Monthly Archives: February 2005

Ellul and Perrow on the “adapted man”

Posted on by

   Ellul says that "the better adapted man is, the more tolerant and liberal the system can act toward him.  The more he conforms, the less constraint has to be used." (Ellul, 1980, 109) He makes this claim while discussing flexibility as a feature of the technological system.  Ellul says that as long as man does not challenge the system he is allowed a fair amount of independence.  This is accomplished by increasing the abstraction of the system and the establishment of second- and third-order controls.  Seemingly he acquires greater freedoms, but these freedoms are compensation for, or adaptations to, the system; thus, they actually further decrease our freedom and responsibilities while providing the sense that we are free and responsible.  We are given more choices but these choices are only choices of technique.  So long as we choose a new self-help group, or a little blue pill to elevate our mood or our members, or choose MP3 over CD, and so on, we are free to do as we like.  In fact, these and many other lifestyle choices, to include who we want to be today, are marketed to us.  So what are these second- and third-order controls that are used to give us the illusion of freedom and responsibility?

   Perrow’s article gives us the answer to this question.  First-order controls are direct surveillance, orders, and rules and regulations.  These do, of course, exist in the technological system, but their overuse would result in our correctly feeling the loss of freedom and responsibility.  Proliferation of rules and regulations also leads to errors, primarily because people will choose the least inconvenient rule to follow and not necessarily the most applicable.  Second-order controls primarily consist of standardization and specialization, but also include hierarchy according to Perrow.  He specifically says that these concepts have "technical origins and rationale," that is, they are technique. (Perrow, 7)  By limiting the amount of stimuli that people have to respond to they control people.  They channel behavior and if they are well constructed they result in more predictable and efficient behavior. (Perrow, 8)  So although second-order controls result in our having less to control, they provide us with the feeling of being in control.  This parallels Ellul’s claim that the technological system strips us of our responsibility.

     Large amounts of ambiguity and uncertainty produce fear and
anxiety in us.  We are afraid of making an error and the possible
consequences of doing so.  This is why we hand over all of our
responsibilities, particularly our moral responsibilities, to experts.
Moral judgments always involve contexts that include ambiguity or
uncertainty.  Thus, we rely on those who are specialized, or on
standard procedures, to make these decisions for us.  Third-order
controls change or control our premises.  By controlling our premises
our attention can be directed to some stimuli and redirected away from
other stimuli.  This is done by reducing the amount of information we
have in an area and increasing the amount somewhere else.  By using
this form of control less first- and second-order controls can be
used.  By having our premises changed we feel even more in
control; that we are freer.  Several of the ways that our attention is
directed or redirected is by signs, posters, speeches, and performance
reviews; frowns and smiles in everyday conversation; repeated use of
keywords (ala plastic words [see Plastic Words: The Tyranny of a Modular Language by Uwe Pörksen]); controlling the number of words; and reinforcement, particularly positive reinforcement. (Perrow, 11-13) 

   These types of control certainly seem applicable to the
organization or corporation; but how do they apply to society in
general, and how do they support the technological system?

nowadays we have all kinds
of complicated machines
so no one person
ever has to have blood on their hands
we have complex organizations
and if everyone just does their job
no one person ever has to understand
Ani DiFranco – crime for crime

    Second-order controls are particularly prevalent.  Our
institutions are all highly standardized and specialized.  Law no
longer involves judgments but has become procedural rules to be
followed.  Techniques for everything from sales to test taking to
critical thinking have been developed.  Standardized testing is well,
standardized, and is a massive industry.  Standards apply to
practically everything we buy or consume.  Equipment must be
interchangeable and work together, food must be safe, labeling laws
specify what must be listed and how.  Schools of higher education have
reduced themselves to simply (re)producing technicians.  I could go on ad nauseum
about second-order controls, but far more interesting for the feelings
of freedom and responsibility that they impart to us are third-order
controls.  The reduction of the amount of information in certain areas
of our lives is easily taken care of by the control of the media by a
very few, very large corporations.  This is particularly important in
the areas of politics and world affairs.  But by control being in the
hands of only a few, usually locally remote, corporations we do not
even know what is going on in our "own backyards." 

[para break added]

   These same large media corporations also conveniently handle the
redirection or replacement of these missing stimuli by other stimuli.
The compensations of the media are practically endless, and this is
where we are most "free."  There are a practically unlimited number of
channels on TV, be it satellite, cable or broadcast.  Every week
several new movies are released.  Didn’t that ad on TV look great?  An
unlimited supply of specialty magazines exist for the connoisseur of
everything from Barbie® dolls
to cigars.  Music—would you like that on tape, vinyl, CD, DVD-Audio,
SACD…?  Propaganda of all sorts is used as redirection, or is it
misdirection?  How is it that over sixty percent of the American
population came to believe that direct ties existed between Saddam
Hussein and al Queda?  Why were we being told in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11 to go shopping?  Just what does "We Stand United"
mean?  Psychological commitment to the organization is a classic result
of third-order controls.  By changing our premises—making us
believe that if you do not support George Bush and his cronies that you
are not only unpatriotic but treasonous; convincing us that Britney
Spears can really sing—we believe that we are in control; that we are
responsible for our choices; and that we are free. 

