Michel Callon and the Elliptical Machine

I've been reading Michel Callon recently -- he's a science studies guy, interested in exploring the systems created by both human and non-human actors. "Non-human actors" include things like machines, technology, and... elliptical machines?!

I mentioned before that I am becoming a proto-gym-rat. On my second day at the gym, I mistakenly pushed the "cardio" button. It was ok for a while. Me and the machine, human and non-human actors, me running, it pumping, lights flashing.

And then the resistance goes way up. I'm pushing down with all my feeble might, flabby leg muscles straining.

RESUME WORKOUT

"What?"

RESUME PEDALING

Dammit, I AM pedaling!

NO, SERIOUSLY, FEEL FREE TO START EXERCISING ANYTIME.

This is where I decided to exert my humanness and lower the resistance on the machine with the little electronic button, so that I could, in fact, bend to its dominating will. And after that the pedaling went very well, thank you.

Scientologist Pharmacists, Unite!

Bush and Friends (TM) is once again trying to make it acceptable for pharmacists to "object" (read: not do their jobs) to dispensing birth control and emergency contraception to women.

Let's not mince words: this is stupid and immoral. The vast majority of American women want (and exercise) the right to birth control, and pharmacists do not (IMHO) have the right to interfere in any decisions between doctors and patients of either gender. It is their job to dispense medications correctly, not make judgments or diagnoses. If they can't do that, they should find another job.

But if this passes, it raises a serious question. Can a Scientologist pharmacist who does not believe in chemical treatments for depression and other mental illnesses refuse to dispense Prozac?

Unfortunately, conservative Christian backers of these kinds of things often don't think through these kinds of legal consequences. Laws, after all, apply to everyone, not just (one definition of) the Chosen Few.

Homer the Astronomer

Some well-meaning astronomers (Marcelo Magnasco of the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics at Rockefeller, and Constantino Baikouzis of the Observatorio Astronómico in La Plata, Argentina) are trying to date the events in Homer's Odyssey based on scattered mentions of astronomical events, such as a solar eclipse. One of these events is their astronomical interpretation of Homer's report of the actions of a god (see the link above). The gods, rationalized out of their own divinity, become merely stars; I'm sure Homer would disagree.

Clearly Drs. Magnasco and Baikouzis have not read the work of Albert Lord (who is not cited in their article), who developed the theory of "oral formulaic theory" to address the question of how Yugoslavian bards -- and ultimately, Homer -- could create long works of oral history.

In short, when the article about these astronomers talks about what Homer "wrote," therein lies the problem.

Homer did not write. Most likely, he sang. Someone wrote it down, sure, but the Illiad and the Odyssey were not, at heart, written documents. Homeric details such as astronomical events are not pieces of data passed down from one document to the next (albeit sans citations) but rather poetic devices, employed because of their rhyme scheme, cadence, or poetic nature. The fact that Homer mentions an eclipse does not mean it happened at that time -- Homer wasn't there, after all (by his own admission). Someone saw an eclipse at some point, and it has probably worked its way into this tale independently of its timing in relation to the events Homer was relating.

Assuming, of course, that Homer was relating "history" in the western sense at all. But even if he was relating a history of "true" events, we know from other oral traditions that compression is common in oral histories of the distant past. Famous people, even though they lived generations apart, suddenly appear in the same stories fighting over women and waging war. Events are conflated: three wars become one. This doesn't mean that oral history isn't significant, meaningful, or interesting. But it isn't written history, and it can't be mapped neatly onto a Gregorian calendar.

The Drs. justify their admitedly shaky interpretation by saying that they are simply trying to promote reading:

"Even though there are historical arguments that say this is a ridiculous thing to think about, if we can get a few people to read The Odyssey differently, to look at it and ponder whether there was an actual date inscribed in it, we will be happy," Magnasco says.

They seem to have missed the point. Getting people to read (in a literate society, anyway) and think (anywhere) is a good idea. But they are projecting their assumptions about literacy back onto Homer -- ignoring completely the fact that he most likely did not think like modern literate people, let alone astronomers. They assume that his work can be taken out of the context in which it was produced -- that they can analyze the data without knowing the conditions that produced it. Last time I checked, scientists were pretty careful to explain their methodologies. Wouldn't you want to know Homer's methods before taking his data at face value?

So astronomers, please. Stay out of folklore studies, and I'll promise not to start requesting time on the Very Large Array. Deal?

