[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts
- To: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts
- From: mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:02:29 -0700
- In-reply-to: <5571B75F.email@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CACwG6DsF7_ROOCeY19xbU4cWMZqZ_NK0aZjvNe7Rk_59-T90eg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGaCnpyS3bHdyicXLW87L4JT=LDVN-iJKK_-+T55o0+O2wwk5w@mail.gmail.com> <CACwG6DvnfqJiogBBPtT1fzaXGqmwW0QmzJJFkdxqTJDKUCYq6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAHCnM0DOwAs-YvQMphGLOi5-RpwiZkJcu-41rm8=4ZV2WUZpGQ@mail.gmail.com> <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <CACwG6Du0xH9ecB1MJU4BZmAxq+dNfp=7c4gB=MnNEDe+dZM9cA@mail.gmail.com> <5571249B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <CO2PR0501MB8554C5EE8078C82A3C99D18CAB20@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.email@example.com> <CO2PR0501MB8555774DFD1E02DA14BC5F9CAB20@CO2PR0501MB855.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5571B75F.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
So in David's use of the term, Andy, the ideological shadow of an artifact
is the shadow of the system of ideas that it casts/embodies/affords...??
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> Well, this is the whole issue of the ambiguity in how people use the word
> "ideology" isn't it, Lubmir?
> You use "ideology" in the pejorative sense, therefore good science cannot
> be ideological, only bad science.
> Fair enough. But I would go part way to the way David uses the word,
> ideology is a system of ideas, and science most certainly is a system of
> ideas, and also characteristic of a certain social strata or institution,
> but not thereby self-serving, dangerous, etc.
> *Andy Blunden*
> On 6/06/2015 12:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>> Ideologies might include laws of nature (including the social nature of
>> society) but this is not a requirement. Ideologies are systems of
>> principles or ideas that justify political talk, action, and behavior in
>> order to defend or obtain a bigger piece of the pie (put it simply).
>> In this case, the natural science law by itself is not ideological. It
>> becomes ideological when it is included in the body of an ideology, when it
>> is appropriated by a group of people to serve their objectives. But this
>> doesn't make a natural law ideological by itself. Now, you might say that
>> the discovery or formulation of a natural science law might be influenced
>> by political ideology. This is a completely different talk. Bolshevik
>> ideology influenced the discovery of the principle of the leading role of
>> the proletariat. You can tell me if this this is a real law in the social
>> realm or an ideological construct. Certain social "discoveries" in
>> totalitarian or authoritarian countries claimed to be based on science and
>> to be scientific laws of nature, but in effect these were ideological
>> constructions in disguise.
>> There is a major difference between science and ideology as social
>> institutions. The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or
>> the closest approximation); the goal of ideology is to defend our
>> socioeconomic position at any rate, no matter what. Ideology can use
>> science or might pretend to be using science, which is most often the case.
>> If we mix science and ideology, if we idologize science, we make a
>> dangerous mix that can kill billions of people (so far only a few hundred
>> million in and around two world wars).
>> Best wishes,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:
>> email@example.com] On Behalf Of Andy
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts
>> So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of
>> nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g.
>> Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the
>> interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have
>> within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but
>> "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience,"
>> etc.) Is it really all relative??
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
>>> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago
>>> with a student we found the term emerged right after the French
>>> revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the
>>> populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the
>>> political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a
>>> number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this
>>> group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision
>>> of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract
>>> ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues
>>> were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back
>>> over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people
>>> often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able
>>> to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let
>>> me know).
>>> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the
>>> time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to
>>> develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually
>>> flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in
>>> ideology since Jefferson's return.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: email@example.com
>>> On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov
>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight
>>> that it is a system for defending the social position/status that
>>> individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is
>>> derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or
>>> obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process.
>>> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a
>>> system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision
>>> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way
>>> affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of
>>> course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly.
>>> Best wishes,
All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes
you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something
that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it*