A Step Towards Balance

REVISION 2

Media Project with Kristina Forman

“A Step Towards Balance”

The Dictatorship of Art (revised final draft)

The Dictatorship of Art (revised final draft)

Early drawings like those of the Altamira Caves in Spain showed that men even in the Old Stone Age had the ability to produce art; likewise even back then the nomad hunting groups had social stratification. It appears that there are some practices that we continue to carry on for millennia, today we still produce art as a form of expression and have different levels of hierarchy in our societies. Thus, it probably does not come to a surprise that this two mix; art like many other human practices is submitted to a stratified order.  Art is not art unless recognized by and authority on the field; it may sound despotic but, it is an outsiders recognition that validates many of our actions; and that in theory is perfectly logical. Our institutions and society all fallow top-down system,  there are selected few that make the decisions that affect the rest of us, in the house it’s the parents, in countries politicians, and in art it’s a mixture of critics, artist and patrons. Just like with our parents and government, in art, we believe to have some level of influence, but in reality is a loosening the cage that hold us. With art it is not a cage but a tool that keeps us enthralled to our despot.

 The hierarchies in art tend to be more complicated because the system sometimes consists of only an individual; such is the case with collectors and the artists. Other times of groups, such as with critics and colectors.  In the case of collectors it is the individual who determines worth. As   Michael Kimmelam, - chief art critic at the New York Times- explains in “The Art of Collecting Light Bulbs”,  “prestige, like taste in art, is often in the eye of the collector, and true value maybe greatest when the value is only symbolic” (218). Collectors are dictators of their own little artistic universe, art is what they choose to collect, and in way their collections in their own right become art.  Anything goes from candy wrappers to Rembrandts; they are able to present such a view of these things that we accepted them as art.

Collectors, critics, patrons and even artist themselves dictated what is art, they are in the top of the artistic chain of command.   Collectors gather what they believe is valuable and arrange it how they see it fit; patrons commission what suits them be it a self-portrait or a concerto for their anniversary; artist create what they want to, however they want to. It has resisted in most cases, been ruled by feedback. What people want may be important for artistic expressions such as music, -it has become a industry and as such must serve its customers what they want-, but the rest is still mostly dictated by the artistic elites. Understanding collecting as an artistic expression; Kimmelman explains that collectors; “make order out of chaos”, they arrange all the elements of their collection to make us see something new, they connect the impossible and thus create (219). While these creations can be forms of art in their own right they are again impositions of what is to be liked.

 And the critics and patrons of the artistic universe, the elites, dictate even the feedback responses created by the public. If we think of all the art movements throughout history they have never come to existence because the people want it. The renaissances started with artist wanting to be true to form, looking for new subjects; certainly not because the Church or the pious public wished it. However, when people started seeing this beautiful creations they wanted more, the Catholic Church and the privileged became the main patrons of the renaissances. Moving to the present, who would have considered a black square on a canvas art? Not many certainly; it was not an aesthetic creation devoted to form and color, but the vanguards said it did expressed something, it took brains to understand and appreciate this art. Suddenly even critics saw beyond a black block on a white canvas, abstract are became the trend and we, the public, like sheep fallowed.  Patrons, critics and collectors wanted this neuron challenging art, and so the rest of us started to see it in another light. Perhaps there are ways to this madness; it was just a matter of taste.

 It is taste now an instrument, for the authoritarian ways of art; we are given options. Not unlike going to a gellatteria, there are amazing flavors which we don’t find in our regular ice cream parlor. However, no matter how outstanding their variety is we still need to choose what is there, we can mix and match but our options will always be limited. Our decisions have already been narrowed down by whoever decides what that shop serves, on a greater picture this happen to everything around us even our body.  According to Steven Johnson, in “Listening to Feedback”, the brain process is all due to feedback, it regulates our body.  And this feedback system allows homeostasis, balance, to exist in the human body (196). However, Johnson is not entirely correct, while the body in general works thanks to feedback; it is not feedback that controls the body, the brain does.  When a person has even the smallest of chemicals imbalances in their brain, the entire system gets affected. It may cause a hormonal disproportion which results that persons aggressive attitude or the fact that they faint, anything can happen just because there is a glitch in the controller of the system. We are in all aspects dependant of some sort of tyranny, be it our brains or our impulses, feedback plays a lesser role.

