Ideology and tech evangelism

This morning’s Observer column:

For my sins, I get invited to give a few public lectures every year. Mostly, the topic on which I’m asked to speak is the implications for democracy of digital technology as it has been exploited by a number of giant US corporations. My general argument is that those implications are not good, and I try to explain why I think this is the case. When I’ve finished, there is usually some polite applause before the Q&A begins. And always one particular question comes up. “Why are you so pessimistic?”

The interesting thing about that is the way it reveals as much about the questioner as it does about the lecturer. All I have done in my talk, after all, is to lay out the grounds for concern about what networked technology is doing to our democracies. Mostly, my audiences recognise those grounds as genuine – indeed as things about which they themselves have been fretting. So if someone regards a critical examination of these issues as “pessimistic” then it suggests that they have subconsciously imbibed the positive narrative of tech evangelism.

An ideology is what determines how you think even when you don’t know you’re thinking. Tech evangelism is an example. And one of the functions of an ideology is to stop us asking awkward questions…

Read on

Linkblog

FedEx goes the last mile

Dave Winer has bought a house in Woodstock, where it’s been snowing. He arranged to have some boxes of stuff that was in storage in California shipped to him via FedEx. Here’s what happened —- from his blog:

As you know I’ve had trouble with UPS, so I figured when Fedex was set to do a big delivery to my house just after a 1.5 foot snow in the area, that they would never get one of their big delivery trucks down the road to my house, and I’d end up driving somewhere to pick up the packages. But yesterday afternoon there was a knock on the door, and there was the Fedex guy with my packages. Smiling. I couldn’t believe it. #

The truck said Hertz, not Fedex. It was a small AWD vehicle. He said when they came to deliver the stuff a day before they realized their big truck wouldn’t make it down the orad, so they rented a smaller truck and drove that to my house with my package. He said we like to go the extra mile. Yes, they surely do! Compared to UPS, which has basically the same policy, trust the driver, but the ethos of this driver compared to whoever made the call at UPS (basically the customer can fuck off) was night and day. #

Hat’s off to Fedex. You win this contest, hands down. #

Linkblog

  • The New China Scare “Why America Shouldn’t Panic About Its Latest Challenger”. Fascinating (long and thoughtful) essay by Fareed Zakaria. Suggests that current US strategy on dealing with China is wrong and likely to be counter-productive. Too complex an argument for its President, though.
  • What happens when a kid buys a used IBM mainframe computer and installs it in his parents’ basement Touching and funny talk. Useful for parents of geeky kids. I particularly liked Slide 21 of his presentation — the one about “Lessons Learned”. “Listen to your mother and get a warehouse”.
  • Are robots competing for your job? Lovely, acerbic New Yorker essay by the historian Jill Lepore. Robots are almost certainly coming for the jobs of the manufacturers of the exclamation marks that are de rigeur in scare-stories about robotics.
  • Privilege and inequality in Silicon Valley Why few successful startup founders grew up desperately poor. Sobering reflections on inequality by a poor boy who did make good.

When dramatic licence morphs into slander

Last night we went to a performance of Peter Shaffer’s play Amadeus at the school where my wife teaches. It was an impressive adaptation, especially so given that all the parts were played by teenagers. The production also mixed some recordings of Mozart’s music, with live performances by a quartet on the stage. It adhered as much as possible — given the limitations of a school theatre and the casting — to Shaffer’s storyline, but on the way home I fell to thinking how unfair and misleading that line was. Its dramatic engine is the idea that Salieri, the Court Composer in the Austrian Imperial Court, was so jealous of Mozart’s transcendent talent that sabotaged his career in Vienna, leaving him destitute — and then, many years later, was so overcome with remorse that he tried to slit his throat and was thereafter confined to a lunatic asylum where a priest persuaded him to confess.

