Final Blog

Final Rambling:

(written during class, without revision, so if the argument doesn't really make sense, just trust, that in my head, at the time of composition, it did.)

What has struck me throughout this course has been how seemingly important narrative was to the dissemination of scientific thought. When I originally thought about the course, there was a very distinct difference, in my head, between serious scientific work and work primarily interested in narrative.  As a product of today's culture, science presented in narrative form seems to be thought of as less scholarly, and consequently, less reliable. However, after reading Cook, Darwin, Humboldt, etc., I see that the presentation of science in narrative form as an act of honest scholarship. 

In one of the first questions of the class from Geertz's piece, we asked if authorial presence in a text made the text more truthful, valuable, ethical. Today, we want objective logic, facts, results; we don't want serious work adulterated by personal pronouns. We like to think that just maybe we can step off of our ideological platforms and perform objective discourse.  Most of the time however, an attempt at pure objectivity is not possible and therefore any such attempt carries with it some level of dishonesty.  In the scientific travel narratives that we read for the class, the author's presence in the text was almost always visible: the reader is commonly aware that it is the author's experiences and research that they are reading. By inserting the self into the text, the authors that we read,  don't get wrapped up in discussions of objectivity and instead, seemingly accept the implications of authorial presence. By avoiding fake objective discourse, the authors, through narrative, are able to present scientific research in more honest and as Geertz might say, ethical ways. 

To sum up the class, and this discussion, personal narrative, in my view, does not detract from serious scientific (or scholarly) discourse, but because it doesn't pretend to be fully objective, makes the discourse more ethical, and in some ways, dare I say, more "true."

Presentation Remarks:

Hillary, 

When I was a kid I read this book called "Northwest Passage" in which in American expedition team ventured into the wilderness to try and find the prized passageway. The characters in the book are full of passion, drive, curiosity and obsession, almost to the point of destruction. Almost. 

Similarly,  I found the "almost" in the captain of your narrative, particularly interesting. Though he seemed to have a certain drive about him, he still made the call, if I remember correctly, to turn around and head. He almost made it, but didn't. Often common sense can be trumped by drive, and yet, in this case, common sense prevailed and the captain accepted the "almost" status of his voyage; something, I imagine, that he would have thought about for a long time after.

Kellan,

While I was a bit disappointed you did not discover a travel narrative about particular swine of a certain island or continent, your presentation was nonetheless interesting. What I stuck with me was the sense that though collectors were employed on state sponsored trips, the made collections were second best to the state's intentions. It was a bit sad to hear that the voice of your narrative was stuck making agricultural and economic charts (lots of them) when he really wanted to be collecting. And further, that the collection he did manage to make was not looked at with much favor. It would be similar to going to Disneyland and having to study crowd interaction when all you really wanted to do was ride Splash Mountain. 

Toria,

Dicey seemed spicy. A real character. That is what is great about a lot of these travel texts, we often get a real sense of the person behind the travel. In your case, a humorous, self-involved, romantic hero wannabe. Sorry so short, gotta run to class.

Presentation comments..the rest to follow

Julie: One of the ideas from your presentation that I found particularly interesting was an idea that was really almost an aside. It was this idea that while your text was a travel narrative without explicit scientific motives,  there were still moments (in the footnotes) which alluded to scientific ideas, specifically, if remember properly, scientific ideas relating to taxonomy. 

What struck me as odd was that these footnotes were there (even in small numbers) when really the narrative works, I assume, fine without them. If the scientific, or pseudo-scientific footnotes are ancillary to the narrative, then you have to ask what is their purpose.

Then, I began thinking, conversely, about how narrative has, in what we have read, helped the presentation of scientific information reach a wider audience, but also add depth to the whole account. Could then, ancillary science in a narrative add intellectual credibility to the text? In other words, could the footnotes in your narrative be there to help validate the narrative? I don't know, but it was really interesting to think about.