 Even the most feedback dependent art, music, is controlled by small elites. When we listen to music on the radio, it has been that which the station has selected, that same music has before been chosen by the music companies. It does create a chain; we listen to what is chosen for us, and the songs that are publicized are chosen because we listen to them. Resembling the demand of abstract art, which started with the acceptance of the critics, the top ten songs in America became hits because they had been played over and over by the nation’s most popular radio stations. In the same way we chose the gelato from the previously decided menu, it is a shift in perception that which allows us to believe that popular demand is the one in control, when truthfully it is not. There is a mirage created by media in regards to news, which takes holds in the same manner. “The mechanism for determining what constituted a legitimate story had been reengineered, shifting from top-down system with little propensity for feedback, to a kind of journalistic neural net where hundreds of affiliates participated directly in the creation of story” (Jonhson194). What is considered a neural network for journalism is nothing more than the same reenergized tool of the dictatorship in art, taste.

The authoritarian system is still in place, however it does not necessarily work the same, taste comes to play a role in the dominances system. We are given options, like collectors we provide order to the universe of chaos streaming the possibilities of what can be considered art. There is indie, pop, classical, surrealist and even junk art; this new forms have already been established by artist, critics and collectors. However, we can now choose the one that suits us best. Just like in the wonder cabinets that to Kimmelman served to store all those random things that people considered valuable, our art preferences serve to capture all that we deem  precious (221). It works like a playlist, in it we put a compilation of the songs we like. A soft romantic piano piece by Eric Satie can be followed by a dark and heavy Led Zeppelin song, and that by sweet nineties pop tune; or it can be a string of death metal compositions one after the other. Our tastes can be a medley of many things or a constant repetition of a few. However unless we are also creating the tunes that go in our playlist, we are reproducing someone else’s idea of what is music.

Reproduction is in its self tool of taste and henceforth of art. That song that is played over and over in a radio station gets stuck with us, and maybe in the beginning we did not pay much attention to it. However, after a while of hearing constantly it starts growing on us, we learn the lyrics or the melody, suddenly that familiarity with the piece turn into our liking of it. Like that bed time story our parents used to tell us, which seemed strange the first nights but later became a warm childhood memory. Both the song and the story become a casualty of reproduction while they may not be in the instinctive to our likes, their continuous presence for a period of time makes them blend into them. Art has its own tool which can persuade our likes. Also reproduction makes art more accessible, allowing it to reach a broader audience, thus more can be influenced by it. Walter Benjamin, the communications theorist in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” explains the role that mechanical reproduction will have in art. For Benjamin reproduction destroys the essences of art and at the same time makes men fall even deeper into the consciences of the mass, “quantity has been transmuted into quality. The greatly increased mass of participants has produced a change in the mode of participation” (129). He believes that reproduction and technology are the enemies of art, and while his arguments can be fit regarding the soul of art, reproduction has transformed into an enlisting agent by art. Just like taste has posted a danger throughout the development if many art forms it has also proofed it power in prolonging the control elites can have over the masses. While music before the gramophone and the radio was a commodity that could only be enjoyed while been performed making it, in comparison to today’s music industry, almost inaccessible to the masses. Today music, unless reproduced, has very little possibility of been remembered. Reproduction became a new tool, like new media and feedback for news network, it serve to reach a broader audience to which ever art form is been replicated into infinity.

And while reproduction has made art more accessible and taste has given us more space in the universe of art, they are tools of domination. Even as choice over ‘likes’ have become our weapons in the front of art elites, at the end of the day, it’s just like a school cafeteria, you can only choose from what has been preordered as your choices.  We can push and shove to include what we like, but when we do that we are also becoming part of the elite that dictates, even in a democratization of art. Reproduction in another hand makes us prone to be controlled, it like siren’s song drawing the sailor into oblivion. As Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “Democracy is the tyranny of the masses”, there is always an imposition of a group over another. And while art can in some places find democratic strips the outcome is the same; It’s limited and ultimately under a greater influence than that of the common man.

Johnson, Steven . “Listening to feedback” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 190-204. Print

Kimmelman Johnson. “The Art of Collecting Lightbubls” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010.  216- 225. Print

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” Visual Culture.Joanne Morra and Marquard Smith. New York. Routledge, 2006. 114-133. Print.

