...and what an adventure I had! The wedding was absolutely lovely and I had a wonderful time. It's nice that I made it back in time for class...as much as I like having breaks, I don't like missing classes. I already feel a bit behind! I'm also quite exhausted; although I rode in the back of the car, constant sitting wears me out! It was nice to be able to get some reading done, though.
At first, I really wasn't too thrilled about the reading; the section was quite long and I wasn't able to print it off (printer ink is expensive and that's a lot of pages). However, I quite enjoyed this assignment and didn't find myself bored with Mr. Ellul. After completing the reading, I thought I would touch on a few more things I found particularly interesting.
Vocational Tests
The next section I found particularly interesting was the one on vocational tests. I have taken numerous career quizzes, career aptitude tests, etc. since my middle school days. They're found everywhere online. Popular sites such as Career Builder and About have their own tests or link to ones they find useful.
Each test I've taken has come in the form of an online questionnaire that addresses concepts from personality traits to hobbies and interests. Sometimes you check boxes that apply and sometimes you are given two options and you choose the one you like better. I always approached the tests with a bit of skepticism; I remember in middle school I was taken aback when the careers selected for me were "explosives specialist," "podiatrist," and "fruit and vegetable grower."
While I think the tests can be a good way for people to discover their strengths/weaknesses and possible career paths, I found Ellul's comment - that vocational tests "discover" what society needs - to be quite interesting. I suppose I never thought of that before, but it makes sense. The individuals that develop such tests look at popular careers and most definitely the ones that are in demand (perhaps when I took those tests in middle school podiatrists and explosives specialists were needed, leading to my odd results). The list of careers has to be limited somehow.
I liked Ellul's statement that humans are flexible as far as potential, because I think that's true. I don't think it's a good idea to say a person is suitable for one or two careers and those only; with the right skills, people can adapt to many different careers. Also, although vocational tests may be reliable indicators of what a person can do well, it doesn't mean the person will do well in the chosen field(s). In other words, sometimes people are really good at something, but a career in that something is not what makes them happy.
This quote really stood out to be on p.362, and Ellul was speaking about the vocational tests: "Once again we are confronted with a mechanism of adaptation which deprives man of freedom and responsibility, makes him into a "thing," and puts him where he is most desirable from the point of view of another technique, that is, where he is most efficient."
In my opinion, he seems to be saying although people are given the illusion of choice when they take the tests, the tests reduce such people to skill sets and then tell individuals the career(s) they should pick because that is where they will be most useful. I believe this quote and the usage of the word "efficiency" is a central theme that continues to be reintroduced both in this reading and in Technopoly. My group even talked about this concept when we met a couple weeks ago. Technology is about efficiency and the task of workers is to efficiently use the technology, make the technology more efficient, and create products/services/etc. in the most efficient way possible.
Propaganda
This section came directly after the vocational section, and I had no doubt I would enjoy it since persuasion is an interest of mine. I recently read Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram (an interesting and quite wonderful book), and I noticed similarities between the book and this section especially.
First, Ellul explained that propaganda uses mechanical techniques (flyers, radio, television) and psychological techniques to be effective. The items are natural yet suggestive. As both Milgram and Ellul noted, the propaganda strategy in Germany took 10 years; it's a bit of a long process. Ellul said people go from having choice to having conditioned reflexes and living in an abstract universe. By suggestion, people are given the enemy and are able to transfer their guilt/negative thoughts to that enemy. The mindset becomes good versus evil, people start to harbor resentment, and, perhaps most shocking, they don't even see propaganda for what it is. It becomes unrecognizable.
Although I do believe propaganda binds communities/people together, one thing I found surprising was that there is less crime and neurosis in a society bound by propaganda. Maybe that's because people feel close to one another and think they're a part of something special? (Ellul did mention a sacred realm is created). A decrease in crime and neurosis is probably true for places bound by other types of collective thoughts, such as close-knit communities and so forth, but I just found it surprising in general.
Another quote I found interesting in this section was on p.364 when Ellul said "There is no such thing as purely objective information." I'm curious - do you all agree or disagree?
Alyssa, As you might guess- I completely agree that all information is to some degree or another subjective. Information does not come to us in a vacuum. Even if completely unmediated- such as pure sensory information - this information is subject to our human limitations. Thus a lizard can see a wider spectrum of light- a dog a wider spectrum of sound, etc. We are thus compelled to always qualify incoming "data". As for mediated communication or face to face communication, or any non-spontaneously (natural) occurring phenomena - it seems clear that both the conduit or channel (medium) that the information comes through and the originator/writer/interlocutor/agent that "speaks" the information are both actively and passively "subjectifying" the information. Actively, they (we) choose what to say, and what not to say - we choose specific words and signs with both definitional and cultural context that have an understood and assumed content/context relationship. These choices create bias and subjectivity that is inevitable. We also passively pass along bias/subjectivity that is inherent in our cultural framework that has been socially constructed in us from birth through our narratives, traditions and moral and ethical frameworks. I can not think of a single sensory experience or element of information that can be immune from these subjectivities. I do not believe however (like some extreme relativists and post-modernists) that this dooms us to a subjectivism that reduces all human relations to power. It is our responsibility (talent?) to "peel the banana" of information subjectivity. Whenever there is either an outgoing or incoming message- we must attempt to discern what is the fruit (usable and valuable knowledge- relative or not) from the peel ( the inherent bias, subjectivity and power relations) , and discard the peel.
ReplyDeleteI am also very interested in others responses to Ellul's assertion as it is something I have been thinking, reading and writing about for a long time now. I noticed you didn't share your idea of the objective/subjective issue - care to share?
Of course! I was interested in what others had to say, but I agree with you. There always is a reason behind some source or person sharing information, even if they are supposedly unbiased. Take the news for example. Journalists (generally) are expected to be unbiased and present unbiased information. When I worked at my college newspaper, I was expected to be unbiased. There were no personal opinions and everything came from other sources.
DeleteHowever, when I would think of topics to write about, of course I would first think about things I was interested in. I would get information from experts/sources and try to show both sides of issues/conflicts/etc. but I undoubtedly believe my own personal biases did (even if subconsciously) affected the final story and how facts were presented.
The news is just one example, but this happens all the time with all sorts of things. College professors research what they are interested in and such biases can (even if not intended) affect their research.
I really like your banana analysis and I completely agree. We need to be able to evaluate information and messages to decide what is useful and what is excess. Going back to my news example, people have to read stories and reports, take all the information in, and decide: "So what does this really mean to me? Why is this important?"