• Courage: Communication, Psychology
• Participation: Economics (Game theory), Philosophy (Action Theory)
• Honesty: Ethics, Psychology
• Maturity: Ethics, Psychology
• Humility: Ethics, Psychology
• Communication: Communication, Linguistics (Discourse Studies)
• Transparency: Communication, Economics (Information Economics), Linguistics (Sociolinguistics)
• Self-organizing Groups: Economics (Complexity, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics, Game theory), Psychology, Sociology (Social Action Theory)
• Collaboration: Communication, Economics (Complexity and Evolutionary Economics, Game theory), Linguistics (Sociolinguistics, Psychology
• Emergence: Economics (Complexity and Evolutionary Economics, Game theory), Philosophy (Systems Philosophy)
• Rapid Feedback: Communication, Linguistics
• Story-telling: Communication, Linguistics, Psychology

Historical context of “open” not only in software but other contexts (

• Free/Libre:available (no restrictions on use); accessible and editable (see how it works and modify); sharable (distributable); re-distributable

This structure can be applied.

Political science: Plutocracies, Democracy The Commons, Co-ops, Meritocracies

Economics:

Disipline

- Why relevant and what I want to know

-readings.

- Ring, Rick. “Open Source, Red Hat and Security.” CIO.com. Red Hat Inc., Web. 27 Nov 2009. <http://www.cio.com/documents/whitepapers/RedHatOpenSourceSecurity.pdf>.

Iran’s recent “Twitter revolution” highlights how access to technology has increased our access to information, a bottom-up, peer-to-peer process where, as Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams would offer, mass collaboration and communication changes everything. Information, once the exclusive domain of centralized authorities whether that be the State or the Press, is now discovered, developed and dispersed by distributed individuals and groups, loosely coupled across not only technical, but social networks. New media, as Andrew L. Shapiro asserts, fosters “a potentially radical shift of who is in control of information, experience and resources” (Croteau, and Hoynes 321).

As remote, decentralized models for collecting, publishing and even assessing information emerge, are there identifiable traits that create successful distribution channels? Can the same practices that increase access also provide for greater accuracy and quality in the information delivered? If such traits can be discovered, how might greater access to more accurate information, the new media model, affect how traditional organizations operate?

To date my work within the MALS program has been to try and address the first two questions posed above, with a working hypothesis suggested for the third: new media provides broader access (i.e. both in the quantity of information and the rate at which it becomes available) to more accurate (i.e quality) information, resulting in better organizational decision-making, what Andrew McAffee of Harvard Business School would call “Enterprise2.0.” While many have asserted the value of technology within organizations such as new media, the Internet and World Wide Web, Web2.0, social networking, Enterprise2.0, etc., a successful methodology for the adoption and management of these techniques within organizations has yet to be articulated and validated.

Open Source Software (OSS)—software that is freely available for use and reuse—was once considered unfit by mainstream organizations for critical or enterprise level application. However with the adoption of OSS by organizations in every industry, and development contributions from such technology giants as IBM, Oracle, Novell and Microsoft, few can legitimately argue OSS is no longer enterprise ready. Interestingly the OSS organizational and development model, “that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process” and its promise of “better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility [and] lower cost” (Tiemann), has provided a reference implmentation for my efforts in identifying and describing practices that contribute to successful communications channels across distributed teams as well as organizational decision-making yielding better outcomes. In addition to OSS projects as organizational reference points, software development methodologies that highlight collaboration, self-organizing groups and openness, specifically Agile Methods, have been explored as operational models. Agile Methods are a stark departure from traditional project management processes, that attempt to plan for the entire project, in that Agile projects strive to develop at the same pace users can articulate need.

Thus my early work has focused on identifying practices and tools within both OSS and Agile projects. Of significant impact on my thinking is the work of organizations such as The Agile Alliance, The Cutter Consortium and The Open Source Initiative, as well as thought leaders and experts within the Open Source and Agile movements: Scott Ambler, Kent Beck, Fredrick Brooks, Alistair Cockburn, Jim Highsmith, Craig Larman, Andrew McAfee, Eric Raymond, Ken Schwaber, Clay Shirky, Richard Stallman, James Surowiecki, Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams.

From these resources several values, principles, objectives and practices were identified that might provide a framework for supporting organizational decision-making through new media technology and techniques, these include:

• Values: Courage, Participation, Maturity, Humility
• Principles: Communication, Transparency, Self-organizing Groups, Collaboration, Evidence-based Decision-making, Openness
• Objectives: Simplicity, Emergence, Incremental Development, Rapid and Continuous Feedback
• Practices: Web 2.0 tools, Decentralization, Social Media Indexing, Bottom-up, Story-telling, Use Cases, Rubrics, Business Intelligence.

These attributes were then assessed in order to define causality, i.e. the relationship between attributes within an organization that would foster adoption and continued use. The results were plotted, reporting those qualities that were a “necessary and sufficient cause,” “sufficient cause,” “necessary cause” and “contributory cause” (Masson).

While these attributes provide a general framework, they have primarily been described within the literature as theory and aggregated as a practical methodology only within my own work. In order to test the validity of both the attributes described, as well as their actual adoption, and thus applicability for increasing access to information for better decision making and better outcomes, a survey of relevant organizations would be required. In this effort, I would like to identify organizations that self-report as either successful open source projects (e.g. Linux, Mozilla, Open Office, etc.) or Agile organizations (Dell, Staples, Toyota, etc.) and survey their operations in order to measure the presence of the described attributes. This process would include creating definitions of each attribute as criteria for enhancing decision-making (e.g. transparency: the full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information made available to any entity) and metrics for measuring adoption (external entities can access all, some or  no organizational documentation). The results of this survey would provide evidence for the presence and importance of the described attributes. Based on the results of the survey data, I would expect revisions might be needed specific to the attributes described, their definition and/or the metrics used to measure use within successful organizations. In addition to surveys conducted as an outside observer, I would like to participate within active OSS project and Agile organizations in order to observe practices in place.

I would also expect that the survey process and embedded observations might reveal a variety of relevant and interesting user stories regarding adoption and ongoing management (both barriers and opportunities), case studies highlighting viability and feasibility,  reference implementations applicable to specific industries and markets and detrimental to others, as well as outcomes from organizational successes and failures.

Finally, on a broader note, I would think time researching and understanding the various theories of management and organizational behavior  (i.e. knowledge acquisition and management, decision-making, cultural/group dynamics) would provide not only a historical context but a framework for discussion, comparison, criticism and debate. Ideas include:

• Taylorism, or Scientific Management, and other hierarchical approaches like those found within the military such as Command and Control;
• Fordism and the approach epitomized by the assembly line, through to modern approaches including Waterfall processes, Total Quality Management, Six Sigma, Business Process Management, Capability Maturity Model Integration; and
• contemporary schools of thought in project management such as the Project Management Institute and their Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), The United Kingdom’s Office of Government Commerce (OGC) programs including Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and PRojects IN Controlled Environments (PRINCE), IT Service Management (ITSM), Portfolio Management, etc.