The Dictatorship of Art (revised rough draft)

The Dictatorship of Art (revised rough draft)

Early drawings like those of the Altamira Caves in Spain showed that men even in the Old Stone Age had the ability to produce art; likewise even back then the nomad hunting groups had social stratification. It appears that there are some practices that we continue to carry on for millennia, today we still produce art as a form of expression and have different levels of hierarchy in our societies. Thus, it probably does not come to a surprise that this two mix; art like many other human practices is submitted to a stratified order.  Art is not art unless recognized by and authority on the field; it may sound despotic but, it is an outsiders recognition that validates many of our actions; and that in theory is perfectly logical. Our institutions and society all fallow top-down system; there are selected few that make the decisions that affect the rest of us, in the house it’s the parents, in countries politicians, and in art well it’s a mixture of critics, artist and patrons.

 The hierarchies in art tend to be a little more complicated because the system sometimes consists of only an individual; such is the case with collectors. As   Michael Kimmelam, - chief art critic at the New York Times- explains in “The Art of Collecting Light Bulbs”,  “prestige, like taste in art, is often in the eye of the collector, and true value maybe greatest when the value is only symbolic” (218). Collectors are dictators of their own little artistic universe, art is what they choose to collect, and in way their collections in their own right become art.  Anything goes from candy wrappers to Rembrandts; they are able to present such a view of these things that we accepted them as art.

Collectors, critics, patrons and even artist themselves dictated what is art, they are in the top of the artistic chain of command.   Collectors gather what they believe is valuable and arrange it how they see it fit; patrons commission what suits them be it a self-portrait or a concerto for their anniversary; artist create what they want to, however they want to. It has resisted in most cases, been ruled by feedback. What people want may be important for artistic expressions such as music, -it has become a industry and as such must serve its customers what they want-, but the rest is still mostly dictated by the artistic elites. Understanding collecting as an artistic expression; Kimmelman explains that collectors; “make order out of chaos”, they arrange all the elements of their collection to make us see something new, they connect the impossible and thus create (219). While these creations can be forms of art in their own right they are again impositions of what is to be liked.

 In the artistic universe, the artistic elites dictate even the feedback responses created by the public. If we think of all the art movements throughout history they have never come to existence because the people want it. The renaissances started with artist wanting to be true to form, looking for new subjects; certainly not because the Church or the pious public wished it. However, when people started seeing this beautiful creations they wanted more, the Catholic church and the privileged became the main patrons of the renaissances. Moving to the present, who would have considered a black square on a canvas art? Not many certainly; it was not an aesthetic creation devoted to form and color, but then the vanguards said it did expressed something, it took brains to understand and appreciate this art. Suddenly even critics saw beyond a black block on a white canvas, abstract are became the trend and we, the public, like sheep fallowed.  Patrons, critics and collectors wanted this neuron challenging art, and so the rest of us started to see it in another light. Perhaps there are ways to this madness; it was just a matter of taste.

 It is taste now an instrument, for the authoritarian ways of art; we are given options. Not unlike going to a gellatteria, there are amazing flavors which we don’t find in our regular ice cream parlor. However, no matter how outstanding their variety is we still need to choose what is there, we can mix and match but our options will always be limited. Our decisions have already been narrowed down by whoever decides what that shop serves, on a greater picture this happen to everything around us even our body.

According to Steven Johnson, in “Listening to Feedback”, the brain process is all due to feedback, it regulates our body.  And this feedback system allows homeostasis, balance, to exist in the human body (196). However, Johnson is not entirely correct, while the body in general works thanks to feedback; it is not feedback that controls the body, the brain does.  When a person has even the smallest of chemicals imbalances in their brain, the entire system gets affected. It may cause a hormonal disproportion which results that persons aggressive attitude or the fact that they faint, anything can happen just because there is a glitch in the controller of the system. We are in all aspects dependant of some sort of tyranny, be it our brains or our impulses, feedback plays a lesser role.

 Even the most feedback dependent art, music, is controlled by small elites. When we listen to music on the radio, it has been that which the station has selected, that same music has before been chosen by the music companies. It does create a chain; we listen to what is chosen for us, and the songs that are publicized are chosen because we listen to them. Resembling the demand of abstract art, which started with the acceptance of the critics, the top ten songs in America became hits because they had been played over and over by the nation’s most popular radio stations. In the same we chose the gelato from the previously decided menu, it is a shift in perception that which allows us to believe that popular demand is the one in control, when truthfully it is not. There is a mirage created by media in regards to news, which takes holds in the same manner. “The mechanism for determining what constituted a legitimate story had been reengineered, shifting from top-down system with little propensity for feedback, to a kind of journalistic neural net where hundreds of affiliates participated directly in the creation of story” (Jonhson194). What is considered a neural network for journalism is nothing more than the same reenergized tool of the dictatorship in art, taste.