Jerry: Out of all of us in class, it seems most appropriate for you to pick up an almost random book, think it was boring and then somehow discover the possibility of a massive scandal and conspiracy. I think your presentation will now make all of our presentations pale in "coolness." 

However, aside from being really fascinating, I thought your presentation highlighted something that we should have maybe thought about more throughout the whole semester. And that is the idea that the narratives we read, even if presenting scientific information, should still be looked at with some degree of speculation. I know we have hammered home the idea that the narrative is not objective, but your presentation took it further: not only was the travel text not objective, but the whole expedition may have been shrouded with political and ideological motivation. If the claim is true, which you present a good case for it, then what does that say about science narratives or more broadly, scientific exploration? If a regime knew that under the name of scientific exploration they could hide their true motivations, then does that mean that, to some degree, scientific travel was seen as a pure and noble activity? And if so, what is lost when something is viewed that way? I know I am reading into it a bit, but something to maybe consider.

More to follow...

Mapping the Technological

On a NetZero commercial, the CEO, said something like, “we all know that all of the internet providers get you to same the internet, so why not pay less for the same product?”

Good point. As consumers that makes sense. A lot of sense. Same thing, less money, good bargain. The Internet for cheaper, not free. A space that is both real and not real. Exists and does not exist. Regulated and not regulated. Coded and visual. www dot the same thing dot com. We can all get to the same place by logging on, paying our monthly connection fee and hitting a few keystrokes. We can be in the same place at the same time, looking at the same thing. We can all be there and here at the same moment. The Internet is one place and yet, it feels like every place.

I tried to map the Internet.
I destroyed an Ethernet cable to look at what made my connectivity possible. I wrapped pieces of the empty cable shell around an orb that is both our planet and our hub. There are two ends to the cable, both still intact with their wiring. One hangs from the center, the culmination of coil similar to a stovetop burner. The other sits in a blanket of rare color, the possibility of anything keeping it glued to the canvas. The destroyed wiring swings from one end of the canvas to the next, at times remaining connected to the next wire and at other times cut from its connection. The canvas is both 3-dimensional and flat, with pieces of the wiring stuck to the paint and flowing from it. In Laurie Anderson’s Stories from the Nerve Bible she discusses the Internet and technology in terms of a series of numbers strung together to manifest something both physical and not. Hanging on the cords, in an attempt to follow this line of thought, are newspaper cutouts of numbers, arbitrarily placed. In the middle of the board, weaving in between the coil and the wires is a flimsy silhouette of a flower, both trapped in the technological cyberscape and blooming out of it.

I tried to map the Internet.

We all know, as the CEO says, that there is one Internet out there, I doubt however, it looks like this. Whatever it is, it is accessible in almost any part of the world and yet it still strikes me as existing somewhere outside of the world.

We certainly rely on the Internet and in a way now, we co-exist with it.

Paper Shmaper

About a month ago, I was going to do this really cool postmodern thingy for the final paper. The kind of thing Debbie talks about, with non-fiction narrative interweaved with critical analyses of some cultural texts. But after I began research (the topic was going to be the American Diner), I couldn't find much pertinent texts and the ones I did find were from Summit and have since been recalled. Further, I am supposed to write a thesis and pass a language exam this semester, so while the paper may have been interesting to write, I think it would have caused more headaches then I needed. So I began rethinking.

Since my thesis is on the horror film, I have done a lot (at least it feels like a lot) of research on monsters, ghouls, torture, and violence. While I don't want to double dip the research, I really just kind of what to double dip the research. Which does not mean that I will just turn in the thesis for the seminar paper (because somehow I don't think torture porn, however far I stretch it, could meet the final paper criteria); however, what it does mean is that I would like to find someway to use some of the horror theory in conjunction with science stuff and narrative stuff to see what happens. The horror genre has its roots in the gothic tradition (i.e...the Castle of Otranto) and so I started thinking about literature from that era. When I was an undergrad I think I read "Frankenstein" every single year and so that immediatley came to mind. Not only is it about monsters and science, but it also has elements of horror. In rereading the novel last week these are a couple ideas I came up with.