The long term vision of my program would be to document (possibly as a book) the methodology described by the values, principles, objectives and practices, supported by historical analysis, survey data and observations with organizational case studies providing practical examples.

Works Cited

Berman, Ari. “Iran’s Twitter Revolution .” Nation 15 June 2009: 1. Web. 28 Sep 2009.
Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences. 3rd. Thousand Oaks, CA USA: Pine Forge Press, 2003. Print.
Masson, Patrick. “Agile Causality.” Opening My Masters. 23 May 2009. Patrick Masson, Web. 29 Sep 2009.
O’Leary, Meghan. “Intimate Technology And All That Jazz.” CIO 15 April 1992: 28-31. Print.
Stone, Brad, and Noam Cohen. “Social Networks Spread Defiance Online .” New York Times 15 June 2009: 1. Web. 29 Sep 2009.
Tapscott, Don, and Anthony D. Williams. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Expanded edition. New York, NY: Penguin Group (USA) Incorporated, 2008. Print.
Tiemann, Michael . “OSI Home.” Open Source Initiative. opensource.org, Web. 29 Sep 2009.

• Courage
• Participation
• Honesty
• Maturity
• Humility
• Communication
• Transparency
• Self-organizing Groups
• Collaboration
• Openness
• Emergence
• Rapid Feedback
• Story-telling
• Use Cases

My current goal is to:

1. define each concept
2. provide a narrative that references the literature for each concept
3. show the causality between concepts (both the dependency or influence of previous concept and affect or result of the current concept)

Elaine Handley

Seminar in Liberal Studies (East)

December 15, 2008

She, Not We, Will Prevail: Feminism in Postmodern Technology

Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail! (1984)

This is the monologue of an unidentified authority, a single source, broadcast out to a transfixed populous. Each man and woman sits gaping up—their shaved heads and uniform dress obscuring individuality, removing personality, gender and humanity—perhaps mesmerized but just as likely lobotomized. Yet one woman rushes forward, chased by the technology police, to confront authority, attacking the institution. From the audience amassed, from the herd, she casts a hammer, the worker’s weapon, up and through the large screen and at the face—authority—itself.

This is a short story that was told only once: Apple Computer’s “1984,” a commercial that ran on television on January 22^nd, 1984, and was never broadcast again. Despite the limited release, the spot received widespread accolades, including: Best Super Bowl Spot, 2007; TV Guide’s, Number One Greatest Commercial of All Time, 1999; Advertising Age’s Greatest Commercial; a Clio Award, 1984; and the 31st Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival’s Grand Prix. (source?)Apple’s “1984” serves as a paradigm shift, not because of its critical acclaim, its success in increasing sales, or even for transforming the Super Bowl into a marketing as well as a sporting event, but because the narrative challenged our perception of what modern technology could be—personal rather than industrial—and more importantly because the commercial and its message, although perhaps unknowingly at the time, foretold how technology and its development, both as a physical resource and as a cultural artifact, would contribute to, arguably define, American society and culture today. “1984” was a sign post (i.e. demarcating the starting point or transition), describing and advocating not only the ideals of an emerging postmodern/postindustrial, feminist society into which popular culture was entering, but also (i.e. serving as a call) setting into motion the deconstruction of technology so apparent today.

Apple’s “1984” provides a new perspective, a postmodern context, for technology and American culture. Steve Jobs’, Apple’s CEO at the time, explanation of the commercial emphasizes Apple’s vision for technology: a movement in reaction to modern conventions, what Arthur Berger described in Cultural Criticism: A Primer of Key Concepts as “the capitalist, bureaucratic industrial order” (27), moving from an ideal where technology is developed and used for society, to one where technology is developed and used by society.

It is now 1984. It appears IBM wants it all. Apple is perceived to be the only hope to offer IBM a run for its money. Dealers initially welcoming IBM with open arms now fear an IBM dominated and controlled future. They are increasingly turning back to Apple as the only force that can ensure their future freedom. IBM wants it all and is aiming its guns on its last obstacle to industry control: Apple. Will Big Blue dominate the entire computer industry? The entire information age? Was George Orwell right? (Jobs)

The world’s largest computer company at the time, International Business Machines, or IBM, enjoyed a reputation of excellence for both their engineering expertise and the products that resulted. Americans of the first half of the 20^th century found confidence in large corporations and their government. Only, it was presumed by the public that formal centralized authorities had the resources to resolve the complexities of; find the solutions for; and discover the truth in the modern industrial age. Not only were these products the best engineered, society believed, they were the best for them as well. Modernism, according to Mike Featherstone as quoted by Berger, is “an exploration of the paradoxical, ambiguous uncertain open-ended nature of reality” (27). True to this definition, IBM served as a modern corporate construct applying stability, scientific knowledge and engineering know-how in order to quell any fears the public may have with the complexities, uncertainties or confusion inherent in the new technical reality of their daily lives. Slogans such as, “Think,” (IBM) and advertisements such as, “Do Computers Give You The Willies?” (IBM) and “Who knows your IBM computer better than we do?” (IBM), reinforced IBM’s authority. “No one ever gets fired for choosing IBM” was a common quip of the day. IBM epitomized the modern society, “Where” as the monologue declared, “each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths.”

Jobs’ explanation of “1984” challenges the notion that the design of technology requires the formal production cycles of “the capitalist, bureaucratic industrial order” (Berger 27). Apple’s very existence, and therefore the personal computer’s existence¹, appears to confirm this assertion as the personal computer’s design was actually a result of independent development through informal collaborations outside of the established technology industry, what Douglas Thomas described as the “hacker culture” in the text of the same name.(source?) According to Steve Wozniak, designer of the Apple I and Apple II, “Without [the Homebrewers] computer clubs there would probably be no Apple computers… a lot of tech-type people would gather and trade integrated circuits back and forth. We had similar interests and we were there to help other people, but we weren’t official and we weren’t formal” (Wozniak). Apple’s “1984” narrative, symbolizing the collaborative process in which the Apple computer itself was created, confronts the assumption that only recognized and established corporations, universities or governments could develop and support complex technologies. This sentiment is captured in the “1984” monologue, “Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.” Perhaps a reference to the Homebrewers club and collaborative efforts? Apple offered a postmodern perspective for technology and the development of technology that rejected IBM’s modern “simultaneity and montage” (Berger 27), where the best designs and most appropriate uses are rendered from the deconstruction of the individual in order to identify common traits, generalities, or standards and thus the broadest applicability and usability. A sentiment again captured in the “1984” monologue, “We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.”