The authoritarian system is still in place, however it does not necessarily work the same, taste comes to play a role in the dominances system. We are given options, like collectors we provide order to the universe of chaos streaming the possibilities of what can be considered art. There is indie, pop, classical, surrealist and even junk art; this new forms have already been established by artist, critics and collectors. However, we can now choose the one that suits us best is. Just like in the wonder cabinets that to Kimmelman served to store all those random things that people considered valuable, our art preferences serve to capture all that we deem  precious (221). It works just like a playlist, in it we put a compilation of the songs we like. A soft romantic piano piece by Eric Satie can be followed by a dark and heavy Led Zeppelin song, and that by sweet nineties pop tune; or it can be a string of death metal compositions one after the other. Our tastes can be a medley of many things or a constant repetition of a few. However unless we are also creating the tunes that go in our playlist, we are reproducing someone else’s idea of what is music.

Choice over  likes have become our weapons in the front of art, but at the end of the day, it’s just like a school cafeteria, you can only choose from what has been preordered as your choices.  We can push and shove to include what we like, but when we do that we are also becoming part of the elite that dictates, even in a democratization of art. As Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “Democracy is the tyranny of the masses”, there is always an imposition of a group over another. And while art can in some places find democratic strips the outcome is the same; It’s limited and ultimately under a greater influence than that of the common man.

Johnson, Steven . “Listening to feedback” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 190-204. Print

Kimmelman Johnson. “The Art of Collecting Lightbubls” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010.  216- 225. print

Harry Potter and the tale of Global Connections (Final Draft)

Harry Potter and the tale of Global Connections (final Draft)

Millions know about the boy from closet under the stairs at Number 4, Privet Drive. The Harry Potter series has sold over 400 million copies, the franchise’s films have earned around $4.5 billion worldwide, and the books have been translated to 67 different languages. Harry Potter has been an international phenomenon, charming children, teenagers and adults alike in the seven continents, uniting them over the characters and the story. Harry Potter is a thread that connects millions around the globe; the series’ fans  find in the book a point of mutual interest that can override, religion, culture or language, its success is an expression of the globalized popular culture. At the same time this phenomenon is a threat that creates opposition for its ideas and content. As a literary creation Potter is a western expression that, while embraced by many, is not necessarily accepted by all. The reception of the books and films is in many ways a reflection of the complications a world that is constantly increasing its economic, political and cultural connections suffers. The metaphors, themes, characters and settings of J.K. Rowling’s epic tale of a boy who grows into the hero he was made by luck, touches topics of deep significance that are not viewed equally by all.

One of the main points of discord over those who love Potter and those who oppose it, is the setting in which the whole story takes place, a magical world within our world. The idea of magic is one that various religions have denounced over the centuries. Neither Christians nor Muslims approve of magic. In the United States, fundamentalist evangelical groups accused to books of promoting pagan ideas to children, with their use of pagan imaginary. And in various Imams, Islamic holy men have also denounced it, because the subject of magic goes against Islamic teachings.  On the other side of the spectrum, some Jewish rabbi expressed their approval of other ideas the books promote, while in the Catholic Church opinions are divided. The whole concept of magic, which fascinates readers, is transported into our world as an ideological religious conflict not unlike that of jihadist and the western world. The magical thematic is an element that both unites and polarizes, and a fictional book meant for entertainment is elevated by its global popularity to a threat. Harry Potter becomes a platform for certain groups that have their opinions, on this particular subject of popular global culture, to be heard in a stage greater than their community. As Thomas Friedman explains of al Qaeda in “The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention”, when we share so many global connections, “the flat world”, it becomes easier for small group to have a global impact (133). What might had been a small outburst about a book’s content  turn into a global one, not only because the ‘international’ status of the series brought equal ‘international’ attention to the issues, many disapproving voices coming from different corners of the planet connected in the  fight against the young wizard. While they did not agree in specific problems, they agreed in the larger one. “In a flat world it is much more difficult to hide, but much easier to get connected”, no matter how much PR work was done to dissipate these controversies they were already out there, connecting a string of oppositions to the books (Friedman 136).

