Bowers Reading One: Main Ideas and Issues

Introduction:

I like what Bowers has laid out so far, and I will touch on the main things I am excited about below.  However, I am a bit disappointed that he hasn’t gone in to more detail about the foundations and influences of his thought.  He wants to emphasize the history and ecology of things like language, tradition and culture—and to talk about emergence—but I don’t see him giving an ecology, history or account of where from or how his ideas have emerged.  Being the geek I am (or half-assed scholar, or dilettante might be better words) I want to know if Nietzsche, Korzybski or who had an influence on his conception of language.  Maybe that will come later, or maybe I will have to look to another book of his to find that. 

A couple of issues with word choice:

First, I am not happy with his choice of the word ecological to talk about the complex and interdependent relationship between things.  I understand why he thinks it works: because it emphasizes that living and interactive nature of systems and relationships.  But he also seems to use the word in the more common sense as well: to talk about eco-systems and the environment.  This confuses me a bit sometimes. 

Neil Postman talks about ecological change in his book Technopoly, and the idea seems to be much the same as what Bowers means:

“One significant change generates total change.  If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none.” (Postman Technopoly).

I had always thought about pretty much the same idea in terms of ‘weight and balance’ (like when you load and pilot a plane or ship) until I read that in Postman a couple years ago.  Ecology is a much better way to put it.  So I do really like the idea, I just have a problem with the word ecology seeming to be used in two ways back and forth. 

Second, I am not sure what he means exactly by emergence at this point.  I guess it is simply that things come out of what is already there.  This means that nothing was just always there, that things come and go, and that they come out of and depend on what is/was there.  Maybe that is all it is.  I get the feeling that there should be more to it.  However, that is likely a pretty big thing for a lot of people who pick up the book, though for me it seems pretty obvious. 

Main ideas:

Choosing profits:

He says that the technology giants have put profit over the rejuvenation of democracy.  He seems to think that this is a deliberate choice. I am not sure it is or at least that it is that simple of a choice the way they approach it: do right by democracy or make profit.  I think a way to approach this would be using the set of god-words he pointed out: democracy, freedom and progress.  If approached this way, I think it comes kind of clear that they don’t see that as a choice of either/or.  I am not sure many of the leaders of the tech world see the real possibility of significant conflict between those three ideas and making a profit.  With progress comes more freedom and with freedom comes better democracy, especially if technology can also spread information which is always good for democracy.  Technology that is spreading freedom and helping democracy will be profitable because it will be popular: and what sells makes money.  I don’t think they question that some sort of spontaneous order will come about thought this.  That when freedom and democracy are combined with information and technology, progress towards a desirable world is inevitable.  It is like they believe in divine providence that comes into the world as long as we work towards these god-words. 

God-words:

Overall, I live the idea of the ‘god-words’ and the three he points out here.  They are ideas that are taken to be true, to be known, to be able to justify almost anything, and yet they are words that no one really has a clear and definite definition for though we use them as if we do. 

Internet goes deeper than polarization:

Another great point it is that the internet is damaging beyond the spread of ‘polarizing ideas.’  I see this as related to the conception of data, print and information as well.  Print and data are true or false and there is no need of interpretation.  As a result, something on the internet has a clear meaning and is either clearly true of clearly false—you just need to fact check it to find out which.  News is either real or fake, there is no third option.  This is the case because interpretation and values are ruled out as important: “while data and information, on the surface, appear to be value free, both are interpreted by their collectors and promoters within value-laden conceptual frameworks that emphasize efficiencies, predictive control, continues innovation and profits.”  This is a huge problem with contemporary communication which comes from a narrow conception of what information is and the forgetting of the importance context and culture.

The limits of data are swept aside:

A related point is that “What gets encoded in print or as data is only the surface phenomenon that the surveillance system is designed to represent as data.”  Context is left out.  This means the original context is left out and the context that the collectors were in when the collected and decided how to collect the data are left out.  They are in the margins (I think that is how Derrida might put it, right?) and not noticed unless someone has a disagreement or difficulty with the print or data.  While a discussion of the difficulty and where it comes from can bring context back in, that is usually not what we do these days.  We seem to condemn or insult those that we don’t understand or that don’t understand us. 

Data given supremacy:

He goes on from the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what data is talk about the importance it is given.  Along with stripping information and data of its origins and context, it is given a privileged status.  Computer scientists have “their simplified and reductionist ways of thinking [which] lead them to assume that data, information and other forms of abstract representations should be the basis of decision making for everyone in the world.”  Lack of data is also cited by technologists as the reason for failures and backwardness in societies and of societies: “data deficiency that impedes their ability to progress economically and technologically.”  Bowers says quite clearly that data is seen as supreme and should replace other forms of knowing and thinking: “data must replace the authority of all other cultural forms of knowledge—as well as the wisdom traditions that are the basis of their moral values.”  

Conclusion:

I agree with his assessment and with his criticism of the modern western worldview.  I would like to hear more details and see a more detailed argument for all of this.  I like it, but it seems like he is preaching to the choir here, and I think this book would fall flat for a more regular audience. 

I also want to hear more about localism and how it is better for the environment.  I can see some ideas, but I hope he justifies this more. 

Apology:

I realize this seems a bit disorganized and random.  At this point I just wanted to get out what I think the big ideas are here so far.  I have also avoided drawing in things from the news that I think are examples or related; I am really not sure we want to go there.