Borrowing from Featherstone’s description of postmodernism, Apple’s development model can be described as: the breakdown of boundaries between technology and everyday life; the collapse of hierarchical distinctions between the engineer and the hacker; eclecticism, playfulness and the recognition of the “depthlessness” of the user community; the decline of the originality/genius of the technology producer and the assumption that technology must be repetitious (27). Apple Computer’s “1984” was a direct indictment of modernist corporate culture as the de facto means for progress and, although perhaps unknown to them at the time, an endorsement of a postmodernist hacker culture, a movement that would eventually elevate the ubiquitous computer user, the hacker, to the principle role in technology development and arguably turn-of-the-century American Culture. “By designing computers for non-specialists, Apple revolutionized the computer industry by democratizing it” (Smithsonian Institution). This, ironically, would lead to Apple’s accession into the role of the authority, but ultimately the same fate as IBM: to be overthrown by the individual.

Apple’s contention in “1984” that decentralized collaborative design carried out by individuals who contribute their unique needs to further the progress of all—technology and culture—is reinforced by the iconography embedded throughout the piece. While the obvious reference to George Orwell’s 1984 fundamentally establishes Apple’s primary thesis for the viewer, that society—a society ever more dependent on technology in the information age—is currently controlled by “Big Brother” (or “Big Blue” as IBM is also known), several symbols within the text, aligning with feminism contribute to their general thesis as well, but more importantly, Apple’s vision for technical and even social advancement. It is this subtext that extends “1984” from an advertisement pitting one corporation against another or one product over another, to a social statement that questions how society identifies and assigns authority, expertise and value and how those can be utilized—maximized—to create better technology, thus society and life.

Central to the piece is the lone hero. It is important to recognize that the overthrow of the authority is not achieved through an internal mass uprising of the oppressed, or even by a takeover from an outside group of revolutionaries. Had it been the former, the message might be interpreted as a fight for control over the existing technology and development model, perhaps a statement that the technology is not best controlled by the current entity, or even that the technology should be made more widely available (Dell, HP, or Gateway might make such an argument in order to begin production and distribution of their IBM PC clones). Regardless, an internal uprising to take control of the authority’s technology validates that technology and the techniques employed in its development. In the latter possibility, where an external force overthrows the authority and presumingly replaces the technology and development methods, the authority and its products are clearly defeated, but the model of a centralized authority continues on: one group of like-minded individuals with a solution for society has simply replaced another. In this case, Apple’s engineers and experts are shown to be better than IBM’s and thus should now be recognized as the authority. Yet, rather than the masses standing up, tearing away their drab dress to reveal the Apple logo, or even a hoard of Apple computer programmers infiltrating the command center, we are offered a single hero. One individual, Apple contends, can destroy an entire industry and perhaps an entire society.

Understanding the variety of visual representations at the disposal of the producers of “1984,” the choice of a lone hero is significant, but cannot be fully realized without assessing the attributes also assigned to that hero, which ultimately yields both the context for Apple’s critique and a vision for the future. The hero’s construction is replete with examples that juxtapose conventional, and thus societal, assumptions and expectations. Again considering the choices available, the determination to cast the hero as a woman versus a man is telling. Traditionally careers in science, engineering and computing have been dominated, in both perception and reality, with and by men. Why would “1984” cast a woman in this role? What does the feminine represent that the masculine does not? Might Apple’s insertion of an attractive, athletic, blond woman into a male dominated field simply be a sexist attempt at gaining attention in the male dominated marketplace: the 1980′s technology version of the car-show model? Conversely, perhaps the positive portrayal of a woman was an attempt to enter the untapped female market, offering a “home computer” versus a “workstation?” Acknowledging another perspective, the Summer Olympics were scheduled in Los Angeles that year. Much could be made of this as popularist motivation for casting a woman in a track and field uniform, running with a hammer in her outstretched arm, much like an Olympic torch barrier. Considering the Soviet Union’s boycott of those Olympics, might a single Olympian throwing the very symbol of the worker, the hammer, into the presumably communist authority’s face, also be a relevant interpretation? While these may provide some with meaning, they ignore Apple’s history and more significantly its legacy. If Apple’s goal was to argue technology, and indeed the development of technology, should be open to all, how better to express that ideal than with the antithesis of modernist conventions and culture?

Kathryn Cirksena includes, “the social construction of knowledge and information,” as one of her three facets of a radical feminist critique (Berger 30). Social construction yields emergent artifacts created and defined, often independently and informally, through communal and cumulative practices rather than through any recognized authority or process, reinforcing Alvin Toffler’s 1970’s vision for the postmodern super industrial economy, where “human relations became more ad hoc as older social structures dissolved” (Hoeveler). Including a woman in the commercial may represent feminism’s general criticisms regarding inequality in accessibility, however considering the history of the personal computer’s development, which benefited from shared knowledge, collaboration and self-organizing groups, the heroine is more specifically a statement endorsing the ideals of social constructionism. Here we come to fully appreciate “1984” as a cultural critique. The heroine offers three levels of representation and interpretation. From a marketing perspective—a postmodern/postindustrial perspective—she simply represents Apple’s contention that their new personal computer is different, and better, than the workstations re-cast as personal computers offered by IBM. Below the marketing lies a statement specific to feminism and the role that women will play in the forthcoming information age: women as developers of technology and information, as well as consumers of technology, and therefore equals in the information age. And finally, there is the deepest and what I believe to be the most relevant interpretation, that the role of technology in society and its development should be defined by the individual users rather than a by a centralized authority.

“By the century’s end personal computers had become common household items and computer functions proved indispensable to virtually every business function in the postindustrial economy” (Hoeveler). It would be wrong to suppose that the producers of “1984” had the foresight to predict the implications of their vision or the information age because its fruition has ironically led to Apple’s own fall. However it must be acknowledged, looking back now, how prophetic Apple’s critique was for technology, its development and the society that created and used it. The feminist concepts of social constructionism first employed by the Homebrewers computer club, such as sharing, collaboration, and self-organizing groups, have led to what I believe is the most important development in both technology and society: the Open movement. Apple’s technology vision as depicted in “1984” is represented by such names and technologies as: Linus Torvalds and the Linux operating system, estimated to grow to $49 billion by 2011 (Vaughan-Nichols 2008); Marc Andreessen and the Netscape web browser, “’born’ on the Internet… …with 70% usage share” (Gates 4); Martin Dougiamas and the on-line Learning Management System, Moodle, which doubled its market share and now second in university adoption (Lokken 3). “Their modus operandi, the PC, would not be available to them were it not for the way the [early] hackers challenged the IBM/corporate computer model and made personal computing a reality” (Thomas 34). “Postindustrialism also connoted an ‘information age’” (Hoeveler), and today we see new, non-technical social movements, in line with Apple’s critique, dedicated to the distribution of knowledge, such as: Open Courseware, where universities like MIT offer their complete academic catalog to anyone, on-line; Open Educational Resources, that enable faculty from around the world to distribute course content; The Creative Commons, that offers liberal copyright and intellectual property licenses to encourage information sharing and re-purposing; and Open Research initiatives that provide greater collaboration among scientists. Each of these exemplify Apple’s “1984” postmodern/postindustrial perspective, rejecting modernist conventions—the capitalist, bureaucratic industrial order—in favor of feminist ideals promoting individual interests, equality and social contructionism, where technology is developed by the society rather than for the society.