In the United States the opinions of such religious groups, morphed into a legal battle over the validity of having the Harry Potter series brought into public libraries and schools. To them, the books promoted witchcraft, which relates to the Wiccan religion, and having them in public schools would be infringing the separation of church and state. As mentioned previously, the opposition did not only come from the American Christian conservatives, the rejection of the books is a global as its popularity.  As Maia A. Gemmill and Daniel Nexon  explain in “Children’s Crusades, The Religious Politics of Harry Potter”, “in a global context, the religious politics of Harry Potter echo a broader theme: that of traditionalist responses to the dimensions of globalization and modernization” (80). This means that as the world is becoming more and more connected, creating global cultures, markets and ideas, while the internet is practically everywhere and technology is overwriting many of our practices, not everyone is okay with it. There are those who do not want these changes, that, while they may agree to some of them, they are not favoring all of them. The Potter books are not esteemed by everyone even thought they are a worldwide phenomenon, the changes brought on by our global connections, unlike the term global suggest, are not uniformly accepted.

This problem is not only a religious one; when the books where translated into different languages, it was not only a translation of languages but of culture, some elements were changed in the story so they would fit into the mythological background in that specific place. While Harry’s stories are a bridge that allows connection in global popular culture, some concessions had to be made before this could happen, to be so internationally loved the story had to make some cultural adjustments that were nationally localized. Richard Restak in “Attention Deficit: The Brain Syndrome or Our Era”, explains that the while we are dividing our attention in many different tasks, “what we now call multitasking most people maintained a strong sense of unity [.] they remain fully grounded in terms of what they were doing” (333). This process is not unlike how states and smaller groups work in the international system; they can take part in different supply chains, cultural exchanges and even international political organizations, however  ultimately they preserve their unity, they have they own culture and their own agenda. In terms of the interconnections of our world, just like the Harry Potter books had to make adjustments in their translations to fit specific cultural backgrounds, all the connections that are made in the international system undergo modifications to work in both the global sphere and the national one.

If the Potter phenomenon is seen in the economic spectrum, there are also favorable and problematic sides. The advantages to the globalization for intellectual products are that; there is a greater market and goods can be simultaneously distributed. J.K Rowling is the second richest woman in the United Kingdome, the first is the queen. Rowling’s books were initially distributed in the U.K however, do to their success the American publisher Scholastics decided to buy the right to distribute them in North America, as the books became a sensation in the U.S and Canada, so Scholastic who also exported as a pre-order service to bilingual schools in Latin America, started offering the books, soon enough the english speaking Hispanics began to popularize the books in their countries. Followed to success of the first books in English publishers around the world were trying to buy the rights to translate the books into the language their local spoke. By the time the fourth Harry Potter installment came out the movie franchises had further globalized the fandom, thus the original British publishers decided to release the books in the original language at the same time  at local bookstores in main cities around the globe, instead of only the English speaking countries . The “just-in-time supply chains” allowed fans got their fix of the new Potter book (Friedman 125). 

None the less there is also a less merry reason publishers started to release the books at the same time internationally. Friedman explains that there is a downside to the wonders of with furthering global connections, “the emergence of mutant global supply chains-that is, nonstate actors, be they criminal or terrorist, who learn to use all the elements of that flat world to advance a highly destabilizing, even nihilistic agenda” (131). Harry Potter not only has had to fight evil warlocks, but also the pirates, the major problem with the global distribution of intellectual property are illegal reproduction and distribution it, usually referred to as piracy.  While the Potter books first came out in the English speaking nations, pirates got the material and illicitly copied it or translated it to other languages, to then distribute them via internet or through illegal shipment to other nations. Legal publishers of the series around the world were losing money - the author too-. The same means that means that allow the

Throughout the Harry Potter books we see Harry and his friend fighting Lord Voldemort, a greedy, racist, murderous, evil man who, in his quest for ultimate power and immortality, has bequeathed his humanity and any good that might have been in him.  Voldemort is the personification of that, which is universally wrong; in a sense the books provided unifying moral elements to all who read it.  Aside from the fondness over the books, the Potter fans are all exposed to the moral and political themes that J.K Rowling has crafted. Outside of national and cultural barriers those who read the Potter series are transmitted the messages of tolerance and equality. At the same time they are given a common visual of what is wrong: murder; slavery; racism; perpetuity in political power, and violent manifestation of political ideas.  In the books see one hand characters with strong personal relationships to each other, in a way the message that maintaining close personal connections is ideal gets passed on to the readers. In a world were “a devaluation of the depth and quality of our relations”, is been caused by the requirements of society and the incursion of new technology, the idea that through time, war and separation the three main characters are able to keep their connections to each other, offers different possibility to the readers, as opposed to the ways of contemporary society.

