Brad DeLong runs Rick Pearlstein's notes from a talk given by Seymour Hersh. You will find no comfort in Hersh's comments. E.g,
He said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, "You haven't begun to see evil..." then trailed off. He said, "horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run."
Posted
by D. Weinberger at June 12, 2004 04:58 PM
Comments
I believe that there is an absolutely enormous amount of information being kept from the American people, and the world, about the way this administration came to power and how it's policies have been and are being implemented.
I think much of the information has been at least partially uncovered by concerned journalist and citizens and bloggers, yet gets aired only in ad-hoc ways (i.e. via blogging). I believe there are master narratives in operation, constructed by the major corporate media who are sympathetic to this government. It's the continuous choosing of what gets aired, and sometimes even comes down to the twist of wording of a question, it's the distortion of the word "liberal" for example, it's shameful in a supposed democracy.
I wish there were more visible and widespread ways to counter that shameful force - I know the Net is (theoretically) available to all, and I like very much the notion of the Accountable Net you pointed to recently. I hope that notion finds more and more traction.
Television has changed things - and continues to make changes to individual and collective perceptions.
And IMO the Net will change many aspects of life and work, unless the gov't and the big corporations build in overly restrictive digital id and find ways to over-regulate the ways it is and can be used.
TV did change war. It didn't end war, of course. although it is commonly credited with helping to build the anti-war movement by "bringing Vietnam into our living rooms," as the cliche goes.
So, if by "changing things" you mean "end war forever," you're right. But that would miss all the interesting and possibly important ways TV and the Net are changing things.
Of course TV changed things - but the government could use it too, as in pre-packaged video PR.
I expect sometime in the future we will see government warblogs, and they will be skilled at it, used to shape stories, manage perceptions, spin events ... as always ("truth is the first casualty")
David, I enjoy technology, I think it's interesting and I think aspects of it are "important."
But, how should we apportion our (finite) attention? Do the problems confronting us stem from the nature of our technology, or from our, human, nature?
I believe technology changes the "hows" of the world, it seldom changes the "whats." The "whats" stem from human nature, what we do. The "hows" are interesting, but ultimately, I think, mostly distractions.
We don't really wish to "change the world." I think what we really wish to do is change ourselves. No technology can do that, at least not in a meaningful way. Individuals must do that through individual effort, and that effort resides chiefly in understanding ourselves, understanding our nature. What might be an interesting question is how technology might facilitate more people understanding their nature, or discovering the value or utility of understanding their own nature.
Thales said, "Know thyself," thousands of years ago. All the technology in all the millennia since hasn't seemed to have made much of a difference. Is that a deficiency in our technology, or in our nature?
Not that any of this is related to the post it's attached to. It's just prompted by your comment on the role of TV.
Dave, I've been reading (and sometimes re-reading) Foucault over the past year, and maybe the single most amazing thing he shows, over and over, is just how vastly the world has changed over the centuries, even though the fact that we use the same words often masks that. E.g., prisons don't have a continuous history because the basics of what they are has changed, even though we may use the same physical structures and the same word to name them. All of which is to say that I think we change deeply over time.
I'm not sure I agree that we want to change ourselves more than the world. Besides, you can't change one without the other (which is probably closer to your point).
And I certainly agree that how tech can facilitate people understanding their nature is an interesting question. That's the question behind (if I may self-promote) Small Pieces. Now if we could only find the answer that's in front of the question, so to speak :)
"and maybe the single most amazing thing he shows, over and over, is just how vastly the world has changed over the centuries, even though the fact that we use the same words often masks that. E.g., prisons don't have a continuous history because the basics of what they are has changed, even though we may use the same physical structures and the same word to name them. All of which is to say that I think we change deeply over time."
Well, I suppose this topic will rapidly exceed the capacity of a comment system, but I'm a little confused here. The fact that we use the same words supposedly masks the fact that the things that the words describe have changed, and then prisons "don't" have a "continuous" history because the basics of what they "are" has changed? You lost me there.
Haven't prisons always been about denying certain kinds of people their liberty? And don't the photos out of Abu Ghraib suggest that less has changed than you might think? And the fact that there are many other prisons that are far worse than Abu Ghraib, as AG apologists are quick to point out, should affirm that little has changed about our all-too-human proclivity to deny certain kinds of people their liberty, and to mentally and physically abuse them, even to kill them.
Since I haven't read Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" in many years, the following details are totally made up. But, imagine you have a building that for the past 500 years has been used as a prison, but that in the 16th Century it was a place where the devil is cast out, in the 17th was where perceptions were "reengineered," in the 18th was where minds are re-educated, etc. All are called "prisons," but the word "prison" actually means different things in each age. (And practices in the prison will vary because of the different meanings: If prisons are about rehabilitation, then education and conjugal visits happen, but if they're about punishment...)
The same sort of analysis (except, preferably one that isn't totally made up) could be done of all our institutions. I've been struggling through a collection of Foucault's lectures that says much the same about war.
I have to admit, though, that 75% of what he says I just don't get. Where's AKMA when you need him? :)
Comments
I believe that there is an absolutely enormous amount of information being kept from the American people, and the world, about the way this administration came to power and how it's policies have been and are being implemented.
