Showing posts with label Reflective Thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reflective Thinking. Show all posts

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Marketing ​Is ​Culture - Reflections on ‘Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture’

It's over.
We've officially been university graduates for three weeks now.
We ended with a 4.0 GPA for the semester, and graduated Magna Cum Laude. It was a pretty cool feeling walking across that stage wearing an honors medal. It felt like we finally got something we deserved.

The last half of the final semester we churned out about nine papers of varying lengths. It's unlikely the bulk of them will end up here for you to read like in previous semesters because they weren't all gems. It being the final semester, and due to the reading and writing load being so heavy (it was another heavy credit load semester at 17 credits counting the internship - full-time is 12 credits - plus an additional part time job), and a smashed laptop closing in on "zero hour", a few of the papers didn't receive the best effort possible.

The following is a paper for an independent readings and study course. As a reflection paper, it is much more informal than most of the papers written over the last couple of years. It is meant to demonstrate that the text was not only read but understood and reflects thoughts, ideas, and viewpoints inspired by the reading.

The book was merely an okay read and very broad, but it did provide some base material for what could be further papers should grad school be a thing in the future. Jury is still out on that decision.
For the summer it's back to painting and a third year of gardening, and next week is a much anticipated two week vacation in Toronto Canada to really kick off the summer.

Enjoy the Reflection, should you choose to read it. As always comments and debate are welcome. Feel free to leave a message and/or read some of the other stuff around here. :-)




     O’Reilly and Tennant determine immediately that “we live in an age of persuasion, where

people’s wants, wishes, whims, pleas, brands, offers, enticements, truths, petitions, and

propaganda swirl in a ceaseless, growing multimedia firestorm of sales messages.”(1) These sales

messages add to the overall mass of information that one is subjected to each day, but these

messages also ​add​ to the culture, if not create culture. This is a contrary view to that of O’Reilly

and Tennant who ​seem ​to be hold a stance that it is in fact not adding to culture, but consuming

our culture.

     First, trying to separate marketing from culture in a way that can explain how it is

consuming our culture is futile. Marketing has existed for easily 3000 years, from the time

someone could articulate the benefits of one product over another using “public criers”. There is

even indication that print advertisements existed during those times. (2) Marketing has persisted

alongside culture for ages.

     Advertising and marketing are ​part ​of culture. They are influential forces which not only

are inspired by changes in society, but also reinforce and reflects those changes “Advertising is

the great mirror of society”. (3) While unsavory for many to accept, marketing is information which

imbues “cultural materials” into society (4) thereby becoming culture. As O’Reilly and Tennant

state, when “marketing seeps into feature films, arts, popular music, and even literature, it

changes the relationship between the arts and audiences.”(5)


Cultural Mediums and Advertising

     However, this intermix of art and cultural information, and marketing, is nothing new for

a 21st Century heavily influenced by the growth of branded and marketed entertainment via the

internet. Cultural mediums have always been influenced by advertising and marketing, and in

some cases owe their existence to them. Going back to the time of the first newspapers and

magazines, marketing was often the saving grace of publications, providing the funding required

to keep them in business.

     Looking to the 20th Century we can see Warhol with Campbell Soup and Coke from the

60s and the influence marketing had on the development of pop art. The pop art movement

added​ to the art world, it did not consume it, or eliminate new movements. Art, like marketing, is

always evolving with changes in society. Even in the 80s Lucky Strikes became a constant for all

of Stephen King’s characters that smoked. Theses examples may not have been marketing

directly, or even on purpose, but they were no doubt influential in the relationship between the

medium and the audience, creating associations that have become part of culture.

     Radio, film and television entertainment, on the other hand, owe much of their existence

to marketing ventures. Sponsored content was a staple of radio and television, and companies

would solely sponsor entire shows, such as Ovaltine’s Little Orphan Annie (radio), and ​The

Colgate Comedy Hour and Kraft Television Theatre (television)​. Even lesser known is the first

product placement in films, dating back to the 1920s ­ a mere thirty years into the life of the art 6

medium. In fact, without advertising and marketing there would have been very little newspaper,

magazine, radio, and television entertainment. Even today advertising and marketing are

essential to the culture of entertainment; social media and the internet depend heavily on the

industry for the ability to provide services and entertainment for free or at low cost. These

mediums, like their predecessors, are integral to the evolution and development of culture.

Further, marketing is essential to their livelihood, thereby helping maintain and influence culture.