Works Cited

“1984.” Apple Computer Inc. advertisement. The National Football League Superbowl XVIII. CBS.
San Francisco, CA. 22 Jan. 1984.

Gates, Bill. “The Internet Tidal Wave.” Letter to Microsoft Executive Staff and Direct Reports. 26 May 1995. The Internet Tidal Wave. U.S. Department of Justice. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/20.pdf>

Hoeveler, J. David. “Postmodernism.” Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 6. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2003. 428-430. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. Empire State College SUNY. 29 Nov. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com.library.esc.edu/gvrl/infomark.do?&contentSet=EBKS&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=GVRL&docId=CX3401803345&source=gale&userGroupName=esc&version=1.0>.

IBM. “Blue chip service (1984).” Ibm.com. IBM. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506vv9007.html>.

IBM. “Computer willies (early-80s).” Ibm.com. IBM. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506vv9008.html>.

IBM. “THINK signs.” Ibm.com. IBM. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506vv2024.html>

Jobs, Steve. “Apple Keynote – The ’1984′ Ad Introduction.” Apple Users Conference. San Fransisco, CA. 1983.

Lokken, Fred. 2007 Distance Education Survey Results. Instructional Technology Council, American Association of Community Colleges. Washington, DC: Instructional Technology Council, 2008. Instructional Technology Council. Apr. 2008. Instructional Technology Council. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://www.itcnetwork.org>.

Long, Tony. “June 5, 1977: From a Little Apple a Mighty Industry Grows.” 5 June 2007. Wired Magazine. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/dayintech_0605>.

Smithsonian Institution, ed. “Steve Jobs.” National Portrait Gallery. Smithsonian Institution. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/journal/jobs.htm>.

Thomas, Douglas. Hacker Culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.

Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. “IDC sees $49 billion Linux server business in 2011.” 10 Apr. 2008. Ziff Davis Enterprise Holdings. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://www.linux-watch.com/news/ns4870666100.html>.

Wozniak, Steve. “Homebrew And How The Apple Came To Be.” Atariarchives.org. The Atari Archives. 10 Dec. 2008 <http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/homebrew_and_how_the_apple.php>.

Who are you? The simplicity of these three words belies the complexity in understanding the sentence’s meaning, that is, the potential within the question and the possibilities for a response. This simple example illustrates the unappreciated relationships between the requester, the respondent, their shared environment, and even their separate histories. Each of these must be identified, interpreted and agreed upon in order to assign meaning, transfer knowledge and gain understanding. Again, consider “Who are you?” What ideas, concerns, or knowledge, could promote such an inquiry? Once the question is put forth, it is subject to interpretation by the respondent, from the literal, “I am Patrick Masson,” to the conceptual, “I am with you.” Beyond this initial exchange lies the potential, or, how the inquisitor, in return, may interpret any of the possible responses. Jonathon Culler, states, “communication depends on the basic convention that participants are cooperating with one another and that, therefore, what one person says to the other is likely to be relevant” (25). A relevant response to “Who are you?” cannot be provided unless one considers the context in which this question is asked. Where am I? What is my relationship to the person requesting the information? What will my response illicit in return? For example, upon entering a room I would not at all be surprised to hear, “Who are you?” from a person standing in front of others, especially if this where the first day of school and I had just entered a classroom. But what if, rather than a classroom, I had entered a bank with a robbery underway? How might I respond differently to that same person standing in front of others if I were a mere citizen, a uniformed police officer, or a psychiatrist? And going further, consider an alternate perspective, how might my response change if the question came from the bank robber, an injured victim or, perhaps a police officer? My interpretation of the question, the response I might give, and my expectations for the future—the meaning I attribute to the words, the knowledge passed and understanding derived—would surely vary in each of these scenarios. As interpersonal and cultural norms are established meaning and even context are assigned, often despite the literal translation of the words or the specific situation those in discussion may find themselves. To my point, consider another common question, “How are you?” Are we always as “fine” as we attest in response, or do we (have we come to) understand this question and its response as simply salutations?

Communication, suggests all parties—those within a dialog, and more interesting for literature, those reading the same dialog—understand the meaning of each word and the context of those words as they are strung together to form a phrase; a question; a thought; an idea. However, understanding why a phrase was put forth (i.e., the motivation, the pretense, the context) and understanding the relationships between all parties involved in the discussion (i.e., the shared and individual histories, the characters, the assumptions, the expectations) is more important in deriving meaning than the literal definition of the actual words spoken. John Lye, offers, “human knowledge is not as controllable or as cogent as Western thought would have it… …language operates in subtle and often contradictory ways, so that certainty will always elude us.” Recognizing and accepting this, Toni Morrison’s Sula challenges each reader’s ability to assign meaning, determine knowledge and understand the text, its characters, the story and even the novel. Through narrative, story-telling and character, Morrison challenges the reader’s personal perspectives, assumptions and expectations: how meaning, knowledge and understanding is derived and valued through communication, people and circumstance. Sula is a critique, not of America still rife with racism, not of traditional gender roles, nor of the family, it is not a criticism of political or economic inequality, or any of the other readily identifiable and often cited issues depicted within the story, but rather, it is a critique of our ability to assign meaning, gather knowledge and ultimately understand. More precisely, Sula challenges how we—as individuals, communities and cultures—identify issues, define positions and apply values.

Toni Morrison, in “Unspeakable Things Unspoken” states, “I always thought of Sula as quintessentially black, metaphysically black, if you will, which is not melanin and certainly not unquestioning fidelity to the tribe. She is new world black and new world woman extracting choice from choicelessness, responding inventively to found things. Improvisational. Daring, disruptive, imaginative, modern, out-of-the-house, outlawed, unpolicing, uncontained, and uncontainable. And dangerously female” (ESC 2008) Here, Morrison redefines “black,” being black, from a physical state, a set of bodily attributes that allow categorization, to principles and practices, a way of assessing, behaving, interacting and reacting, for example, “daring, disruptive, imaginative, modern, out-of-the-house, outlawed, unpolicing, uncontained, and uncontainable.” Simply having the physical characteristics or the cultural background stereotypically ascribed to African-Americans is enough to be outcast (i.e. blackballed, blacklisted) and alone might provide enough evidence to frame Sula as an outsider. However black, “quintessentially black, metaphysically black” extends beyond the physical reality of skin color, or even one’s associations with a peer group (Morrison’s “the tribe”). Here “black” transcends the physical state, becomes abstract, conceptual, in that it drives the perceptions of an individual held by others, and the perspective of the individual herself, so that she, because of her principles and practices–and not because of her color–is cast as the outsider. How might the words used, the statements made, or actions undertaken by a black woman, as opposed to a white male, affect our understanding of the words spoken or story told? Can the reader separate, even recognize, how their internal preconceptions, bias and expectations of blacks, poverty or women may affect their assessment of the dialog, characters, story and therefore understanding?

