Re; nex grand narrative of competition The writing is on the wall for this generation. The "fun" wall :)
Facebook has all kinds of applications that are designed to place social relationships into hierarchies - not granular categories. Hierarchies (i.e., good, better, best). Look at "rate me" and "compare me" - these are repellent ideas to anyone with any social conscience. I do not wish for my friendship or social relationship to be "compared" to another. And yet, this is what young people are learning by using corporate social products like Facebook. As a teacher, I have special concerns about how social media is playing a role in socialising young people. While there is some argument that social media merely reproduces the patterns already in existance, I'd argue that the corporate interests and the ideological interests behind those corporate interests play the most significant role in shaping what specific kinds of applications and user controls are available. I do not see any evidence of social equity present in the design of these services. What I see are services that are training us to be better consumers and reinforcing of social class divisions. Melanie On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Matt Cooperrider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert, > > I also fear the dark side of cooperation. I am particularly concerned > with what can happen when web technology enters the mix. In order to > take advantage of the scalability of the web, we must first codify > ourselves and our interactions. Humans are recast as modules with > attribute sets and skill sets, our relationships are reduced to types > such as friend/colleague/enemy, our trust and reputation are > translated into numerical ratings. > > When the next grand narrative takes hold, we'll already be podified > and prepared for deployment. What's more troubling, this next > narrative won't be embodied in a single persona; rather, it will > emerge from the wisdom of the crowds and will thus hold a new kind of > authority which will be tricky to dispel. We desperately need > critical tools to deal with these very real possibilities of > cooperation co-option. > > Matt C > > On Aug 26, 7:35 am, Robert Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:29:10AM -0400, Frederica Clare wrote: >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Date: Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:02 PM >> > Subject: The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> snip >> > [According to Hardin]] >> > Inevitably, "the rational herdsman concludes that the >> > only sensible course for him to pursue is to add >> > another animal to his herd." But every "rational >> > herdsman" will do the same thing, so the commons is >> > soon overstocked and overgrazed to the point where it >> > supports no animals at all. >> >> This, arguably, is simply an extension of the well entrenched >> competition narrative fostered by the robber barons of the early >> industrial age. In the milieu to which Hardin contributed this gem it >> was a fairly non-controversial argument, save that it pinked the >> sensibilities of leftist academics, as I understand the time. >> >> snip >> >> >> >> > Friedrich Engels' account of the "mark," the form taken >> > by commons-based communities in parts of pre-capitalist >> > Germany: >> >> > "The use of arable and meadowlands was under the >> > supervision and direction of the community ... >> >> > "Just as the share of each member in so much of the >> > mark as was distributed was of equal size, so was his >> > share also in the use of the 'common mark.' The nature >> > of this use was determined by the members of the >> > community as a whole. ... >> >> > "At fixed times and, if necessary, more frequently, >> > they met in the open air to discuss the affairs of the >> > mark and to sit in judgment upon breaches of >> > regulations and disputes concerning the mark." (Engels >> > 1892) >> >> At the time Hardin offered us TotC it was sufficient to invoke Engels >> and find one had inescapably polarized the conversation. Hardin's essay >> gave folks "on the right" a seemingly solid argument against >> communalism/commonism/communism. That his essay begged the question of >> what a rational actor would do is beside the point. This wasn't >> science, it was veiled polemics. The problem was, and remains, that >> with great names like Stalin and Mao and Hitler talking up socialism >> even folks who think such ideals look good on paper are hard pressed to >> maintain our committment to those ideals in the face of the atrocities >> committed in the name of those ideals by these "great men of history". >> The best the left and others interested in communal ideals could do was >> play the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and hope the monsters would just go >> away. >> >> This is a thread of Cooperation Studies which is much on my mind, and >> for which I have no traction, no footing, no hooks, the dark side of >> cooperation, when cooperators do evil, and the propensity for evil in >> concentrated action, the potential for loss of individual freedom, >> dignity, meaning in the ocean of common action. >> >> I look forward to continuing to explore these threads with y'all. >> >> rl > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CooperationCommons" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CooperationCommons?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