     Not only does advertising and marketing influence culture, but in some ways it

theoretically inspires democracy, particularly via the internet. As O’Reilly and Tennant confirm,

“[...] a great characteristic of the Internet [is] the fact that it levels the playing field. Everyone has

access, [...] everyone can be heard.”(7) They cite YouTube as a prime example, a “great enabler [it

is] the first hugely democratic mass medium, where any one person could speak to millions if

[IF] her idea was big enough to resonate with the masses in cyberspace.”(8) Without marketing and

advertising there is no way to maintain the platform without heavy usage fees paid for by the

consumer, which would limit access severely, and therefore not be a catalyst to democracy.

Additionally, the internet has reanimated branded advertising, imbuing society with

opportunities to become part of marketing culture.



Branded Marketing and Culture

     Perhaps the second most interesting concept of ​The Age of Persuasion​ is branded

marketing, which has become a huge complex strategy. As earlier stated, the marriage of

marketing and art is changing relationships between art and audience. What marketing is also

doing is change relationships between brands and consumer, attempting to forge “genuine,

long­term relationships” by seeking to “invest genuine personality in their brand [...] invest[ing]

time, [and] finding meaningful ways to engage customers”.(9) They breathe life into a brand,

becoming what a consumer feels, forging emotional attachments. (10)

     One way in which they breathe life into a brand is through stars or personalities who

sometimes themselves are the brand (11) (Think Kim Kardashian) or become an icon. By using

films and their stars, musicians and their music to “influence fashions [and] drive sales” they

create demand and “persuade their audiences to accept their personal messages and viewpoints.”(12)

This branded and marketed entertainment personifies lifestyles, it is about creating a bonds

with consumers (13) while “​being​ what people enjoy and ​still delivering branding​”. Therefore

branded entertainment is about informing and influencing culture through embedded messages

delivered by “trusted” messengers ­ it is about being the culture through icons and “allow[ing]

customers to makes a statement about who they are”. (14)



Out of Touch?

     O’Reilly and Tennant say that in “[...] the living, growing, all­encompassing and

relatively modern culture of persuasion” marketers are vying to “take up lodging in some corner

of your mind”.(15) They seem oddly out of touch with the long cultural history of marketing, as

well as the evolution of the acceptance of marketing in today's modern networked society,

particularly among youth.

     They claim that youth are “becoming increasingly immune to the conventional marketing

messages” and that “they hunker down in front of their computers, putting up fences that most

marketers haven’t yet learned to scale”.(16) However, there is indication that youth is accepting of

target marketing methods because it leads to advertisements that are more tailored to them, and

therefore more relevant and interesting. Some research indicates that trust and value based

approaches work in marketing to youth.(17) Returning to the concepts of branded entertainment,

we can understand one way in which marketers create trust among youth audiences.

    According to O’Reilly and Tennant, “the larger the audience an advertiser strives to

reach, the harder it becomes to forge meaningful relationships with each individual customer”(18)

however, they seem to discount that through niche marketing and target marketing these

relationships can be created, which implies an analogous relationship which would in turn create

a more significant impact for the message at hand.

     Due largely in part to the development of mobile technology the relationship between

brand and consumers are evolving.(19) Another way marketers create trusting relationships with

youth audience is through the creation of social media stars who have established relationships

with their followers.(20) As O’Reilly and Tennant state, “the blunt realities of marketing to young

people are causing vast changes in language and tone of advertising. As their attention shifts

from mass media to smaller, online social networks, they’re sharing information and opinions

about products, brands and fashions”.(21)


Conclusion

     There are so many different topics in ​The Age of Persuasion, ​each of which could be

granted an essay of its own. For instance, the influence of marketing and the internet on the

consumer as a channel and the branded self (22); the power shift taking place between traditional

media and new media (23); the empowerment of consumers in the new two ­way communication

environment relationship with advertisers (24) and advertising as an art (25) ­all of these topics would

be worthy of further research.