Harry Potter, in himself is a complex character, those who read the books constantly find that he is capable of both amazing goodness and terrible evil, and even though Harry normally goes for the first option, he does struggle. As a flawed hero, he is constantly aware of the fine line that divides good and bad; likewise as a flawed process globalization is also subjected to that fine division. Trying to sale the idea that, like Harry, the increasing connections of our world will be ultimately a force for good would be simplistic. If there is one similarity between all the international process the Harry Potter books can be related with, and the “flat world”, is that there is more than one side to them, sometimes too many to try an understand, or solve them right way.

Gemmill, Maia A. Nexon Daniel. “Childrem’s Crusades, The Religious Politics of Harry Potter”,. Harry Potter and International Relations. Nexon, Daniel H, and Iver B. Neumann Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Print.

Friedman ,Thomas. “The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 121-138. Print

Restak, Richard.“Attention Deficit: The Brain Syndrome or Our Era” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. Print 331-344

PAPER 4 ( first attempt)

PAPER 4 ( first attempt)

We can text with someone in another state, while ‘skyping’ with another person who is on the other side of the planet, and at the same time ask to our best friend sitting next to you to order some takeout.  Technology has allowed us to be, at least virtually, in multiple places at once, however that also means we are not entirely there at any of those places, we are fracturing our attention so many times nothing holds really holds it. That becomes a burden when personal relations come to play, relationships take time and attention, with our fracture attention and fast paced world, investing that time and attention is hard. None the less they can also be helpful, distance does not pose the same threats in relationships that it used to.  While interconnectedness has changes the dynamics of our relationships, those modifications are not all necessarily negative, they open the dimension of our world broadening our opportunities to both learn from and interact with, different people. It is a complicated path for human interactions, subjected to emotions; however interconnections have the potential for good, probably greater than its risks.

The way we communicate has for ever been changed. It is a revolution that goes beyond technology, transforming our concept of space, the public and private spheres, and even our relationships. As Richard Restak in “Attention Deficit: The Brain Syndrome of Our Era” explains, “thanks to technology, each of us exists simultaneously in not just one here but in several,” and this  has resulted in “ a fundamental change in our concept of time and place” (339).  Those changes then transport to our everyday life specially, according to Restak “a devaluation of the depth and quality of our relationships” (337).  We no longer distinguish Paris from Tokyo because online they are the same place, likewise private and public can be the same place and occur simultaneously.

That change in pace that interconnectedness brings to our interactions with others is not inevitably damaging, for the time we invest in our relationships is something that we control as individuals.

 When the barriers that used to separate us physically disappeared also so did the inflexibility of culture. Thus allowing human connections, which would have otherwise been extremely difficult to establish.

The spread of Violence and destructive relationships are also possible thanks to today’s interconnections, and that is probably the

The Weight of the negative capability of humans cannot be the only elements we use to judge these technological advancements 

Chaos and Order ( Final Draft)

Chaos and Order ( Final Draft)

If we go through a brief recount of the world’s history, we would find war as one of the principal topics.  Wars fuelled by a myriad of causes: power, religion, pride, conquest and fear among many others, all resulting in some form destruction. Internationalist, had until the early 20ths century, believed it was the way of the world. The international system, to them, works as an anarchic community, always in the verge of conflict, because the little order to be had can only come by those who have the most power. Since there is no body that regulates states, the one with the most power would set the few rules, we think of them as empires. How does a nation become an empire? It would need, military and economic power, and there is only so much a state can get on its own, resources are limited. This creates a constant threat to other states, who are either on competition for the power, or those who had the resources the other state needed, which constantly lead to war. 

And until very recently that had been the only way believed things could be run. The world we live in is very different, many historical processes led to what we see as normal now, international cooperation, human rights, the United Nations, but more importantly war as a last result. This processes in themselves have spread for centuries, they were the steps that led to the evolution of the international system, as man evolves and changes there are new behaviors which affect their interactions.  This evolutionary step in the international system have also drawn changes in the interactions, one of the elements of this next step in evolution is the  increase of connections between states.  Struggle for power still persists, just as homo sapiens basic instinct is still survival, however, all the economic and cultural linkages that weave almost all nations together, one way or the other, give us pause.   Our world is far from perfect, but today’s levels of interconnectedness have permitted to achieve a level of stability in a system forever deemed as anarchical. Unlike the savage international community we once were, interconnectedness has help giving order to an otherwise chaotic world; it has been able to create a semblance of balance, otherwise elusive in our history. What happens to a particular nation has resonances with others, due to humanitarian sensitivities or economic relations, barriers like language, culture, and religion, which for millennia were the determining factors, are not primordial.