Morrison’s construction of Sula, as an outsider, serves as a tool to question society’s values, our position on an issue, as well as those within the community who may share these values and positions. This, as Culler describes, is arguably one of literature’s purposes, “encouraging consideration of complexities without a rush to judgment, engaging the mind in ethical issues, inducing readers to examine conduct (including their own) as an outsider or a reader of novels would. It promotes disinterestedness, teaches sensitivity and fine discriminations, produces identifications with men and women of other conditions, thus promoting fellow-feeling” (37). Sula, as an outsider—“quintessentially black, metaphysically black”–indeed challenges the reader’s assumptions and expectations through her language and actions. However what is more significant, and I believe the point for Sula’s construction as the peerless outsider, is her ability to raise awareness within the reader of how they derive meaning, knowledge and understanding. What is the literal definition of a word, what is the reader’s definition of that same word, and most compelling, the meaning placed behind that same word? This surely depends on who is speaking and our opinions of them. Sula not only makes us consider our positions, but how we arrived at those positions.

Rather than asking why does racism still exist (possibly one interpretation of Sula as a novel), Morrison prompts the reader to ask, what is racism? Morrison clearly presents, and Sula obviously suffers from, racism: the Bottom itself, the result of a cruel hoax; Helene and Eva Wright’s trip to New Orleans with the overt discrimination of the whites-only car and having to squat in the fields to pee; the insignificance of a black boy’s death, Chicken Little, to both the bargeman and the sheriff. Yet Morrison delves further, moving past readily understood, even stereotypical definitions—does racism exist within the Bottom, within the black community as well? Consider Helene Wright’s attempts to minimize her daughter’s characteristically black features, “When Mrs. Wright reminded Nel to pull her nose, she would do it enthusiastically but without the least hope in the world. While you sittin’ there, honey, go ‘head and pull your nose… Don’t you want a nice nose when you grow up?” (Morrison, 51) What is racism here? In another example, Sula states, “I mean, I don’t know what the fuss is about. I mean, everything in the world loves you. White men love you. They spend so much time worrying about your penis they forget their own. The only thing they want to do is cut off a nigger’s privates. And if that ain’t love and respect I don’t know what is. And white women? They chase you all to every corner of the earth, feel for you under every bed. I knew a white woman wouldn’t leave the house after 6 o’clock for fear one of you would snatch her. Now ain’t that love? They think rape soon’s they see you, and if they don’t get the rape they looking for, they scream it anyway just so the search won’t be in vain.” (104) Here Morrison, through Sula, might be emphasizing a traditional view, that racism is based in fear, or more interestingly, she could be suggesting it is based on envy. The reader’s conclusion would not only depend on their interpretation of the text, but also their personal background—their entire experience with race, gender, poverty—that together establishes their personal world view. By developing Sula as a outsider to her family, her community, her gender and her race, the reader can not assume to know the meaning of her words, rather she serves as a mirror for personal-reflection, redirecting the impetus for consideration from debate over the multiple perspectives around an issue, to internal contemplation and self-examination over how the reader has come to identify the dialog, character or story as an issue worthy of debate, consideration, or assessment at all.

Phillip Novak concedes “Sula does operate… …by simultaneously elaborating and unraveling a sequence of binary oppositions and by thus creating, through the slippage such a process entails, a multiplicity of gaps or fissures in the text. (190)” Sula, Novak continues, “seeks not to annihilate but to dislocate meaning… …move[ing] toward a proliferation of possibilities rather than toward impoverishment, destitution. (190)” Into these gaps the reader will insert her own ideas and it is this process that Morrison seeks to explore. Consider the deaths of Hannah and Plum. How does one justify the inaction of Sula as she watches her mother burn? Can we find in Sula a frightened child, scared into paralysis, or is she conniving, even evil, for not helping? What motive might be in play? Is not helping the same as allowing? Only the reader can only judge. What, outside of this single event, might lead a reader to one opinion or another regarding Sula? How does Sula’s reaction to the drowning of Chicken Little earlier in the story support or conflict with the reader’s conclusion? How might the reader’s perception of Sula alter when she considers the lengths her grandmother goes to, with only one leg, to extinguish the flames by hurling herself out of a second story window? Because of these heroic actions, is Eva, and therefore all that she embodies; all that she has stated throughout the story; all that she has done; the righteous matriarch from whom readers are to take their cues as they judge others within the story? If so, how do those reading Sula rectify Plum’s death, where Eva not only watched Plum’s body burn, but worse, set him alight? “Missing the present in its presence is not simply, or even primarily, a sentiment Sula expresses; it is a process the narrative [Morrison] systematically seeks to enact.” (Novak, 189). Sula demands readers to labor over meaning, knowledge and understanding—i.e. interpretation—why one word as offensive or telling, why one idea as racism or natural, why one act as unjust or customary.

We do not have to like Sula as an outsider, and I believe Morrison would prefer if we did not understand her as at all. However we must bare witness to her and we must consider her from the only vantage point that we can, through our own histories, biases, prejudices and expectations. Morrison does not provide us with easy explanations for her words or actions or even a moral to take away from the story, something as readily understandable and simple as, “because she did not love, she was not loved.” Rather the reader, without the luxury of a moral or a conclusion, is left with only one response: “How do we come to judge and how do we know that our judgments are correct?” Sula is not a narrative designed to sway opinion on black or gender issues, it is an examination for how individuals come to form opinions. Morrison is challenging us to assess our own biases that lead us to conclude right from wrong, not preach right from wrong. The question put forth is, “Who are you?” and Sula does not answer, rather she asks, “How do we know who we are?”

Works Cited

Culler, Jonathon. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Morrison, Toni. Sula. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1973.

Handley, Elaine. “Written Assignment.” (LIB-644500-01-08FA1) Seminar in Liberal Studies (East). 2008. Empire State University. December 5, 2008. <https://esc.angellearning.com/section/content/default.asp?>

Novak, P. “Circles and Circles of Sorrow: In the Wake of Morrison’s Sula.” PMLA, Vol. 114 No. 2 (1999): 184-193.