     However, while plentiful in potential research topics, ​The Age of Persuasion: How

Marketing Ate Our Culture​ was far too broad and failed to accomplish what the title implies it

set out to do: explain how marketing ate our culture. What is ​did​ accomplish is providing a

wealth of examples on how marketing and advertising has contributed to the growth of our

culture and will continue to do so as it regurgitates the messages of society.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citations:

1 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. xiii
2 "Advertisement | Promotion." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed 2015.
3 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 162
4 ​Bartholomew, Mark. "Advertising and Social Identity." ​Buffalo Law Review​ 58 (2010): 931­76. 
5 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 161
6 According to a lecture in Advertising and Society (Spring 2015) Red Crown gasoline was the first instance of product placement in the 1920 film ​The Garage
7 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 100
8 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 116
9 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 268.
10 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 187.
11 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 224.
12 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 149
13 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 221.
14 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 196.
15 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. xv, 118.
16 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 77.
17 Sultan, Fareena, Andrew J. Rohm, and Tao (Tony) Gao. "Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptance Of Mobile Marketing: A Two­Country Study Of Youth Markets." ​Journal of Interactive Marketing​ 23 (2015): 308­20.
18 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 117.
19 Sultan, Fareena, Andrew J. Rohm, and Tao (Tony) Gao. "Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptance Of Mobile Marketing: A Two­Country Study Of Youth Markets." ​Journal of Interactive Marketing​ 23 (2015): 308­20.
20 Sloane, Garett. "Meet the Man Who Unlocked the Secrets of Mobile Marketing." AdWeek. September 14, 2014. Accessed 2015.
21 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 95.
22 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 108.
23 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 100­101.
24 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 104.
25 ​Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 35.


Bibliography:

"Advertisement | Promotion." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed 2015.

Bartholomew, Mark. "Advertising and Social Identity." ​Buffalo Law Review​ 58 (2010): 931­76.

Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. ​The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture​. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009.

Sloane, Garett. "Meet the Man Who Unlocked the Secrets of Mobile Marketing." AdWeek. September 14, 2014. Accessed 2015.

Sultan, Fareena, Andrew J. Rohm, and Tao (Tony) Gao. "Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptance Of Mobile Marketing: A Two­Country Study Of Youth Markets." ​Journal of Interactive Marketing​ 23 (2015)

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Reflection on 'Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge...'

There are about five weeks left before graduation. Graduation! With some exciting opportunities waiting for us at the end of the graduation stage, it can't get here fast enough...but for the countless papers yet to be written. With three of the nine papers under the belt [none of which have been graded yet] (not counting a small writing project that doesn't count as a paper) it felt time to post at least one, at least in interest of keeping the blog active and ready for when there is more time to write for personal fun and enjoyment.

The following isn't a paper that poses an argument. It's a reflection paper, much like those from the Truth, Knowledge and Reality Class last Spring semester (See: Critical Reflections on: 'Free Will' by Sam Harris, 'Why Truth Matters' by Michael P. Lynch, 'When Science Meets Religion' by Ian G Barbour, and 'On Being Certain' by Robert A Burton). It is for an independent reading and study course in Communications of which there are six (self-selected) books.You probably won't see all of the resulting papers here because...well...to be honest you can't put the same amount of effort in every paper when you have nearly 10 to write within about an eight week time frame.

Also. This isn't some of our better writing. It kinda feels like we're phoning it in this semester, so to speak. The heart isn't into it and every fiber just wants to get on with the next part of life....whatever that may be (travel, painting, writing, gardening, cooking, new job opportunities!)

Well. Anyway. Here it is. The first paper of the final semester...


The Life of Knowledge
A Reflection on Too Big To Know by David Weinberger

               The room is the smartest person, according to David Weinberger in ‘Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren’t theFacts, Experts are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room’. Of course, once you being to understand what he means by the room, your whole concept of information, knowledge and expertise are restructured, as it should be in the world of interconnectedness.
The room is the smartest person, so it goes. However, the room is not exactly a room, and the room is made of networks not walls, and the network is made up of people not conduit. The room is made up of people who, in the new structure of knowledge, become individually insignificant. Rather, they gain significance as a whole in the new organization of knowledge: networks, which make up the body of information, or data. The knowledge is in the network of information (people) itself, the culmination of expertise and knowledge (people) that inhabit the room, which is the very structure of the room. It is in this network where information is transformed into what Skip Walter refers to as “actionable” knowledge which is simply information that is used for a purpose and therefore has significance (3).
The smartest room, this network of knowledge, exists on the internet, in social connections. These networks have developed as places of associations between “lots of people who are different from one another [where they are] not only finding expertise but also generating it” (57). This environment has taken the shape of knowledge, previously linear in nature, and transformed it into not just a circular form, but various forms involving symbiotic relationships.