(Sources for this answer are primarily The Technological System by Jacques Ellul, chap. 4; The Bureaucratic Paradox: The Efficient Organization Centralizes in Order to Decentralize by Charles Perrow, Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1977: 2-14; crime for crime by Ani DiFranco on Not A Pretty Girl and class notes.)

Afterthoughts and Notes:

Written as part of final exam for Sociology 469.04 Seminar in
Sociological Institutions – Technology and Modern Society. Fall 2003 at
Illinois State University.

If I had know the amount of first-order controls to be implemented
over the course of the Bush presidency I would have spent more time on
them in the 2nd paragraph.  Certainly more than basically just "their
overuse would result in our correctly feeling the loss of freedom and
responsibility."  See for example: The Homeland Security State

Additions to text marked by [ ].

Fleshed out the sources a bit more since the professor knew many of them but you may not.

 

AOL/TimeWarner as Corporate Criminal

Posted on by

Other than it keeps people and goods moving in our corporate-driven world, why is it that we tolerate companies like AOL/TimeWarner and their proliferation of trash?  I am not referring to any specific intellectual property that they issue, although one could argue that they issue plenty of intellectual pap.  No, my point is the massive amount of real trash, i.e. garbage, that they send unsolicited through the mail and via other means of distribution.  Other corporate trash generators are the credit card companies.  Can I really use all of those credit cards they want to give me?  And how many cards can one have or use from the same darn company?  AOL is my "favorite" corporate entity to despise in this regard though.

I received another CD-ROM in the mail today, faithfully delivered by the USPS.  Maybe it is all just a government/corporate conspiracy to keep the Postal Service afloat.  That seems a little too far-fetched for my liking as a theory though, so I’m still at a loss here.

At least the vast amount of unneeded paper sent out by credit card companies will degrade after a few centuries.  Has anyone else been bothered by the resources that go into all of these excess CD-ROMs and the increasingly sophisticated packaging that AOL uses lately?  First, there are the CD-ROMS themselves?  Anyone have any idea how long it will take for the literally millions, maybe tens of millions, of those that are disposed of to decompose?  Then there is the packaging.  The disc I received today is like the last few I got.  It is a fairly sophisticated box composed of fibreboard overlain with glossy paper.  The flap that seals the box closed contains magnets as a latch.  Then it is all wrapped in cellophane!  How many millions of these go straight to the landfill?  When the heck are they going to decompose?  How many toxins will released into the ecosystem during this process?

I have yet to receive one, but I have even seen these AOL CD-ROMs packaged in plastic cases like those that DVD-Audios come in; sort of like a super jewel box.  What gives this corporation the idea that they can waste so many of the world’s resources to generate all of this junk?  It might be excusable if they had something like an 80% rate of use, but it has to be far under 1%.  I have no idea how many dozens of these that I have thrown away over the years.  How about you?

The problem is, of course, far more complicated than just the
garbage generated.  There is the whole problem of the waste of
resources to generate all of this literal trash, and the toxins
generated and released by the production and decomposing of them.

I realize that there is nothing to prevent these sorts of behaviors
by corporations as they try to manipulate us into consuming their
products.  But, there damn well should be!  I, for one, consider this blatant waste of resources a crime against humanity.  What can we do about it?  What should we do about it? 

I do not consume much of TimeWarner’s products based on a look at their website.
I do not use AOL; I don’t have cable or watch TV, so no HBO or TBS for
me; I don’t read Time; I do have cable broadband but it is Insight not
Time Warner Cable; and I rarely go to Hollywood movies but I have to
admit that I have liked a few New Line Cinema releases over the years.
I must admit that my downfall is some of the Warner Bros. Entertainment
offerings.  No WB TV, very little from Warner Bros. Entertainment, and
so on, but then there is Warner Music Group.  Eschewing most popular
music, I get to skip a large amount of auditory pap generated by this
division.  But considering that it is composed of Atlantic, Elektra,
Lava, Maverick, Nonesuch, Reprise, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. and Word
there are artists that I like and will pay for, e.g. Neil Young, among
a few others.

I realize that it is hard not to be a dutiful consumer in our
society.  It is a system heavily structured against us.  Can I feel
good about only putting a small amount of money into the coffers of
such corporate "criminals," or do I have to totally boycott such
entities?  Should I never use a credit card—something which is next to
impossible in our society—because these companies pester us with
telemarketing and pollute the Earth with their vast amount of excess
credit card offers? 