Invasion of the Grammar Police

Two guys with nothing better to do came to my neighborhood to correct spelling and punctuation errors at local businesses. Clearly they feel their time is better spent here than, say, Colorado. Now that's a state with no typos.

They call themselves the "Typo Eradication Advancement League" (TEAL) and the fancy title is enough to impress the Chicago Tribune. But these guys need a lesson in both basic linguistics and etiquette.

Good spelling and punctuation are nice. Certainly makes you look smarter (although incomplete sentences seem to be tolerated in blogs for the sake of drama. Or maybe TEAL just hasn't found us yet). What bothers me, however, is they don't seem to be aware of the fact that this section of Milwaukee Avenue is a multiethnic neighborhood (including Mexicans and other Latinos, Polish, Russians, and Ukranians) where many don't speak English as a first language -- a fact that probably influences the number of typos they find. Those furniture stores TEAL goes after, for example, don't have any typos on their signs in Spanish -- but TEAL's photos conveniently leave anything in that language cropped out.

Now, maybe I've misjudged -- I didn't go to those stores and ask who the owners are, and whether they were born in the U.S., what languages they speak, and who made the signs. I think doing so on the heels of TEAL would be tacky. But the U.S. Census data from 2000 shows that in our zip code 22% are foreign-born and over 50% speak a language other than English at home.

Frankly, this more-grammatical-than-thou posturing in a largely immigrant area smacks of anti-immigrantism. At best.

On a more theoretical level, aren't the grammatical superheroes at TEAL aware that language is always in motion? That the written form is also constantly changing? That the normative grammars of their elementary school experiences are part of a hegemonic discourse? That a focus on grammatical errors is not only irritating, but shows their fundamental misunderstandings about who language belongs to (namely, its speakers, not their 7th grade English teacher)?!

Guys, please. You want to fight this fight? Great. Go teach elementary school kids. Go teach ESL. Become a copy-editor. Heck, if you are that desperate for something to do, I'll even let you proofread my dissertation.

Because I'm nice that way.

Anthropology vs. Life in General

Saw this on my way to teach an Anthropology class. "Study Anthropology as it happens." In Starbucks.

Now, I don't have a problem with ethnographies of coffee shops (in fact, I encourage them). But I've noticed a real confusion among non-academics about what anthropology is. It is not whatever people happen to do. That is merely the starting point of anthropological research.

Anthropology is about creating knowledge in a -- literally -- disciplined way. That means participating, observing, writing fieldnotes, doing interviews, transcribing tapes, extensively coding data, and finally writing documents that generally only other anthropologists read, mainly because they want to see whether you've read what they themselves wrote.

I assume this process is not what Starbucks is inviting us to see over a tall half-caf caramel latte. It would be boring to watch anyway. They are inviting us to people watch -- fun, but not the same thing as anthropology.

Guilty as Charged

The results of PMS's poll (see the comments section) are in:

Why did Hillary say "Burma" instead of "Myanmar"?

25% "Burma" is easier to say when you're under sniper fire.

25% "Myanmar" is harder to say in a fake folksy accent.

50%	Knowing things is "elitist."

0% Stop making fun of Hillary. She's making a serious political statement here.

Because Hillary didn't learn anything at Wellesley. Or Yale Law School. Which is not elitist.

On a more general note, I don't know why people with perfectly cromulent educations feel the need to act "dumb".

The Five Second Prayer

I've been giving a lot of thought to this article, that Ducks pointed me towards earlier (thanks!). The summary:

An MIT class has estimated the carbon emissions of Americans in a wide variety of lifestyles -- from the homeless to multimillionaires, from Buddhist monks to soccer moms -- and compared them to those of other nations. The somewhat disquieting bottom line is that in the United States, even the people with the lowest usage of energy are still producing, on average, more than double the global per-capita average.

This is because they are assuming that even the homeless are responsible for the CO2 produced by their share of streetlights, police services, transportation infrastructure, and other "public goods." That's not a bad way to calculate things. I do believe if we want to make a serious effort to curb our impact on the environment, then we have to make that decision as a society for it to have any real results. This study just confirms that, in my mind -- our society is wasteful on a truly grand scale.

Now, this begs the question, of course: Sam, aren't you just another damn eco-zombie, so concerned with your stupid worms and recycling and taking the CTA when all those things don't make any difference? Why not just eat, drink and be merry until the government taxes the hell out of gas, hamburgers, and the American way? Or until we destroy our planet (or at least our place in it) because we can't reach a consensus about how to curb ourselves?