Structure and Process of Knowledge Itself
Previous to Too Big To Know the idea that knowledge has a shape was, personally, a foreign concept. Weinberger manages to describe how the shape of knowledge has evolved from linear structure – such as one direction information like that presented in books – to a multi-directional web of information in which the seeker can discover information and knowledge in any number of ways  as well as add to it (100).
Despite this new structure of knowledge it has a life which is akin to the life of the old linear knowledge in that it has the same old problems and can be “misquoted, degraded, enhanced, incorporated, passed around through a thousand degrees of misunderstanding, and assimilated to the point of invisibility” (110).  Only previously, the editorial nature of knowledge and expertise prior to the Net was that of privilege, whereas now the editorial nature provided by networks is in the hands of the masses. Expertise has multiple voices thanks to the new structure, and that doesn’t always have positive implications (67).
It is in the hands of the masses that expertise on any one topic can have an array of implications. It is that trait where the network gets its diversity, where it “[…] enables a type of expertise just about impossible to actualize before the Internet existed” and gains “value only because that network contains many different types of people” (55).  The variety is not just in the mere connections of countless people through the network, it is the variety of ways in which they think and what they know (56).
The issue in the network is in the sifting of the large mass of knowledge created by it, to moderate it to a point of usefulness. It calls for a new method of filtering which is now done through methods of influence through social networks. Weinberg says this can be disruptive, especially when it comes to authority of knowledge where it is transferred from experts to people we know (10) – theoretically people who have no valid authority. When information and knowledge is shifted from central “authorities” to an array of influences, both in our social networks as well as the expanded networks connected to them, we are bombarded with fragmented information. This fragmented information shapes perceptions and attitudes. This information may be outside the scope of new authoritarian social networks who never the less are granted authority over the information transformed into knowledge. In this way the information is not so much reduced by filtering as it is should be, but it is compounded; this form of filtering “increase[s] information and reveal[s] the whole deep sea” (13). Weinberger says this mass of information “has consequences” (10), and he proceeds with outlining many of the pros and cons of this new “anything goes” nature of information generation and dissemination.

The Cons in the Pros
Perhaps one of the most interesting concepts Weinberger presented as a pro to the network is a new take on diversity, which is the cornerstone of the “smartest room” in question. The proposal is that the concept of diversity is growing away from that of an ethnic or racial structure, to that of a diversity of backgrounds, education levels, economic levels and experiences that flow through all, regardless of religion, gender, sexual orientation or racial identity. This slow-growing concept, particularly in business, is an idea outside of the popular rhetoric of what traditional diversity is and means.
The kind of diversity Weinberg discusses works by creating a range of new perspectives with heuristic implications which in the workplace presents as innovation and creativity. This form of diversity builds on new ways of seeing and doing and battles against the group-think, which leads to mediocrity (77). This new understanding of diversity can be seen as having potentially ill effects if adopted to broadly, such as the reversal of anti-discrimination legislation. However, for the purposed of the network it can be a positive revolutionary force, as well as a carrying negative attributes.
As Weinberger is sure to point out at various steps, the revolutionary nature of networks does not mean they are all universally smart, or even that the network is universally used. As he points out, referencing the work of researchers Eszter Hargittai and Danah Boyd, “social class, age, and subculture affects [s] how we use the [network] and what it means to us (173). To further illustrate the psychological pitfalls of the usefulness of the network (i.e. the internet), Weinberger states that “for those who have no interest in intellectual rigor, or who lack curiosity […] the Net may well be an environment that degrades knowledge” (91). In these ways the diversity of global society does not translate directly to the diversity of “the room”.
When diversity is functioning properly in the network of “the room” knowledge is built vis-à-vis shared expertise. When done on a mass scale, cognition “quickly migrate[s] to these networks of experts” (62). However, though “knowledge has always been social” in much this way, and the theory goes that we are “smarter when together” the fact is that this isn’t always the case with networked knowledge (51). Now that authority of knowledge is in the hands of the masses, Weinberg makes a claim that the lack of a privileged position introduces the worry that “we will be lost in a swirl of contradictory ideas” (90-91). It is difficult not to see how this plays out in everyday dissemination of information on the net. As Weinberger says, in some cases the network is dumber (67) for its mass cognitive blend, creating misrepresentations (66) and having an isolating effect on information (63).
Networks are subject to forming insulation from criticism and outside points of view, resulting in echo chambers (63). According to Weinberger, citing the work of Cass Sunstein, this type of insulated echo chamber can lead to the breeding of extremism (83). In the network, extremism birthed from isolation is counter intuitive to the positive creative nature found in the aforementioned diversity, a nature which promotes a more objective view than those of static ideologies. This problem is at the root of what Cass Sunstein calls “information cascades [where] false and harmful ideas […] gain velocity [and credibility by how easily] and frequently they are forwarded”, passed on, or shared (117). One not need be in the network of the internet long to recognize this outcome is not only real, but persistent.
To further the point in his parlay of cons of the network, Weinberger reflects on the work of techno-dystopian Nicholas Carr, who says that what the internet is doing is changing our cognitive processes for the worst. While on some level this may be an accurate perception for some, it is highly technodeterministic, as Weinberger confers, to conclude that “technology causes us to use and understand it in particular ways” (173). The idea that technology acts upon us, causes as if by force, and not the other way around, has implications regarding ideas of free will and control in relation to the technological world.
Other problems with information and knowledge transference in the network arise in interpretation, which, as Weinberger advises, is always subjective. Knowledge, in all of its structures, lives in the connection of life (119); and while it is accessible to all, sans the network in previous generations, it “shows itself to use depending on our starting point, viewpoint, and inescapably human sense of what matters to us” (180) and “all knowledge and experience is an interpretation” (89).
Interpretation is essential to the transference of knowledge, but in “real events are experienced by individual minds that strive to create an accurate inner representation which is then expressed in words presented to others” (112) and creates a world in which they approach their understanding “from a particular standpoint (113). As Weinberger states, “our experience is always from a point of view, looking at some features and not others” (89), experiences of which there are countless ways in which to interpret everything (90). These experiences must contain context in order to be made sense of (90). Each frame of context carries the standpoints of the past with it which impacts the effectiveness of how we convey information and knowledge, as well as how we interpret it.