The ambiguity in language and communication results in ambiguity in values. (or, because there is ambiguity in language and communication, there is ambiguity in values) Understanding, even consensus of meaning, suggests one can know, to know why the question was put forth–the motivation, the pretense, the context–to know why one should care–the relationship, the association, the benefit–and to know what would satisfy such an inquiry–the expectation, the consequences. John Lye, in Contemporary Literary Theory, Brock University Deconstruction: Some Assumptions, offers a deconstructionalist point of view for understanding, “human knowledge is not as controllable or as cogent as Western thought would have it… …language operates in subtle and often contradictory ways, so that certainty will always elude us.” Toni Morrison’s Sula challenges our traditional understanding through narrative, story-telling and character, and by doing so, challenges our own understanding, how we come to knowledge, even what we can know about people and circumstance. Can we be sure that what we think about another is accurate, or have we been influenced by the language exchanged, our perceptions of the actors, the situation we find ourselves or even our own personal histories? If we accept that Sula Prince, as well as the other characters within the text and even the town in which they all live, can not be easily defined, that the assumptions and expectations based on simple one-dimensional assessments are inaccurate, then how can we apply/continue to make similar assumptions about the characters in our own lives and the environments through which we travel? Sula is a critique, not of America still rife with racism, not of traditional gender roles, nor of the family, it is not a criticism of political or economic inequality, or any of the other easily identified and often sited issues depicted within the story, but rather it is a critique of judgment, or more precisely how we come to judge, how we all come to assign value–the qualities, principles and practices of one another, our community and even ourselves.

Being “black” is to be an outsider, one who does not share the community’s values. (or, to illustrate the ambiguity in values, Morrison develops Sula as an outsider) Toni Morrison, in “Unspeakable Things Unspoken” states, “I always thought of Sula as quintessentially black, metaphysically black, if you will, which is not melanin and certainly not unquestioning fidelity to the tribe. She is new world black and new world woman extracting choice from choicelessness, responding inventively to found things. Improvisational. Daring, disruptive, imaginative, modern, out-of-the-house, outlawed, unpolicing, uncontained, and uncontainable. And dangerously female.” Here, Morrison redefines “black,” being black, from a physical state, a set of bodily attributes that allow categorization, to principles and practices, a way of assessing, behaving, interacting and reacting, for example, “daring, disruptive, imaginative, modern, out-of-the-house, outlawed, unpolicing, uncontained, and uncontainable.” Simply having the physical characteristics that can be ascribed to those of African-American decent, which has obviously denied or pushed out so many individuals from membership and opportunities making them literally outsiders (i.e. blackballed, blacklisted), is arguably the traditional, or at least most readily understood, consequence for being black and provides a foundation for black as a descriptor for the outsider. However black, “quintessentially black, metaphysically black” extends beyond the physical reality of skin color, or even one’s associations with, and among, a peer group (“the tribe”). Black transcends the physical state, becomes abstract, conceptual, in that it drives the perceptions of an individual held by others, and the perspective of the individual herself, so that she, because of her principles and practices–and not because of her color–is cast as the outsider, or as Morrison would again say, black.

Sula, as the outsider, serves as the counter point. Morrison uses Sula, her character, actions, and language as an outsider, as tools to question, not only our collective and traditional values, but the processes by which we come to identify values and those who may share or exude those values. Jonathan Culler, in Literary Theory, A Very Short Introduction, trying to answer the question, “what is literature?” offers a comparison to the weed. “Weeds are simply plants that gardeners don’t want to have growing in their gardens,” (22) outsiders, or what Morrison might even call “black plants.” However this simile is informative beyond understanding literature, it also exemplifies Morrison’s motivation for Sula. Culler continues, ” If you were curious about weeds, seeking the nature of ‘weedness’, it would be a waste of time to try to investigate their botanical nature, to seek distinctive formal or physical qualities that make plants weeds. You would have to carry out instead historical, sociological, perhaps psychological inquiries about the sorts of plants that are judged undesirable by different groups in different places” (22). Here we can can see the construction of Sula, her goodness or evilness, like “weedness,” can not be qualified through a single perspective, the only way to judge Sula is to carry out “historical, sociological, perhaps psychological inquiries… …[in] different groups in different places.” Characters, their descriptions, traits, qualities, values, etc. are composites derived from both the interactions between specific characters as well as the perceptions of others and even circumstances and situations they interact within.

Argument of Sula as a deconstructivist/postmodern form of literature. See Contemporary Literary Theory, Brock University Deconstruction

Interpretation of “quintessentially black, metaphysically black:” Blacks are consistently seen, even by other blacks, as the outsider, always mis-understood, or looked down upon, assumed to be the worst, then everyone (even other blacks) will always infer the worst of Sula. Indeed the attitude of the town reinforces this.

Examples of characters complexity: Helen/Helene – site examples of how both the same and different characters perceive one another in different circumstances, as well as themselves in front of those other characters. Eva Peace – hero to her family for giving up her leg, con artist to her family for embezzling money; murdering son- act of kindness to free him from his burdens, cruelty freeing her from herself (why did she try and save Hannah who was also burning, even jeopardizing her own life?). Sula watching her mother burning, how the neighbors saw her as a freighted girl, how she saw herself, how the grandmas say her.

The gray ball- what could it mean? Does its lack of form, color, etc. make judgment harder, and thus force the reader to consider it without the preconceived bias. As a character it is the only character that we can not define.

Paramount to Said is intellectual honesty and curiosity that accepts and seeks out a universal perspective, achieved through self awareness and reflection. Honesty is the understanding that just as others’ perspectives are influenced by their backgrounds and communities, and therefore subject to investigation and criticism, so too are one’s own. Looking within, “Universality means taking a risk in order to go beyond the easy certainties provided us by our background, language, nationality which so often shield us from the reality of others” (xiv), and when considering others, make no assumptions because of membership, affiliation, recognition, authority, acclimation. Said specifies, “Thus in my view the principle intellectual duty is the search for relative independence from such pressures” (xvi). It would be understandable to interpret universality narrowly, as the ability to assess the value, even validity, of one’s own experience and the conclusions they present: a single reality. Indeed, Said asks the intellectual to do just this, warning against specialization, expertise, association or “the drift towards power and authority… and being directly employed by it,” (80) and finally sponsorship “to further commercial as well as political agendas” (81). However, refection and independence are insufficient. The intellectual must also include perspectives outside his or her own experience: multiple realities. This is by far the greater challenge; to actively seek out and rationally consider alternate perspectives in order to extend understanding, toward universality, while avoiding one’s inherent biases and pressures that will surely prejudice what is discovered and how it is interpreted. I believe Said would agree, the broader the scope of ones view, the deeper the depth of understanding, the better prepared the intellectual is as she encounters issues, evaluates ideas, and finally, renders decisions.