But there is something to all this that goes beyond quantitative measures of CO2 (although yes, I care about that too). For me, this is not just about footprints and carbon sinks. When I sort paper or dig through dark, rich compost mulch or try to find ways to use a little less plastic, I feel connected to something larger than myself. Something big and eternal and maybe a little scary. Something one can't truly escape and can't fully confront.

This is prayer.

Prayer, for many, is quiet and powerful. They can sit silently, quietly thinking, communing with higher powers. For them, prayer is done with hands clasped, hands raised, quietly or singing, standing or sitting, alone or in church.

I have occasionally felt something in those contexts, but my daily prayers are very different. Often less than five seconds, these are silent -- not just unvoiced, but unarticulated. Certainly they would go unrecognized for what they are. This is not about words, but about action. Ritual action, perhaps (Victor Turner, anyone?).

I describe myself as a deist (no, I don't agree with everything or everyone associated with that philosophy, but isn't that normal for any religious community?). I believe seriously in the mystery of Creation as something ever-changing, ever evolving. Considering the diversity on this planet -- how many beetles? what is living on the bottom of the ocean? -- let alone other planets in the universe, I cannot believe God is confined by gender, language, culture -- or humanity. Or that It cares more about humans than about mosquitoes, or bacteria, or octopuses. One day Creation will not include me, or you, or humans at all. I don't buy that we are the end-product of Creation, the masterpiece of the universe, God's only children.

I also don't believe that God (or whatever you want to call it) explains Itself primarily in books or words. I don't have a problem with other religions, mind you (not even the one I left). We don't all have the same hobbies, the same passions; I can't see any evidence that God wants us all to join the same religion. But God did create a "text," if you will. It is all around us -- not confined the page -- even if our experience of it is akin to the blind men and the elephant.

If God doesn't speak to us in words alone, then why do we think that our prayers need to be limited to that genre? My prayers are actions. Like turning off the lights. Like turning off my computer power cord. Like composting. Like planting native plants that feed butterflies. Little actions premised on the idea that little things matter, and maybe, eventually, can lead to bigger things.

Flip the switch. Amen.

Burma vs. Myanmar: What is Hillary really saying?

I watched Hillary Clinton's speech last night -- before the Indiana results were final, she was claiming victory anyway. Guess she figured it didn't matter. She wanted to rally her supporters before everyone went to bed, and if Obama had actually managed to win Indiana she would be out of the race despite the faux-pas.

Anyway, others will no doubt analyze to death her comments, since TV commentators have to fill hours and hours of time with speculations about what would happen if X, Y, or Z. What interests me here is her throwaway comment about the recent cyclone that killed tens of thousands in a southeast Asian country.

Now, the Chicago Tribune calls this nation Myanmar. But Clinton follows the lead of the Brits, and calls it Burma. And she did so twice; it clearly wasn't a mistake.

Now, I'm not rushing to the defense of Myanmar's military dictatorship here. But let's be honest about American realpolitik -- our nation routinely deals with state and nonstate governments that make me queasy without questioning their right to name themselves.

It seems strange (and possibly embarrassing) for our potential future President to use the non-official name for a nation. But clearly she is not alone in preferring to use the name of "Burma". Turns out the U.S. State Department also calls the nation Burma. Even the title of the nation's entry on Wikipedia is disputed. The name of Myanmar was adopted in 1989 (nearly 20 years ago), and is still contested by many. Still, it seems strange for someone aiming for our top diplomatic post to not use the official name for a nation-state.

Adding to the insult, Laura Bush criticized Myanmar's response to the tragedy. I think the only reasonable response by Maynmar to that would be, "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie."

Rise of the Eco-Zombies: Definitions

Don Gusano has already noted the ecological benefits of zombification, not to mention the one-upmanship of certain sectors of the U.S. environmentalist movement. I want to take his analysis one step further: who/what are Eco-Zombies?

Zombies -- for those of you who don't know -- emerged as a concept in the Caribbean (or possibly in Africa) through the interactions between African religious beliefs brought to the New World, and the grinding misery caused by world demand for cash crops such as sugar. In this context, zombies were people who thought themselves to be dead and could be thus tricked into working in agroindustrial processes such as cutting sugar cane. They didn't need to be shot in the head: they could be awoken.

This connection between zombies and the worst aspects of capitalism has carried over into North Atlantic movie fascination with the creature. From Dawn of the Dead's mall consumerism to Sean of the Dead's routinized purchasing, the living and their zombie counterparts are linked through the processes of production and consumption. Most of these movies explore not the difference between the living and the dead, but the question of how much the living are already like the dead.