Importance and the Culture of Knowledge
Being left to figure out what is important about the evolving structure of knowledge, with its mass contribution of variable information from multiple standpoints, it is not hard to recognize the fatigue that transpires through the overload of the system. Even more are the implications on how to navigate what is available and come to terms with the death of authoritative knowledge. Understanding how to navigate these new structures and processes of knowledge is important, and are subject to a culture of their own which is “guided by implicit rules and expectations” and become important to aspects of social structure (90). The underlying fact is that knowledge is essential to the process of creating identity and culture, to understanding the world and ourselves (4).
With a network of connectedness that inhabits many parts of the globe, bringing together a plethora of ideas, theories, and beliefs, “information overload [arises] as a cultural condition (9).
The information provided isn’t necessarily essential, and the overload feeds the insecurity of our own knowledge and instincts. For example, Weinberger briefly remarks on child raising experts who dispense “skill […] often with just a few cogent mottos” (49). The consumption of books such as these types of boiled down common-sense guides to life illustrates the insecurity of our own knowledge, authentic knowledge passed down generation after generation, basic instinctual knowledge. When we erroneously put into the hands of the masses the authority on basic knowledge, it threatens the authentic self. With any number of experts available we often forget that within us is our own knowledge. For this reason “learning to evaluate knowledge claims” and developing critical-thinking skills becomes more essential than ever before (192). Unfortunately it often seems that critical thinking skills fall by the wayside as those who consume knowledge, dispensed from those who have been afforded authority on the grounds of nothing, neglect their own instinctual knowledge.

So What, Now What
With all of the cons, Weinberger still notes that “a net richer in metadata [information] is richer in more usable and useful knowledge” (188). Despite the range of expertise and useful knowledge created in the diversity of the network, he acknowledges that “we are going to disagree about everything”, attributing it to the very nature of diversity which inhabits the network of information and knowledge (87). The fact that our perceptions, beliefs, ideas and attitudes are individually shaped by so many different voices means each of us approaches the same knowledge set with different ways of viewing it. However, this can be recognized as nothing new; humanity has have never really agreed on anything. If it had agreed on anything, things would have remained the same throughout history. No revolutions, no loss of attributes deemed essential by some and inconsequential by others – no growth or change.
Perhaps the networked world in which we now live in, in which everybody projects their voice into the abyss of knowledge and expertise, has simply been magnified by the network. Perhaps it was always like this, but through this new structure of knowledge, in the amplified connectedness of society, we now see how disconnected we really can be on various subjects such as those of human rights, politics, gender, religion, and any number of other less essential topics. Alas, Weinberger’s “pragmatic truth” sums it up, “what we have in common is not knowledge about which we agree but a shared world about which we will always disagree” (182).