This makes for great theatre, of course, but historically speaking, it skates on rather thin ice. In the Oscar-winning film, Amadeus that Milos Forman made in 1984 (with screenplay by Shaffer), F. Murray Abraham (who won the Oscar for Best Actor that year) portrays Salieri as “a Machiavellian, Iago-esque character, who uses his connections to keep Mozart as the underdog and slowly destroy Mozart’s career”.

The play does not portray Salieri as a murderer but rather has him hastening Mozart’s demise through a series of plots, leaving him destitute. Salieri is characterized as both in awe of and insanely envious of Mozart, going so far as to renounce God for blessing his adversary; “Amadeus” means love of God, or God’s love, and the play can be said to be about God-given talent, or the lack thereof: Salieri is hospitalized in a mental institution, where he announces himself as “the patron saint of mediocrity”.

The hugely-informative Wikipedia page on Salieri suggests that while there was definite rivalry between Salieri and Mozart (as there would have been in the poisonous back-biting milieu of any Imperial court of the time), broadly speaking they got on fairly well. “Even with Mozart and Salieri’s rivalry for certain jobs”, it says,

there is virtually no evidence that the relationship between the two composers was at all acrimonious beyond this, especially after around 1785, when Mozart had become established in Vienna. Rather, they appeared to usually see each other as friends and colleagues, and supported each other’s work. For example, when Salieri was appointed Kapellmeister in 1788, he chose to revive Figaro instead of introducing a new opera of his own, and when he attended the coronation festivities for Leopold II in 1790, Salieri had no fewer than three Mozart masses in his luggage. Salieri and Mozart even jointly composed a cantata for voice and piano, called Per la ricuperata salute di Ofelia, which celebrated the return to stage of the singer Nancy Storace. […] Mozart’s Davide penitente (1785), his Piano Concerto KV 482 (1785), the Clarinet Quintet (1789) and the 40th Symphony (1788) had been premiered on the suggestion of Salieri, who supposedly conducted a performance of it in 1791. In his last surviving letter from 14 October 1791, Mozart tells his wife that he picked up Salieri and Caterina Cavalieri in his carriage and drove them both to the opera; about Salieri’s attendance at his opera The Magic Flute, speaking enthusiastically: “He heard and saw with all his attention, and from the overture to the last choir there was not a piece that didn’t elicit a ‘Bravo!’ or ‘Bello!’ out of him […].”

Also interesting is the fact that Salieri, along with Mozart’s protégé Hummel, educated Mozart’s younger son Franz Xaver Mozart, who was born about four months before his father’s death.

So the historical truth about the relationship between the two composers could probably be summarised as “the usual professional rivalry accompanied by a degree of mutual respect” but where’s the dramatic interest in that?

Ironically, Salieri’s music was neglected for centuries, and it was only the world-wide popularity of Forman’s film in 1984 (and the travesty of its portrayal of him) that reawakened interest in it.

Linkblog

When the medium is the message

A couple of weeks ago my Observer column was about podcasting and the pioneering role that Dave Winer played in its evolution. Since Dave often includes a short podcast on his daily blog, I thought I should include an audio version of that particular column. Here it is:

(It’s only five minutes long, but the embed player doesn’t seem to realise that.)

‘Homo economicus’ is dead. Not before time.

Paul Collier writes a thoughtful obituary in the TLS:

Thankfully, we now know that Economic Man is a travesty. Blueprint: The evolutionary origins of a good society by Nicholas Christakis is the latest study to affirm this. It shows why, through the forces of evolution, Homo sapiens emerged as a uniquely social species. Far from being evolutionarily inevitable, Economic Man was culled almost to extinction, surviving only as the highly deviant behaviour we call psychopathic. In hunter-gatherer societies, hunters do not “eat what they kill”: such behaviour would bring social ostracism, so the hunters share their catch. The theorems derived from Economic Man explain the conditions under which a society of psychopaths would be able to function. In most contexts, those conditions turn out to be fanciful: the efficient paradise depicted in economics textbooks has never existed, and never will. Instead, in well-functioning societies, humans construct and abide by a vast web of kindness and mutual obligations of which Economic Man would be incapable.

Linkblog