I am willing to change but can only do so in small increments at a
time.  I am willing to go further but the system is set-up against me.
I am not ready to become an eater of the wild stinging nettle in a Euell Gibbons
sort of way.  It would be much easier if there were more people willing
to join me in these things.  One person, or a dozen, even hundreds of
people, will make no difference.  Sure, they’ll make a difference in
their own lives and that can be a good thing.  But in the larger sense
of saving this society, and more importantly, of saving the Earth, it
will takes tens of millions of us here in the US, and hundreds of
millions throughout the Western world to force a change.

This is such a complex, interrelated problem.  Wholesale change in
the structure of Western society is an utopian idea.  But maybe we
change some things that will make enough of a difference.  There is no
doubt that Western society is well down the path of non-sustainable
resource depletion and environmental degradation.  Maybe with "small"
changes, such as making it a crime for corporate entities to abuse the
world by producing and distributing so much literal garbage, we can
begin to change all of our thinking enough to get off this path of
self-destruction.  It is such an utter irony that we survived the
almost guaranteed mutual destruction of the Cold War to end up in the
situation we have put the world in today.

What can we do to eliminate this, also, self-generated threat?
There is no enemy to outspend in this case.  Even thinking of it in
metaphorical terms of war is probably destructive.  We need a new
metaphor; we need ideas that Western people of all beliefs and
socio-economic backgrounds can understand, internalize, and act on.
Any ideas?  I for one am listening.

 

Library Dust by Michael McGrorty

Posted on by

You really should read this man’s sweet, sweet words.

His book reviews make me want to read books that I know I’m not really interested in, and I have read several of his recommendations.  All good.   His insight into other issues is incredible and he often leaves me crying.   I sure wish I could weave words like he does.  Here are some recommendations from the last few months, but please browse for what interests you:

Numbers, Prospects [I am so glad he's on the side of the library]
North in the Rain

Artie Shaw and Mastery
Holiday Offering [on the essay]
Veterans and Libraries
Sloane, Dickens, Bridges and Barns
San Ardo Library
About Robots [a young boy writes]
By Serpents Beguiled  I did try to get this one back in Aug but my library gave up trying after a few months of trying to locate a copy.  I should try again soon.

Thank you for your gift of words and for the gift of sharing them with us Michael.

Googliana

Posted on by

I am not necessarily the biggest fan of pop culture but this is great!

More Google

Be sure to click on the More Googles Here link for even more.  I have to say I like Richard’s choice of this one though.  And if you like pop culture be sure to check out his blog. 

I found this other Google related bit rather humorous also.

Google Fights Back

Should be doing homework….

Posted on by

OK, I promised myself that I would not get myself embroiled in these sorts of things.  I need to be doing homework.  Furthering my own education is more important than trying to convince hateful, racist, bigots that they should get some before opening their mouths.

Plus, I’m probably just going to draw them to me here which is the last thing I want.  I want dialogue, conversation.  Disagreement is perfectly fine as long as it is civil.  Anyway, I made another comment over at Siva’s because another hateful idiot was running his mouth.  Or is Dan really Duck?  Same hateful idiot?

I have to calm down.  I slept like crap last night.  Woke up at 3:05 and got up at 4:25 AM.  Must’ve been feeling my friend’s pain and sleeplessness.  I have a wonderful friend whom I love dearly who is embroiled in a fight for her career and it is eating me up.  She deserves so much better!  She would of course deny it, but I am literally alive and mentally healthy today thanks to her.  She was my tether to reality and a caring soul during the darkest period of my life.  Family of mine, no matter what ever happens to me, this woman (and 2 others, but especially this one) deserve your undying gratitude.  Ok, Ok, relax Mark.

Comment at State of the Union on Altercation

Posted on by

Just posted a comment in reply to another very rude one at  Sivacracy.net

I know I shouldn’t take the bait from idiots like these.   And yes, one could argue that I stooped to the same level.   Maybe I did but I’m not convinced that I see it that way.   I have absolutely no doubt that Siva can stand up for himself.   But then I hope I wouldn’t just stand around while somebody kicked  a stray dog for no reason, much less another human being.

I was probably ruder than I should’ve been in return but I doubt that Duck would’ve understood anything more understated.  I’ll just have to work a little harder to help make someone’s day today as penance.

I am truly trying to be above crap like this.   But damn, I’m only human too, and people like that piss me off!

I know I will take some flak for this one…

Posted on by

Today in my school newspaper (Daily Illini) I read that the tax-free "death gratuity" is being raised from $12,420 to $100,000 and that an extra $150,000 in insurance would be paid.  Being a college newspaper, or maybe just a newspaper period, it was short on details.