Yet a universal perspective alone is not enough. The discoveries made as the intellectual investigates and discovers in order to understand must be applied equally, regardless of; the circumstances one finds herself; the relationship within, or outside, a community; or, one’s own experience and expertise. Said states, “It [universality] also means looking for and trying to uphold a single standard for human behavior when it comes to such matters as foreign and social policy. There are no rules in which intellectuals can know what to say or do; nor for the true secular intellectual are there any gods to be worshiped and looked to for unwaivering guidance” (xiv).

In addition to universality as a single standard, Said clearly extends the requirements for the intellectual, defining a duel role. Not only must an intellectual assess issues through a universal lens, what C. Wright Mills called “the thinker” (Said 21), he or she must present those issues and offer solutions, the truth, to those in power, i.e. the activist. The intellectual is, “not just passively unwillingly, but actively willing to say so in public” (23). Speaking the truth to power, proposes a greater responsibility than simply seeking the truth for its own sake, acknowledging the truth when confronted with injustice, or even proclaiming the truth to the general public. The intellectual must argue the truth directly to those who have the authority to accept and adopt what is true, yet are either ignorant of, or choose to ignore, what is right. And as a consequence, the intellectual suffers, “There is no dodging the inescapable reality that such representations by intellectuals will neither make them friends in high places nor win them official honors” (xviii).

The result? The amateur, the outsider and the exile. Intellectuals who recognize hypocrisy, illegitimacy, falsity and question the status quo face “powerlessness at their marginality” (20), dismissed due to their defiance as unqualified or untrained. Failure to comply, perceived as unprofessional, results in segregation—refused, or dismissed from, professional memberships, denied acknowledgment or consideration, never consulted or credited—until forced into exile. While “the purpose of the intellectuals activity is to advance human freedom and knowledge” (17), they must engage with “whole trends of thought that maintain the status quo, keep things within an acceptable and sanctioned perspective on actuality” (22). This is the challenge Said puts forth, the duel role of the intellectual as both thinker and activist.

W. E. B. Du Bois, in The Souls of Black Folk, provides two examples that can be considered representations of the intellectual, John Jones and Booker T. Washington. Accepting the duel role of the intellectual, as both a thinker and as an activist, should we consider these two figures as intellectuals? Du Bois depiction of John Jones’ life captures the personal struggle to understand post-slavery America and the black experience; caught between “the days of bondage” (47) and the promise of emancipation—“the key to a promised land of sweeter beauty than ever stretched before the eyes of weired Israelites” (47)—while mired in the reality that, “The nation has not yet found peace from its sins; the freedman has not yet found in freedom his promised land” (48). Washington too, as highlighted by Du Bois, ascends as the nation searched for insight and direction, “It began when war memories and ideals were rapidly passing; a day of astonishing commercial development was dawning; and a sense of doubt and hesitation overtook the freedmen’s sons,—then it was when his leading began” (79). In these times of ignorance and abuse many rose up nationally and locally, offering solutions for both the recently freed and the nation struggling to accept them. “No sooner had Northern armies touched Southern soil then this old question, newly guised, sprang up from the earth,—What shall be done with the Negroes?” (55), Du Bois explains. And though Du Bois references the work of Douglass, Elliot, Crummell, Payne and others, it is Washington and Jones who he devotes much of his text. Considering this it is worth assessing if Washington and Jones represent the intellectual. They do not, as the former acted without understanding and the latter would not act despite what he knew to be true.

John Jones was well-liked growing up as a boy in his Southeastern Georgia town of Altamaha. Whites of the town found praise for John, a “fine plough-hand, good in the rice-fields, handy everywhere” (Du Bois 246), and the blacks proudly “shook hands, and… clapped him on the back” (247) when he went off to school at the Wells Institute. However while his family and the black community found pride and admiration for this accomplishment, the white community, “they talked as if they knew” (Du Bois 246). “It’ll spoil him—ruin him, they said” (Du Bois 246). Leaving the town of his birth, his family and the only people he has ever known, Jones becomes one of Said’s exiles. It is from this perspective, both as the exile from his native land and as a newcomer to Wells that Jones is first intellectually challenged. The faculty reported disappointment with Jones, “He was loud and boisterous, always laughing and singing, and never able to work consecutively at anything” (Du Bois 249), yet perhaps these were the vary traits that made him, “a good boy… always good natured and respectful” (Du Bois 246) to the whites of Altamaha. Confronted with his own shortcomings, of his past, Jones is expelled. Unable to go back to face the disappointment of his family and unable to stay due to “the tardiness and the carelessness, the poor lessons and neglected work, the noise and the disorder” (249), Jones exists in the margins of two communities. Jones, at this point in his life, possesses but one perspective, that of a boy in Altamaha, whose personal characteristics, while genuine and arguably responsible for any success that he may have seen, are no longer desirable. Again Said, “Universality means taking a risk in order to go beyond the easy certainties provided us by our background, language, nationality which so often shield us from the reality of others” (xiv).

Admirably, rather than quit when expelled from school, Jones finds through self-reflection and honesty—universality—that not only questions the perspectives of others (i.e. his faculty who expelled him), but risks the comfort that ignorance of oneself provides. “Perhaps we imagined it, but someway it seemed to us that the serious look that crept over his boyish face that afternoon, never left it again” (Du Bois 249). The resulting years, throughout his formal education and personal experiences, Jones continued to develop his intellectual skills. “He looked now for the first time sharply about him, and wonder he had seen so little before. He grew slowly to feel almost for the first time the Veil that lay between him and the white world; he first noticed now the oppression that had not seemed oppression before, differences that erstwhile seemed natural, restraints and slights that in his boyhood days had gone unnoticed or been greeted with a laugh” (Du Bois 250). Through his education and experience Jones realizes a universal and single standard, “What difference does it make whether a man be baptized in a river or washbowl, or not at all? Let’s leave all that littleness and look higher” (Du Bois 256) Jones would ask. Now clear to Jones was the double standard of inequality and the lack of universal justice. “He felt angry when men did not call him ‘Mister,’ he clinched his hands at the ‘Jim Crow’ cars, and chafed at the color-line that hemmed in him and his.” (Du Bois 250) Yet rather than excited to share what he learned with his community, Jones’ dreaded returning to Altamaha and the “narrow life of his native town” (Du Bois 251).

While Jones recognized a universal and single standard as a theme in his life, he failed to speak truth to power and as a result cannot be considered an intellectual. Several times we see evidence through Du Bois’ account, that rather than address the authorities with the truth, Jones choses not to act. The first example can be seen in Jones’ visit to New York after graduation. Jones clearly enjoyed New York and found the city and its people compelling, “This is the world”(Du Bois 251), he sighed. Inspired, he dreamed, “If he could only live up here in the free air where birds sang and setting suns had no touch of blood! Who had called him to be the slave and butt of it all? And if he had called, what right had he to call when a world like this lay open to all men?” (Du Bois 252) Rather than return to his hometown, “he always panned to go back to Altamaha—always planned to work there,” (Du Bois 251) he longed to “rise out of the dirt and dust of that low life that held him prisoned and befouled” (Du Bois 252). Here we can see Jones’ first failure as an intellectual. By not confronting what he understands is wrong, choosing “a world like this open to all men” over the “narrow life of his native town” (Du Bois 251), Jones fails to “advance human freedom and knowledge” (17). He recognizes the injustice, but fails to act.