I think much of the information has been at least partially uncovered by concerned journalist and citizens and bloggers, yet gets aired only in ad-hoc ways (i.e. via blogging). I believe there are master narratives in operation, constructed by the major corporate media who are sympathetic to this government. It's the continuous choosing of what gets aired, and sometimes even comes down to the twist of wording of a question, it's the distortion of the word "liberal" for example, it's shameful in a supposed democracy.
I wish there were more visible and widespread ways to counter that shameful force - I know the Net is (theoretically) available to all, and I like very much the notion of the Accountable Net you pointed to recently. I hope that notion finds more and more traction.
Thank goodness for Seymour Hersh.
Posted by: Jon Husband | June 12, 2004 07:28 PM
We've been here before. My Lai is the comparison people use, but napalm bombing might be more apropos.
And people also talk of The Net changing things, like then they talked of Television changing things.
War Is Hell. For eternity.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | June 13, 2004 01:53 AM
Television has changed things - and continues to make changes to individual and collective perceptions.
And IMO the Net will change many aspects of life and work, unless the gov't and the big corporations build in overly restrictive digital id and find ways to over-regulate the ways it is and can be used.
Posted by: Jon Husband | June 13, 2004 02:06 AM
TV did change war. It didn't end war, of course. although it is commonly credited with helping to build the anti-war movement by "bringing Vietnam into our living rooms," as the cliche goes.
So, if by "changing things" you mean "end war forever," you're right. But that would miss all the interesting and possibly important ways TV and the Net are changing things.
Posted by: David Weinberger | June 13, 2004 08:59 AM
Of course TV changed things - but the government could use it too, as in pre-packaged video PR.
I expect sometime in the future we will see government warblogs, and they will be skilled at it, used to shape stories, manage perceptions, spin events ... as always ("truth is the first casualty")
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | June 13, 2004 03:13 PM
David, I enjoy technology, I think it's interesting and I think aspects of it are "important."
But, how should we apportion our (finite) attention? Do the problems confronting us stem from the nature of our technology, or from our, human, nature?
I believe technology changes the "hows" of the world, it seldom changes the "whats." The "whats" stem from human nature, what we do. The "hows" are interesting, but ultimately, I think, mostly distractions.
We don't really wish to "change the world." I think what we really wish to do is change ourselves. No technology can do that, at least not in a meaningful way. Individuals must do that through individual effort, and that effort resides chiefly in understanding ourselves, understanding our nature. What might be an interesting question is how technology might facilitate more people understanding their nature, or discovering the value or utility of understanding their own nature.
Thales said, "Know thyself," thousands of years ago. All the technology in all the millennia since hasn't seemed to have made much of a difference. Is that a deficiency in our technology, or in our nature?
Not that any of this is related to the post it's attached to. It's just prompted by your comment on the role of TV.
Posted by: Dave Rogers | June 13, 2004 06:38 PM
Dave, I've been reading (and sometimes re-reading) Foucault over the past year, and maybe the single most amazing thing he shows, over and over, is just how vastly the world has changed over the centuries, even though the fact that we use the same words often masks that. E.g., prisons don't have a continuous history because the basics of what they are has changed, even though we may use the same physical structures and the same word to name them. All of which is to say that I think we change deeply over time.
I'm not sure I agree that we want to change ourselves more than the world. Besides, you can't change one without the other (which is probably closer to your point).
And I certainly agree that how tech can facilitate people understanding their nature is an interesting question. That's the question behind (if I may self-promote) Small Pieces. Now if we could only find the answer that's in front of the question, so to speak :)
Posted by: David Weinberger | June 13, 2004 08:54 PM
"and maybe the single most amazing thing he shows, over and over, is just how vastly the world has changed over the centuries, even though the fact that we use the same words often masks that. E.g., prisons don't have a continuous history because the basics of what they are has changed, even though we may use the same physical structures and the same word to name them. All of which is to say that I think we change deeply over time."
Well, I suppose this topic will rapidly exceed the capacity of a comment system, but I'm a little confused here. The fact that we use the same words supposedly masks the fact that the things that the words describe have changed, and then prisons "don't" have a "continuous" history because the basics of what they "are" has changed? You lost me there.
Haven't prisons always been about denying certain kinds of people their liberty? And don't the photos out of Abu Ghraib suggest that less has changed than you might think? And the fact that there are many other prisons that are far worse than Abu Ghraib, as AG apologists are quick to point out, should affirm that little has changed about our all-too-human proclivity to deny certain kinds of people their liberty, and to mentally and physically abuse them, even to kill them.
Perhaps prisons aren't the best example?
Posted by: Dave Rogers | June 13, 2004 09:27 PM
Since I haven't read Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" in many years, the following details are totally made up. But, imagine you have a building that for the past 500 years has been used as a prison, but that in the 16th Century it was a place where the devil is cast out, in the 17th was where perceptions were "reengineered," in the 18th was where minds are re-educated, etc. All are called "prisons," but the word "prison" actually means different things in each age. (And practices in the prison will vary because of the different meanings: If prisons are about rehabilitation, then education and conjugal visits happen, but if they're about punishment...)
The same sort of analysis (except, preferably one that isn't totally made up) could be done of all our institutions. I've been struggling through a collection of Foucault's lectures that says much the same about war.
I have to admit, though, that 75% of what he says I just don't get. Where's AKMA when you need him? :)
Posted by: David Weinberger | June 14, 2004 08:58 AM