if it were human and how would it act?  The image of a 60ish well dressed good looking white male came to mind.  He would be the kind of person who went to the right schools and lives in a large house surrounded by a fence. The fence enables others to see his house, envy it, but not get too close, keeping out the aspects of everyday life that don’t concern him. The man would have more money than he knows what to do with, yet no matter how much he has, it will never be enough. He doesn’t think much of others or worry about things outside his own wants and needs. The needs of the people who work under him are not his problem, and he has gotten where he is financially and professionally by exploiting others. He fits the profile of a sociopath, but he is thought of as savvy, not mentally ill. The only time he does something for others or the environment is when he can somehow profit from the action.  Laws are more like guidelines than actual rules, and breaking them is part of his job. His image is everything, and he will do anything to protect and promote it. He doesn’t understand what it is like to be poor or discriminated against, and those who are, don’t concern him. He is very cunning and able to manipulate others and influence their choices.  This is not person I would choose to be around. I could never respect him because of the way he treats others and the environment.  If he were anyone else, he would be in jail or at least heavily medicated.  Yet he surrounds me, and I thoughtlessly play my part by purchasing his products and ignoring his injustice. It is interesting how changing the corporation from an” it” to a “him” better enables me to view the corporation more objectively.

 

I do, however, live my life believing in the power of the people. We need to standup against injustices committed by “the corporation” and have our voices heard.  I was raised a Quaker and have been marching in protests, writing letters and signing petitions since I was old enough to write and walk. I believe that one person can make a difference and that making your voice heard is essential to promoting change.  I am worried that we are creating a generation of people who sit back and let others tell them who they are and what to think.  I guess we shall see.