1. Much of the scientific exploration done preceding the release of "Frankenstein" was done out of curiosity. We see a wild curiosity in Banks exemplified by his attempts to, um, collect almost everything and even in people like Blumenbach who were theorizing about the collections, I think, there is a sense of curiosity. A similar curiosity is found in Dr. Frankenstein. IN the first couple chapters there a number of examples where the Doc muses on his curiosity for the body and for life.
However, as the story progressed from literature to film, changes began happening. The narratives lost some of that curiosity and gained more elements of horror. What I was thinking about was first looking at the novel in the context of scientific exploration, understanding that inquiry almost always begins with curiosity, and then looking at the various film versions of the narrative, attempting to understand how Frankenstein has gone from being the doctor, to meaning the monster.

2. Larry's question what kind of theory can we derive from these texts instead of, what kind of theory can we apply to these texts, has really resonated with me this semester. So when I was reading "Frankenstein" I kept thinking about this. I have always been moved by the chapters where the monster tells his story the doctor about observing the cottagers and learning from them. But this time around, while still moved, I also was thinking about anthropological observations in general, recalling some of Cook's observations among others. So, thinking about Larry's question, what kind of theory of observation can be derived from the monsters example. I know he is eventually driven away by the cottagers, but while he is observing them he does so in pure hope of learning. He has no real ulterior motives other than to learn from them. Anthropological observation seems so wrought with intentions and the desire to change what is being observed, but the monster wants exactly the opposite. By comparing some of the historical anthropological observations with that of the monster's can a better model for observing be established?

An Attempt at a Marxist Critique, By a Casual Marxist Reader

Centers of calculation, as Miller says, are "center[s] on which a cycle of accumulation is focused and which possesses the power to maintain that situation by disciplining individuals and institutions across a wide spectrum of the society" (25). Miller continues, "the process of accumulation, calculation and exercise of power must not be regarded as separate" (25). In otherwords, centers of calculation construct and enforce ways of seeing and understanding things.

Maybe then centers of calculation do not "reflect" cultural or national biases, but instead, to some degree, "establishes" those biases. In this sense, centers of calculation become machines of ideological dissemination.

Ideology, in a Marxist context, relates to systems of ideas that help to maintain power structures; and ideology is imposed through a number of cultural and economic contexts. Gramsci, however, critiques Marx's argument that ideology is enforced through coercion and force, saying that the working class is complicit in the power structure as well. Hegemony, Gramsci claims, is ideology internalized by the working class, and is accepted as some kind of cultural consciousness, which in return discourages contestation and maintains social stratification.

Centers of calculation then cannot be the reflection of cultural thought. If they were, it would mean that the working class was creating the political, social, and economic agenda. Hegemony however, does not establish the rules, but instead, is a complicit willingness to follow them. If, as Miller claims, centers of calculation and the exercise of power cannot be separated, and if we know that power is exercised by those of the ruling class, then centers of calculation cannot express the thought of the people, but give the people their thoughts.

Something about travel and prior knowledge

This is a short film from the "Paris, Je T'Aime" collection, by director Alexander Payne: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfkUF2bAvF0.

This may not be the best example for what I am trying to say, but, aside from being a beautiful and heartbreaking short film, it does reflect on some aspects of which I would like to discuss, mainly how information changes travel.

Humboldt's said, "I regretted that travelers, the most enlightened in the insulated branches of natural history, were seldom possessed of a sufficient variety of knowledge, to avail themselves of every advantage arising from their position." If we position that comment in the historical time of which it was made, it is interesting to think about the possibilities of how scientific exploration and collection would have been different if those participating in the exercise would have had "a sufficient variety of knowledge." And while I see that you could dissect and take up issue with the usage of "sufficient," arguing that it is a purely subjective term, I also see that certainly "different" knowledge would have produced "different" results; however, I don't know if it possible to confidently surmise what would have changed

If we think for a moment about the short film and Carol's experience in Paris we might be able to see my point more clearly. Carol's experience was almost completely dictated by prior knowledge and research; she knew what to see, what to do, etc.. Consequently, her trip was a bit prescribed to her previous motives (this is not to say that her feelings, however, were equally prescribed). She saw the sites and likely new a little about them.

