Dear all, I am writing to
groped to fix the next date, trying as much as possible to meet everyone's needs, and give some information.
- Unfortunately, the deck is short, so someone (alas) will probably still out. Please let me know as soon as possible (those who had not already done so) when I can fix the next meeting of the day: Saturday 17 / Sunday 18 / Monday, 19. I fear that the winning option (as I recall) will be the very last, but please tell me how you made, maybe we can save both ways. Tell me also to set "maximum" of participation. I know some (Samanta En) Bruno have awaiting them at home and can not be late.
- my small contribution, inconclusive.
About the concept of technology, I realized that the online encyclopedia (it's Sunday, I could not see anything) the more reductive (and coaches) is of course the De Agostini, which reduces it to "A collection of studies to clarify in terms of streamlining the various mathematical scientific technical processes by which raw materials are transformed into finished products: wood technology, glass , construction, textile technology, etc... " Italian ... Not for nothing that Borges had read the British have to fourteen years: its definition (of 27 words, the entire fee, is thousands) states: "the application of scientific knowledge to the Practical AIMS of human life or, as it Sometimes is phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment ... ". Finally, the Canadians Agora, which do not give a true definition but rather a Mushroom on what he wants or does not mean the end for us young people today. According to Bigelow, quoted in the "definition" of Agora, the term technology "means the technique en tant que sur la Fondei modern science, par opposition aux techniques traditionnelles, violinist celles du ou du peintre par example, here étaient home empirique".
I find myself much more in the definition of British and Bigelow. And from these two parties to share with you the thoughts I had about two books read in the last few days, completely (really?) Different from each other. One is Emily Quartermaine, a sociologist of deviance which published this year, "underground cages. Models and disciplinary strategies of resistance, And Derive and Landings 2005. "It 's a book about the change in the Italian society since the seventies to today, and the mechanism that led to the current situation. Quartermaine says, in essence, that while until the seventies of the prison disciplinary method (a scientific model of control, study, analysis and correction of prisoners and a system composed of several scientific knowledge - medicine, psychology, sociology, psychiatry - that analyze the deviant at the same time transforming it into a patient and a punishment, in an experiment and a punishment (Foucault's all, nothing new under the sun) - and, I said, until that time the system is maintained within the prison, the eighties and nineties, the system will spread like wildfire. Not only are the inmates to have similar treatment, but also toxic, the misfits, the poor. All items that are not include in the common world will be treated as sick. In short, a technological method (ie an application in the world and human behavior - in order to improve it - the application of scientific knowledge to the Practical AIMS of human life) to treat certain types of human behavior considered deviant. The second is ilbro Intelligence and injury. Against the scientific foundations of racism, "by Stephen Jay Gould, Milan NET 2005. The book is old, and especially if you take the American obsession with measurement IQ as a method to classify and judge the individual's behavior exactly. The original title is much more intriguing: The Mismeasure of Man, however I look better naked (and scientist, pinching on the method, not on principle) the emergence of scientific theories in favor of a certain superiority of a particular group (which looks case, the strain is almost always white Nordic wasp ... I wonder why?) on the other, be they women, blacks or poor. The technology to be able to answer the pivotal question of all companies: Why are superiors and inferiors? And above all, because it is right that this is so?
All this long story (actually I wanted to talk to STI 'books and I have not met anyone for two days ...) to indicate that the strong link between technology and social control (and politics). And literature? If someone just interested in the literature (as Adriana says Cavarero) Who is the speech, while the science (Cavarero means that legal, but I would extend it to control technology) is what the speech. Psychiatrists, sociologists, doctors, phrenologists look at the deviant as a number, as a thing. The deviant, when he can, takes possession of the speech was not his (literature) to reaffirm the WHO, their individuality against an internal system (which is scientifically based and therefore no doubt), their complex personality ... and so on (so long as it is a part-sociological theory). And if we were going to the nineteenth century, theories of social and control are already well assimilated by these guys as Balzac, Tolstoy, Zola, and other more famous I can not remember the name.
have been long and I beg your pardon. I had to talk about this because I want to ask if I have blundered, or if you think there might be the definition. Without discussing the fact that when we face and see how everyone else should, if the definition of technology would look for another way to become more restricted.
A collective embrace,
Nobody Expects English Inquisition
James
0 comments:
Post a Comment