Throughout the book Weinberger probes how media, communication and information shapes and influences culture and the implications the new structure of knowledge has for the future. The topics laid before you were merely highlights and musings as there is neither time nor space to plumb the depths of his text for the purpose of this reflection. The best way to conclude is with Weinberger’s own utopian aspirations of the potential for “the smartest room”, optimistic and hopeful, that “…perhaps our hyperlinked infrastructure will give us a self-understanding that makes it easier for our curiosity and compassion to overcome our self-centered fears.” (193).
xxxxx

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

A Critical Reflection on 'Free Will' by Sam Harris

We like to encourage people to think, consider, and reflect...because many of us like to do those things, and think they have greatly improved our life. That's pretty much why we'll be posting essays for the rest of the semester from the following class...to give you something to think about.

So, this class we're taking (that meets for two hours every Wednesday night) is all about the concepts of reality, truth and knowledge. It's basically a class on thinking about thinking (reflective thinking), and thinking about feelings of knowing and where they come from (so far), it's sort of a humanities-meets-philosophy course where a group of young adults (and this aged visage) sit around at tables arranged in a circle and discuss concepts from selected texts (currently the class is waist-deep into 'On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not' by Robert A. Burton. Burton on Being Certain) mediated by an ex-scientist, an oddball throwback freethinker from the Vietnam-era that fits every part of that description. Sometimes the discussion is focused, and then sometimes it spirals near the edge of a topical abyss. That's what the mediator is for, because 16-18 people sitting around having a discussion, feeding off of each others comments, thoughts and ideas, and interjecting their own...that's a cart that can lose its wheels fast.

Anyway, Free Will by Sam Harris is short, like 66 pages or so, and therefore only warranted one critical reflection paper (the book by Burton will result in 4 reflection papers of varying lengths).
This is that reflection paper.
(For whatever it's worth we got a "+" which is the highest mark in the professors "+, +✓,✓,-✓"..."grading" scheme)

A Critical Reflection on Free Will by Sam Harris
Initially the premise set forth by Free Will by Sam Harris struck me as a dangerous idea. To completely deny free will, as he seems to be doing, appears to be a denial of personal responsibility and creates a situation where people become a victim of themselves and their unconscious. Certainly at the base of free will there is no way to act completely unconstrained, without repercussions, and there are certainly factors in life that can restrict desires and ability – mental, physical, and economic considerations. However, day-to-day actions being dictated by the unconscious is a little extreme; for example, deciding to eat at one fast food restaurant over another, or not at all, is completely controllable, and to over-analyze where the motive came from to make the decision to eat or not seems more based in a biological motivation to eat, and the way one acts upon it is free will. 
Free will, in my opinion, is the conscious decisions made based on prior information, actions, events, drives, and outcomes, not controlled by some mysterious unconscious drive, rather logical motives. For example, people repeat actions, good or bad, depending on their desires at those given moments. It’s not difficult to understand where the desires come from, they are basic animal drives– the need for food, water, shelter, reproduction, and basic human drives – a desire for happiness, to be loved, accepted, and/or impress people. People act on these desires on an unconscious level, but they are not completely unconscious of them, the drives are not part of fate, the drives are biological. The decisions and actions based on the basic drives are free will. Even cases where brain chemicals influence action, people can still choose to make a decision based on social norms. They may not choose how they think or feel, but they can choose how they act upon those feelings. 
It doesn’t matter, however, where the desires or the drives come from. Once a person realizes where these drives come from, and owns them, they can change the way they react because of them; or, as Harris says “allow for greater creative control over one’s life” (47). Sloughing off the idea of “free will” prevents taking personal responsibility, and if you let your unconscious control you, you become the unconscious. If anything understanding there is not complete free will, but moderate free will, allows one to explore root causes and understand that “different ways of thinking have different consequences” (40). Just as our organs operate unconsciously, we can still control them, for instance, controlling heartbeat with breathing exercises or brain chemicals with medications. 
For a move towards a more complete free will it takes inner-reflection and personal strength to consciously consider what is dictating and motivating substantial actions. To deny free will almost entirely, not just moderate levels of free will, means becoming a victim of the unconscious, nothing but a pawn mindlessly obeying biological drives. Denying the existence of free will is a choice granted by the existence of free will, and it just doesn’t seem like an ideal that supports much in the way of personal responsibility.

References:
Harris, Sam. Free Will. New York: Free Press. 2012. Print.