Before I go any further, let me state clearly and unequivocally that this is a good thing, and long overdue!  Before anyone sends me hate mail or posts flaming comments please consider the previous sentence, and consider my situation here.  These comments, and the feelings that elicit them, are very painful for me.  I am an Army retiree—young enough to possibly be called back to active duty—and I have a son on active duty who is about to reenlist.  While he is a man now, and I fully respect his decision and love him for it, I want him out now!  That would not protect him though either, so our lives are what they are.

I want my son to grow old with me, to give me grandchildren [someday down the road boy], to put out his arm and provide me a little dignity when I am old and feeble.  There is no amount of money that can provide those things for me; only he—alive; mentally, physically and spiritually healthy—can provide me with those.  I also know that my mother has dreams for me, and as most mothers do she takes pride in the man that I am finally becoming.  The money the government would give her if I were to be recalled to active duty and be killed would go a very long way in allowing her to retire.  I may be wrong but I have no doubt that she would rather struggle and keep working and have me than to have the money.

So what is the problem for me here?  I’m not really sure.  I guess
it is just the sheer politicizing of it all.  My original thoughts were
a little one-sided but I did a little research and found out it is, as
usual, slightly more complex than the Daily Illini made it out to be.
And let me state here, this is not about Republican-bashing or any such
related thing.  Both parties are guilty of politicizing this.  Why
can’t they just do it in a nice bi-partisan and quiet manner and give
these families the solemn respect that their sacrifices deserve?  No,
there has to be bickering and arguments over who is entitled, who will
get the retroactive payments, who qualifies for the additional
insurance on the Pentagon’s dime, and so on.  Just pick a date and make
it retroactive for Christ’s sake!  Why does it matter if it occurred in
an official combat zone or not?  They died serving their country in a
"time of war"—it really is that simple people.

I am going to bash the administration some here; especially now that
I’ve seen some of the details of the bickering going on.  The
administration is proposing that it only cover those in designated
combat zones.  Although the victims of September 11 got an average of
$2.1 million dollars, the 53 service members who died that day in the
attack on the Pentagon would not be eligible.  I am sorry—it pains me
to even think this and especially to "say it out loud"— but all I can
think here is that the administration is trying to buy off these
families.  These people think that money can solve anything!  Maybe
these families can use this money, maybe they can even really
use the money.  Just take a look at the socioeconomic breakdown of who
joins the military and you should have no doubt about it.  But, again,
I am willing to bet that every one of these families would much rather
have their loved ones back than this "blood money."  Yes, I said it.
Be honest people, because that is what it is. 

"We can never in any program give someone back
their loved one," he [David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for
personnel and readiness] added. "There is nothing we can do about the
hurt, to make it go away. But we can make your circumstances
reasonable, in terms of finances." CNN—Debate Over Death Benefits

Make your circumstances reasonable?  That is so absolutely
offensive!  Please help me see this as something other than blood
money, please.

"There have been 1,608 coalition troop deaths,
1,437 Americans, 86 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two
Estonians, one Hungarian, 20 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 16
Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 17
Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of February 1, 2005." CNN—War in Iraq—US & Coalition Casualties

This is just the war in Iraq as of Feb 1st.  There are scores more
who have died in Afghanistan, 53 at the Pentagon, and scores elsewhere
around the world.  How many special ops folks have been lost on
missions that we won’t even admit to?  Will their families be
recompensed?  How many more are going to die?  All I have to say to all of our politicians
is you cannot buy off these families.  None of this is about money for
them—those who serve and die nor their family members who must go on
living with the loss.  There are  no "reasonable circumstances" for
these families!

This should have been done a long time ago and there should be no
quibbling over who is eligible!  And, please, we have to choose a date
so just back it up to that fateful September day.

Again, I do believe that this is long overdue and that it is a good
thing, as much as something like this can be "good."  I just have a lot
of issues with the timing and quibbling.

And before you fire off a flame or unthoughtful response, please
keep in mind that I just gave up a very valuable evening to think this
through and to write and re-write trying to get a handle on these
thoughts and emotions.  I could very easily have just settled down and
read some early library history, or about the intricacies of AACR2 and
MARC formatting, or read dozens of folk tales looking for that special
one that speaks to me so that I can learn it well enough to be able to
tell it in class on the 14th.  Sometimes, unfortunately, other things,
such as this, speak to me.  I used to try and ignore them.  I no longer
can.

Success!

Posted on by

Yeah, success!  I finally got a banner uploaded and pointed to.  Small strides are worth celebrating on occasion—I may have to go get myself a fresh cookie or two before I go back to work.

Now I need an even better banner.  I’m just learning graphics so bear with me and I have a limited selection of tools available at present also.  I think I want to make it even shorter and I’d like a better looking harp.  Also, I’d love to figure out how to "break" the word ‘thoughts.’  I’m satisfied for now though considering I started it less than 24 hours ago.