depressive summer media list

[sanpaku_backup]

Things are not that bad. I have had the sensation of saying to myself, "today is really actually pretty good, all things equal" several times in the past week. So you know something awful has to happen soon.

While waiting for that I've been on the Depressive Summer Media List, reading Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone and watching An Inconvenient Truth over yesterday and today. I have a long, intriguing post mapped out in my mind explaining the confluence between social action and social capital in my own beliefs, why I dabble in religion, and my profound animosity for Objectivists and anyone who says anything posiitve about Ayn Rand. Really, it's all there. But it's midnight and so the closest approximation to my actual train of thought can only be expressed in pixel form as "motherfuckinggoddamRepublicangiveafuckforonlythemselvesfuckeveryoneelsejerkwadsfuckingupthewholePLANETferchrissakesUSEYOURGODDAMBRAINS etc. etc." which is not an erudite and patient analysis of world affairs and my philosophy thereof. So, um... that will kind of have to wait.

In all seriousness, the one thought watching An Inconvenient Truth is that it does a wonderful service in improving public compassion. You should not pray for the imminent death of the greedheads and quislings who make this possible. Actually, you don't have to hope or pray one way or another. We'll all get to see them have make excuses for global catastrophe before too long. Dubya will live just long enough to be visiting his brother in Florida when the Greenland ice shelf hits. Cold comfort, but you take what you can get.

Comments

[flw.livejournal.com]

Ha ha ha! You think they'll "take responsibility" when the time comes? You think they'll make excuses? Why would they make excuses? It couldn't possibly be their fault. They're right. If anything, they should have done more ______ .

I couldn't get two pages into Bowling Alone.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Because it was so boring or because it was so depressing? Or because you disagreed with the gist? It is sort of a skimming, "yeah, OK, I got the point, I get it" kind of book. But man is he thorough.

[flw.livejournal.com]

It was a long time ago. Basically, either write a dissertation, in which case, you have to do science. Or write a science popularizing style book, in which case, your experiments should be something on the level of a Borat-type "experiment." So, for me the thing was neither fish nor fowl.

And there's a reason why the famous social "experiments" of the fifties and sixties were limited in scope to two people in a room one of whom is wearing a white coat and endeavoring to be as emotionless as possible.

And also it reminded me of reading a certain book that has pioneered the method of "meta-statistical analysis" or whatever. Which made me think... Well, it was like arguing with a Creationist. And the Creationist says, "I've read the Bible in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, Italian, Korean, Japanese, and English," and considers this evidence of their authority and thus makes the implicit claim, "until you've read the Bible in all those languages... YOU DON'T GOT SAY! I GOT SAY! I WIN! I WIN!"

But of course... it's bullshit in all the languages.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

I don't understand what you're saying. Sociology isn't an experimental science. Just because you don't do experiments doesn't mean that there aren't facts out there to generalize about. If people belong to groups in smaller numbers, vote less, are generally less politically active... facts that no one would question... if you have a bunch of empirical data showing a number of related things, I don't see the mistake in testing a number of theories for why those things are all happening together, which is basically what he did. I study culture and I tend to be skeptical of social science as a general way of making sense of the past, but he tested a lot of different explanations that are out there. He tried to take culture into account in a way that historians appreciate. It's not smothering with facts, it's looking at the issue from a lot of different points of view and comparing a lot of different phenomena. Or so it seemed to me.

Regardless, are you saying that you disagree with the basic argument that there's a lot less interpersonal interaction in the past and that this creates, for lack of better terms, a powerless and alienated society?

[flw.livejournal.com]

No I don't disagree with anything. I was talking in code about another thing.

Hot people will always find ways to get together and fuck each other. Myspace or something or other.

I just couldn't plod through his prose, really. I think of it as a book that a lot of people plowed through and then said what they were going to say anyway...

The reviewer reads:

"Structural Formations of group dynamics lead to inverse mapping of social components on beta kerotine..."

and then writes:

"Facebook a hit among twenty-somethings!"

You know?

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Ah, I gotcha. And you're right that to some extent this is one of those books that confirms what everyone's kind of thinking. I was mostly just making the point that Fuck those Ayn Randist Motherfuckers For All Time, to which Robert Putnam will be made to agree

[flw.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree with that.

I have my thing for the Ayn Randers and certain strains of Libertarians.

I wanted to make a video called "I Don't Need No Government". In it a cowboy is standing by his truck with his rifle and a flag and his boots and all that. And he sings about how he don't need no government to do nothing for him. As he sings each verse, the unintended consequences of no government (or no society in the case of the Ayn Randers, who apparently think they were born of a crack in the Earth which they then personally molded into tools with their own hands, or whatever?) become reality. So, his truck becomes a rattletrap that has no gas anyway, and it doesn't make any difference because there are no roads, then he shoots his gun but it explodes because you know... no government standards.

They have their bizarre arguments about...

Those fuckheads they think that if we lived in a "truly free" society that they would rise to the top. And to the extent that society isn't free, they are being oppressed. It's just bullshit. It's too painful to even try to bother to think about.

I run into Ayn Randers less and less. They all became Libertarian nerds. Assholes.

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

I think sociologists don't believe in Putnam anymore but I don't remember why. Then again, sociologists are generally in the business of dismissing each other and one-upping each other, so it may not mean anything.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

It's been around for over ten years now, so maybe it's just not the flavor of the month anymore. (Getting around to it now is typical of me as a "late adopter.")

hey you

[librarygrrl.livejournal.com]

I was in Pittsburgh the last couple of days, and I had a dream about you last night. I don't really remember it, but last night I was reading The Trap and it made me think of you. The author is a friend of Jay's. I'm about halfway into it, and so far so good...

Re: hey you

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

It is still hard for me sometimes to believe you aren't there anymore. We were in Princeton a few weeks ago and I realized we should have attempted to pop in on you for a little while at least. Well, maybe you weren't there! I'd love to see your little cutie -- the pictures of her are fantastic. I may be back at Princeton later this month so MAYBE we can find a way...

Re: hey you

[librarygrrl.livejournal.com]

Well, we're heading for VT on the 11th, for the rest of July. Gotta head for the hills while you can.