Our interactions have changed, as Thomas Friedman explains in “The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention”, a chapter in his book The World is Flat, how supply chains and economic relations-using the Dell suppliers as he model- between countries make them less likely to go to war (125). Why? According to Friedman, “no two countries that are both part of a major supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain,” for, “people embedded in a major global supply chain don’t want to fight old-time wars anymore… they want to enjoy the rising standards of living that come with that” (125). Essentially since countries in the same supply chains are not in dire conditions, and there is more on the table to lose than what might be won in a war, people prefer to stay out them. We no longer need to conquer a country, or seize new land to obtain what we want from them, we make economic deals in which everyone gets more or less what they want, without shedding blood. Supply chains of global scales may seem to some, just as a way for big business to make more profit, which is a part of the equation; they also distribute that wealth in a more reasonable manner. No lone state is getting the spoils of that business, making them a bigger player in international community, it give us levelness, but more importantly this supply chains help perceptions change. We no longer see other nations only as competition; they are ‘our neighbors’, ‘our allies’, and even ‘our brothers’, we see ourselves as part of a whole.

That levelness, or flattening of the world which Friedman call it, is more or less what Steven Johnson in “Listening to Feedback”, observe in the media, “the overall system, in other words, has shifted dramatically in the direction of distributed networks, away from the traditional top-down hierarchies” (193). The redistribution of networks, like the redistribution of power and wealth in the international system, leave aside the status quo of our historical tendencies, we move away from hierarchies. While for news networks it means that information is shared and covered by everyone, in the political and economic sphere it means that what happens in one nation has a greater resonance in another. What is currently happening in Japan due to the earthquake and tsunami affect us beyond the human tragedy, it disrupts supply the economic networks Japan makes part of. We want Japan to bounce back fast, as it is instrumental in the economic global system, and while some other nations are able to take on Japan’s role, the glitch in the system would have lasted too long, affecting all its other members. While this might seem as a negative aspect of our interconnections, it is precisely the fact that it can also affect us that makes the rest of the world act to help Japan. We help because, one way or the other, it involves us too.

The international community works like the human body, which as Johnson explains, “is a massively complex homoeostatic system, using intricate networks of feedback mechanism to keep itself stable in the midst of dynamically changing situations” (196). Thus, like a human body we try to regulate ourselves, and ‘ourselves’ means all states.   Just as Japan’s current tragedy can be of consequences to other nations, due to the damage it does to the system, there are other factors that tend to disrupt the system. Today while the instances for war between states have been lessened, thanks to how connected we are, the apparition of belligerent groups with no national affiliations is new challenge to a system that is just adapting to change. Terrorist groups, drugs cartels and intellectual property pirates, among others take advantages of the system too, for a “in a flat world it is much more difficult to hide, but much easier to get connected” (Friedman 136). The same links that can help a supply chain work, serve as tools for dangerous players in the international stage to affect the entire system. A terrorist group can send threat via email, suicide bombers can travel on plains, drug money can be launder with a click of a mouth; this are obvious drawback of interconnectedness. However they also strengthen the connections between states, for as what happens to one nation can have consequence in other ones, they present a unite front against this groups. We find a common enemy and universal problems we can deal with together, linked not only by our interest but by our problems. The effects interconnections have are not always necessarily good, they makes us dependant of one another, but that is perhaps what we have been missing.

The interconnections of all our systems be them political and economic or mediatic and social, are increasing. The free flow of goods, information, opinion and culture, make our world a source of wonderment, we are probably the most labored collection of all times. As, art critic, Michael Kimmelman expresses in “the Art of Collecting Lightbulbs”, both collections and wonder cabinets, make seemingly unrelated thing coherent, the interconnectedness of so many systems at a time work like a collector, in the great scheme of things, “they make order out of chaos” (219). They create an intangible collection of niches that are necessary for the entire thing to work.  As new issues arise in the international community, states develop new roles, and strengthen old ones. Those niches give a sense to nations; even failed states have a purpose they create focus points for other states, they are examples of what no to do. At the same time they make the international community collaborate with them, trying to make them successful so that they will not endanger the system.

