The Taming of Tech Criticism(thebaffler.com)
thebaffler.com
The Taming of Tech Criticism
http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/taming-tech-criticism
5 comments
It's disappointing that this needs to be said out loud, but I really suggest people complaining about the piece read til the end. It's fairly clearly divided into two sections. The first is a straightforward critical review of Carr's latest book which does good work exposing some of the worst examples of Carr's sloppy thinking.
In the second part, Evgeny, a self-proclaimed "technology critic" reflects on and examines his own complicity in the very type of thinking he'd previously been criticising. It's actually incredibly self-aware and insightful, both in the clarity of its self-criticism and how well it contexutalizes its arguments within the history of thought on capitalism, social organization, and technology.
I don't have any analytics on this but I'm fairly certain the reason that so many people have been sharing this recently comes from this section.
In the second part, Evgeny, a self-proclaimed "technology critic" reflects on and examines his own complicity in the very type of thinking he'd previously been criticising. It's actually incredibly self-aware and insightful, both in the clarity of its self-criticism and how well it contexutalizes its arguments within the history of thought on capitalism, social organization, and technology.
I don't have any analytics on this but I'm fairly certain the reason that so many people have been sharing this recently comes from this section.
I found this pretty fascinating (something like a mix of McLuhan, Marx, and Greenberg) and the comments here incredibly inane. There IS a substantial opinion being presented here about the reticence of tech critics to observe the more fundamental socioeconomic issues underlying many problems in tech, and the fact that people are complaining about $.50 words here would provide enough ironic fodder for even the shittiest tech critics.
The core complaint of the comment which mentioned "$.50 words" wasn't the existence of the words themselves, but the low information density. It's hard to take your criticisms of inanity and irony seriously when you're clearly misunderstanding what people are saying.
I can't believe how many words were used in this article to convey such little substance. Does the author know anything other than 50 cent words, or is this style supposed to mean it's an intellectual piece?
Not that I'm anti-vocabulary, I was recently reading Denial of Death (Becker) which was very dense, but every sentence was justified in understanding the message.
Speaking of message, what were the key takeaways? Best I could tell it was something vague about the best strategies for attacking people who think technology has something positive to offer society.
Not that I'm anti-vocabulary, I was recently reading Denial of Death (Becker) which was very dense, but every sentence was justified in understanding the message.
Speaking of message, what were the key takeaways? Best I could tell it was something vague about the best strategies for attacking people who think technology has something positive to offer society.
It's a criticism of current technology critics, in particular the sort that decry automation as reducing peoples' humanity by depriving them of the personal fulfillment that comes from "traditional work".
He calls these critics "conservative" or "romantic", because they idealize past definitions of work and mourn the coming end of virtuous human skills like driving a manual transmission (due to self-driving cars). He considers such criticism elitist.
And he says the real underlying problems, addressed only by "radical" tech critics, are the socio-politico-economic issues raised by technology.
He calls these critics "conservative" or "romantic", because they idealize past definitions of work and mourn the coming end of virtuous human skills like driving a manual transmission (due to self-driving cars). He considers such criticism elitist.
And he says the real underlying problems, addressed only by "radical" tech critics, are the socio-politico-economic issues raised by technology.
> I can't believe how many words were used in this article to convey such little substance. Does the author know anything other than 50 cent words, or is this style supposed to mean it's an intellectual piece?
Click around the rest of the site, they're all like that and it's hilarious
Click around the rest of the site, they're all like that and it's hilarious
I thought http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/purple-reign was well-written and very interesting.
I think it's funny that the author used such flowery language, yet seems to be of the opinion that "criticism" and "critique" mean "opposition", a common but incorrect belief. Film critics don't oppose films, for example. They discuss the pros and cons of various films, and suggest films that may be appropriate depending on your preferences. I wouldn't have thought a logophile would make that error.
Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with 'technology'. I wonder how many venture-capital backed startups were involved with the automation of the pilot's cockpit that he so mourns...
Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with 'technology'. I wonder how many venture-capital backed startups were involved with the automation of the pilot's cockpit that he so mourns...
I think he's actually attacking the mourning of cockpit automation, not defending it. He uses it as an example of Carr's romanticization of manually performed work.