If we look at the 1985 film, "Before Sunrise," (trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtvrzpebA6k) we see that the main couple experience a night Vienna without much prior planning and their experience takes a different form. They also do see sites, but not from a factual or purely historical sense; instead their exposure and reactions are more aesthetically based, spontaneous and surprising.

I understand that these two examples are not the best (maybe thinking about the experiences of people who plan a vacation to a city would differ compared to people who have a one day layover at the same place. They might see similar things, eat similar food, but inevitably, their experiences are going to be different). But my main point is that a "difference" of knowledge will change the experience: it will change what is brought back, what is looked at, explored, how things are understood, etc. I don't know what would have changed if scientific collectors, as Humboldt said, would have had "sufficient knowledge," but I feel safe in saying, and maybe this is all a bit of a oversimplified reduction, that something would have.

The Frailty of a Google Image Collection

My wife and I went to Paris for our Honeymoon. When we visited Montmartre we got in a little argument. Two years later, late at night, I  found myself desperately wanting those moments back. For the comfort of nostalgia and in an attempt to change my memory, I search "Montmartre" on the Google image search. I got page after page of images, but nothing really helped. I had quickly amassed a digital collection of images, but as I looked through them, the moment that I was trying to reconstruct and change at the same time, kept a distance from me. I was hoping that because I could not return to the place when I wanted to, that the collection would somehow put me there and allow me to understand the moment, change it, deal with, etc. 

I was unsuccessful.

This is a sampling of the Google results I found that night and I poem that came out of my frustration.   

The 18th Arrondissement

Montmartre, you and your guided tours, your lines and dots on maps,
Picasso’s house, Dali’s drawings, the Moulin Rouge, La Sacré Cœur.

You and your moments of understanding on the cobblestone roads that
surreptitiously draw patrons further and further up, until they must walk

down those stairs. You, whom now cannot be put together by a Google
image search, but remains as a fragmented memory, scarred by words

I cannot remember but know were simply awful. You, holding us in
your ancient hands, sculpted by the brushes of painters, by the orgasms

of lovers. You didn’t know I would get so mad when the Metro station
left the park but stayed on the map. You didn’t know what to do when

you heard me get angry and saw her block the perfect breeze with her hands,
turn from your offerings and mine, and begin to walk away, heading towards

the faint shadow of the Eiffel tower. You could have screamed as I am tonight,
and slapped my face with your hardened hand, telling me to fold the map up

and use my arms to hold her. But you remained silent, allowed the distant
ringing of a police car, the creepily lucid song of the Carousal and the moans

of others feeling the city move beneath their moving bodies, to block out her subtle
tears and scarring cheeks. You, this place, this city, this feeling, this sky,

her hand which momentarily left mine. This futile search for pictures of you to
somehow change this memory I have, to somehow remake that moment when

I knew what it meant to love and destroy; to see you, that place, in perfect stillness
and know that a breeze is touching your face and my body inside of yours.

You—perfectly crumbled before me, hammer in my hand, digital camera by my side,
watching as you walk away and that church, that hill behind us, that perfect place,

blurred by the spilled paint of an idiot’s anger. You cannot be found tonight, though
you sleep in the next room, though you wake up across the sea; though hundreds of

thousands of images are retrieved, you, that place, gently holding my hand, then letting
go, is lost on a canvas washed, but still maintaining some semblance of a marred

moment. You. Montmartre. You. I cannot say sorry enough, so let your hands fall to your
side and let your face be dried by the sun, let this hand touch your cheek. At least.