Enter the Eco-Zombie.

Many self-described environmentalists in the U.S. (at least) don't seem to realize that by being green(er) they have not escaped from capitalist materialism. Instead, they have simply become another niche market. Excessive consumption is inherently an environmental problem, but the eco-zombie thinks that if something is marked "Green" (or "Natural" or whatever) then buying it will be better than not buying it. In other words, they believe that consumption itself can solve environmental problems.

Many businesses are all too happy to agree as they sell recycled-this and fair-trade-that for prices that most can't afford. Environmentalism becomes another statement of wealth, something that only the upper classes can afford to flaunt. Better to buy green than not -- but do we really need so much stuff?! It seems to me that excessive buying is itself part of the problem.

There are real environmentalists out there, don't get me wrong. Even with my composting, low-flow shower heads, and semi-successful attempts at native gardening, I don't hold a candle to them. They've taught me about local invasive species and introduced me to my wonderful worm companions. No doubt they buy recycled products and shop at local farmers' markets, but they are not trying to make "statements" with consumer goods.

For Eco-zombies, on the other hand, it is not really about the environment. It is a kind of individualistic greenwashing, an attempt to buy one's way into a movement that actually requires an investment of time rather than money. Eco-zombies don't realize that the problem is not just what you buy, but how much. And they are the true market for businesses that sell green -- or "greeeeeen" -- products.

Now, if you'll excuse me... I have some shopping to do...

Tell us some real news, Chicago Tribune!

Ah, more newspaper "human interest" stories... they make so much more sense when juxtaposed...

Front page news: Rich, white, gifted Evanston teen gets into Harvard despite the great hardship of having parents who are wealthy enough to be able to homeschool, send her to Ireland to learn the Irish Harp, to Tibet to study Buddhism, and to Greece to learn philosophy.

Excuse me, but the fact that privileged (in both the economic and the intellectual sense) white kids get into Harvard is not news, people. And certainly not front-page news.

Meanwhile, the Trib puts this in the Metro section: Englewood African-American teen murdered at a drug- and alcohol-free party, apparently in front of a police officer while defending his younger brother.

Speaks for itself.

Cell phone pollution

I love riding the CTA. It allows me to connect with the zietgeist of Chicago.

Last night I was commuting late after a social dinner. Sitting at the bus stop with some light reading: Marilyn Strathern's The Gender and the Gift. [This is sarcasm. It's one of the densest books in the discipline, no joke.]

Some guy, mid forties, comes up to the bus stop. It's dark, we're the only people there. He paces around, watching for the bus, glancing at his cell phone. We wait for half an hour in the silence. Just me, him, and Marilyn.

The bus comes. I get on first and sit down. There are lots of seats. Him? He slides in directly behind me, calls someone, and proceeds to start a chatty inane conversation right in my ear. Because obviously after a half hour he couldn't be expected to know I was reading, or have made the call already.

What is it about cell phones that makes people so blissfully unaware of their surroundings, both physical and social? Marilyn? Anyone?

The Mortality of Quasi-Objects

Open Letter from a Graduate Student

I think most graduate student complaints can be summed up by this bit of library graffiti:


I hear you, friends. I hear you. Or rather, I don't because you are all too busy writing your dissertations. Escape the library! Tell Francis you love him already!!

How many words does English have for "arrogant bastard"?

It's front page (FRONT PAGE?!?) news stories like this one in the Chicago Tribune today that make me wonder if social science has had any impact at all. Intro to anthropology? linguistics? global citizens of the 21st century? Whatever. We have more words, so we must be smarter. Never mind that other languages have say, linguistic gatekeepers who decide what words are "real" (such as the Real Academica Espanola). Or that some of the languages listed aren't really languages at all (Manderin? Cantonese? no matter, it's all "Chinese" to us!). This guy has definitively proved American superiority by trolling Google for words like "smirting" -- flirting while smoking outside. Is that a real word?! Any smokers out there want to comment?

The graph breaks down this worldview. Click on the link to see the full version. Apparently we have twice as many words as "Chinese" and four times as many as Spanish. Even lower on the list are the Freedom French. But rest assured, pseudo-linguistics bolsters ultra-conservative geopolitics: "Arabic" has the fewest words of them all.

Maybe Osama bin Laden bombed their vocabulary.

Toddler Safety

"Somebody cut off your penis, Mommy?"

This is a sign to put Simone de Beauvoir above the refrigerator with the cleaning supplies.