I don't read the 'pilot' paragraph that way. It leads in with "Carr's basic premise is sound" and the following sentence about the pilots is used to support that first sentence. I do admit that I only read half-way through the article as a whole, though; I found it pretty light on substance and more trouble than it was worth.
On a tangent, regarding the self-driving vehicle, I would venture that the critic referred to already has a... cough "self-driving Carr" cough ...
On a tangent, regarding the self-driving vehicle, I would venture that the critic referred to already has a... cough "self-driving Carr" cough ...
I think it's funny that the author used such flowery language, yet seems to be of the opinion that "criticism" and "critique" mean "opposition", a common but incorrect belief.
The author isn't talking about people who oppose technology, he's talking about people who evaluate it's evolution, which is in line with criticism in the sense of "film criticism". The people being cited here are clearly not against technology on the whole.
Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with 'technology'.
It's called synecdoche. The US Government isn't relegated to Washington, DC either.
The author isn't talking about people who oppose technology, he's talking about people who evaluate it's evolution, which is in line with criticism in the sense of "film criticism". The people being cited here are clearly not against technology on the whole.
Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with 'technology'.
It's called synecdoche. The US Government isn't relegated to Washington, DC either.
I'm honestly curious about the words you found difficult. This article seems pitched at about a high school reading level.
edit:
These are the worst I could find: diffidence, oppositional, émigrés, emancipatory, phenomenology, oeuvre, bailiwick, solipsistic.
edit:
These are the worst I could find: diffidence, oppositional, émigrés, emancipatory, phenomenology, oeuvre, bailiwick, solipsistic.
The words aren't difficult. The problem is that the material is at its heart insubstantial - this is a criticism of a critique, after all - and is beefed up with allusions to abstract concepts of dubious relevance. It attacks theoretical representations of the subject matter rather than its subject itself, critiquing constructions that are the product of criticism itself, asymptotically approaching a vapid onanism.
Very droll. Almost too subtle - I thought you simply had a case of beam-in-the-eye until the clause "asymptotically approaching a vapid onanism.".
"They bemoan the arrogant thrust of technological thinking as it clashes with human traditions and fret over what an ethos of permanent disruption means for the configuration of the liberal self or the survival of its landmark institutions"
Each of those words would be known in isolation by a high-schooler. But does "thrust of technological thinking" refer to? What is "an ethos of permanent disruption"? Or "configuration of the liberal self"? Does "landmark institutions" refer to "liberal self", "technological thinking" or "human traditions"? What does it mean in reference to any of those?
The words aren't all that tricky, but it's still not a freely-flowing read. I would expect wordsmiths who frequent HN to understand that sentence, but I wouldn't call it high-school level.
Each of those words would be known in isolation by a high-schooler. But does "thrust of technological thinking" refer to? What is "an ethos of permanent disruption"? Or "configuration of the liberal self"? Does "landmark institutions" refer to "liberal self", "technological thinking" or "human traditions"? What does it mean in reference to any of those?
The words aren't all that tricky, but it's still not a freely-flowing read. I would expect wordsmiths who frequent HN to understand that sentence, but I wouldn't call it high-school level.
If you didn't read it, why are you so sure there was no substance? It's fine if it's not your style, but that doesn't mean the author isn't saying anything worthwhile.
I did read it, just thought it sounded a bit pretentious without actually making a strong point. Kind of reminded me of reading reviews for high end audiophile equipment.
So the Baffler is joining me in full-blooded accelerationism?
It's shallow but easy to engage with, because that kind of criticism is actionable. You can ban Google Glass from your bar, or loudly demand (and perhaps even receive) substantial legislative change on some issues. But when someone tells you that this is something that started in the early 20th century and you must question the principles that have given you such conveniences as microwaves and mobile phones, not only is that criticism not actionable, it's easy to reject as merely theoretical. It's easier to feel in the right when you argue with someone claiming a century of creeping authority and technocracy, than to deny things that are manifestly true, such as the overreach that is supposedly the most recent result of that century.
But questioning the equation of progress=technology has been going on for a long time, centuries, even millennia, and you may find yourself convinced if you read Bacon, or Burton, or Plato, who said things long ago that we are still saying today. The preface to the Anatomy of Melancholy is particularly insightful and beautiful despite being some 400 years old, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the idea of what ails "modern society" - it may be the same thing that ailed it in the early 17th century.