As Friedman proposes, all economic and political connections make the world flat, further than money and treaties. These interconnections are starting to make individuals more and more conscious of the similarities we share. The free flow of information between places on opposite sides of the globe, and supply chains shared by nations that were once enemies, give a new face to our interactions that miraculously contrast to those in our history.  And that balance, as flawed as it might be, is the first real opportunity we have had to leave war behind.

Johnson, Steven . “Listening to feedback” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 190-204. Print

Kimmelman, Michael. “The Art of Collecting Lightbubls” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010.  216- 225. Print

Friedman ,Thomas. “The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 121-138. Print 

From Chaos to Something that Looks Like Order (Rough Draft)

From Chaos to Something that Looks Like Order (Rough Draft)

We life in an age of nations, kingdoms are few and far in between, emperors are a memory of times past or delightful figureheads. Our world looks nothing like it did two centuries ago, not even how it looked half a century. The idea of a man spreading his power, taking over nations by force is, if not inconceivable, impermissible. We conquer, space, diseases, global problems, not nations, not anymore. And while such changes in the ways our world could be accredited to the takeover of ideas such as democracy, sovereignty, equality, civil and human right, among others, it was not until the connections between nations changed and grew that we became what we are today. Our world is far from perfect, but today’s levels of interconnectedness have permitted to achieve a level of stability in a system forever deemed as anarchical. Interconnectedness serves to give order to an otherwise chaotic world; it has been able to create a semblance of balance, otherwise elusive in our history. What happens to a particular nation has resonances with others, due to humanitarian sensitivities or economic relations, barriers like language, culture, and religion, which for millennia were the determining factors, are not primordial.

Our interactions have changed, as Thomas Friedman explains in “The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention”, a chapter in The World is Flat, how supply chains and economic relations-using the Dell suppliers as he model- between countries make them less likely to go to war (125). Why? According to Friedman, “no two countries  that are both part of a major supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain,” for, “people embedded in a major global supply chain don’t want to fight old-time wars anymore… they want to enjoy the rising standards of living that come with that” (125). Basically since countries in the same supply chains are not in dire conditions, and there is more on the table to lose than what might be won in a war, people prefer to stay out them. We no longer need to conquer a country, or size new land to obtain what we want from them, we make economic deals in which everyone gets more or less what they want, without shedding blood. Supply chains of global scales may seem to some, just as a way for big business to make more profit, which is a part of the equation, they also distribute that wealth in a more reasonable manner. Not only one country alone is getting the spoils of that business, making it a bigger player in international community, it give a level to filled that has forever been anything but.

That levelness, or flattening of the world which Friedman call it, is more or less what Steven Johnson in “Listening to Feedback”, observe in the media, “the overall system, in other words, has shifted dramatically in the direction of distributed networks, away from the traditional top-down hierarchies” (193). The redistribution of networks, like the redistribution of power and wealth in the international system, leave aside the status quo of our historical tendencies, we leave behind hierarchies. While news networks it means that information is shared and covered by everyone, in the political and economic sphere it means that what happens in one nation has a greater resonance in another. What is currently happening in Japan due to the earthquake and tsunami affect us beyond the human tragedy, it disrupts supply the economic networks Japan makes part of. We want Japan to bounce back fast it is instrumental in the economic global system, and while some other nations are able to take on Japan’s role, the glitch in the system would have lasted too long, affecting all its other members. The same would happen if a major player in the media system was incapacitated to do its work, if all the Middle East correspondents of a global news network, like the New York Times, were held captive by terrorist or authoritarian governments, the information they are constantly providing the media system would stop coming too. While some other correspondents of other networks may still be informing, the specific information the NY Times correspondent’s sources where to supply would be lost. A void of information would be created and our almost on time moving media system.  The effects interconnections have are not always necessarily good, they  makes us dependant of one another, but that is perhaps what we have been missing.

The interconnections of all our systems, be it political and economic or mediatic and social, are increasing. The free flow of goods, information, opinion and culture, make our world a source of wonderment, we are probably the most labored collection of all times. As, art critic, Michael Kimmelman expresses in “the Art of Collecting Lightbubls”, both collections and wonder cabinets, make seemingly unrelated thing coherent, the interconnectedness of so many systems at a time work like a collector, in the great scheme of things, “they make order out of chaos” (219). They create an intangible collection of niches that are necessary for the entire thing to work.

Johnson, Steven . “Listening to feedback” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 190-204. Print

Kimmelman, Michael. “The Art of Collecting Lightbubls” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010.  216- 225. Print

Friedman ,Thomas. “The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention” Emerging. Barclay Barrios. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 121-138. Print