It is only after Jones is directly confronted by racism and his ideals of an equal society are shattered, “John Jones, you’re a natural-born fool,” (254) that he decides to return to Altamaha, hoping to find a less hurtful situation. “Perhaps I am to blame myself for struggling against my manifest destiny… perhaps they’ll let me solve the Negro problems there,—perhaps they won’t”(254). Again, Jones acquiescences rather than speaking to power. Jones accepts a “manifest destiny,” one that requires him to return to Altamaha and forfeit his education and ignore his expectations for a universal and single standard. He also accepts the premise that the town’s authorities are in control and that he, again in conflict with his own understanding, has no right to challenge their authority, stating “perhaps they’ll let me… perhaps they won’t.” He recognizes the inequality, but he fails to act.

Again, when he failed to confront his own community and religious leaders, “He arose silently, and passed out into the night” (Du Bois 257); when he accepted terms for employment from Judge Henderson that relegated him to a subordinate and required him to abandon his “education and Northern notions” (258) and “to teach the darkies to be servants” (259); when he taught the children of equality, but not the town; and, when his school was closed, he see Jones did not act, “’I'll go away,’ he said slowly, ‘I’ll go away and find work, and send for them. I can not live here longer” (262).

While John Jones short-comings as an intellectual—speaking out—can be forgiven due to personal circumstance and the death he suffered, Booker T. Washington’s deficiencies—moral and ethical bankruptcy—are not so easily excused. Washington was recognized by both supporters and critics for his dedication and commitment to a proposition he believed would not only create opportunities for 19^th century blacks, but also reduce the friction within the South between whites and blacks and calm the nation. According to Du Bois, “he put enthusiasm, unlimited energy and perfect faith into his programme, and changed it from a by-path into a veritable Way of Life” (80). His successes and acceptance were remarkable considering the cause, and many could overlook the details and failings of his plans because of the attention he brought to their shared plight. “These same men admire his sincerity of purpose, and are willing to forgive much to honest endeavor which is doing something worth the doing” (83) Du Bois conceded.

Yet for all of his efforts, his activism, Washington’s program pivoted on the injustices of a double-standard, where whites and blacks where to live by two dramatically different sets of rules. This can best be seen in the Atlanta Compromise. “In all things purely social we can be as separate as the five fingers, and yet one as the hand in all things essential to the mutual progress” (Du Bois 80). As the proposal’s name states this is a compromise, and the intellectual cannot compromise and still claim a universal and single standard. Washington asked the black community to give up political power, civil rights and higher education (Du Bois 87). In doing so he abandoned what he and many others had been fighting for: the truth of equality.

Said provides specific responsibilities for the intellectual, universality as a single standard to be applied to oneself through reflection and in consideration of one’s own values, just as one would readily critique the values of a foreign community. By considering everyone equally, in the quest for universal understanding, the individual becomes the intellectual. The universal truths discovered through this process will guide the intellectual, providing a framework with which they can interpret and judge the actions of others as well as their own, “if we condemn an unprovoked act of aggression by an enemy we should also be able to do the same when our government invades a weaker party” (Said xiv). Jones and Washington provide the counter-point to Said’s ideal that exemplifies the duel responsibilities of the intellectual. Jones, because of his inaction, his refusal to confront authority and speak the truth to power, and Washington who acted in ignorance, ignored what was known to be true and promoted a double standard, therefore do not represent the intellectual idea. These two can serve as a reminder that the intellectual must be the thinker and the activist—the curious investigator and the courageous instigator—if she is to advance human freedom and knowledge.

]]> http://openmasters.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/curious-and-courageous-the-intellectual-as-an-activist/feed/ 2 pmasson http://openmasters.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/essay-notesoutlinedraft/ http://openmasters.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/essay-notesoutlinedraft/#comments Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:33:21 +0000 pmasson http://openmasters.wordpress.com/?p=116 ]]> Are intellectuals exiles, or are exiles intellectuals?

That is, if an intellectual questions the norms are they exiled by the mainstream authorities? Or is it, if you live in exile, do you become an intellectual as you question based on the duel perspectives of where you are and where you were?

An intellectual must speak truth to power, this implies three conditions. Speaking+ the truth + to power.

The intellectual must speak, communicate, deliver, engage in discourse (with not only power but peers and colleagues), and must state in open and in public what they believe to be true (and a truth based on a universal standard): the intellectual must raise issues with the norms, present ideas to change current practices, challenge the status quo, and question authority. Intellectuals question the accepted truth by applying a standard, then if they discover an issue, they not only announce it, but present it to those who profess the status quo (the authority).

Outline

• Introduction/Thesis: Because of openness, the intellectual in exile no longer exists.
  • If the conditions for an intellectual are; 1. a single universal standard (truth), 2. speaking that truth, 3. and, 3. speaking that truth to power; and, if an exile is 1. unable to gain access to the truth (native information), and 2. unable to access those in power; then, an intellectual cannot be in exile.
  • Therefore, because of openness, there are no more exiles, actual or metaphorical
  • Maybe I have the definition of an exile wrong? Maybe an exile is simply one, who due to their role as one who goes against the norm, is ostracized from the group? The intellectual pursuit results in exile. My original interpretation was that exile was the loss of contact with a group, and because an intellectual must challenge the group, because they lost that contact, and thus could not challenge them, they could not be an intellectual.
• What is an intellectual
• The is exile?
  • Punishment, Political, Self exile
  • Actual and metaphorical exile
• Goals for exile
  • Keep the exile ignorant of events happening in their native land
  • Keep the exile from influencing the native land

What is exile?

There is a popular but wholly mistaken assumption that being exiled is to be totally cut off, isolated, hopelessly separated from your place of origin.(p. 48)

This is the traditional view, for example Napoleon on Elba Said is stating that most think of exiles are both unable to learn of developments in their old land, as well as unable to affect developments in their own land. However this, Said states, is untrue…

The fact is that for most exiles the difficulty consists not of simply in being forced to live away from home, but rather, given today’s world, in living with the many reminders that you are in exile, that your home is not in fact so far away, and that normal traffic of everyday contemporary life keeps you in constant but tantalizing and unfulfilled touch with the old place (48-49)

The exile therefore exists in a median state, neither completely at one with the new setting [not a member of their new environment] nor fully disencumbered of the old [due to today's communication channels], beset with half-involvements and half-detachments, nostalgic and sentimental on one level, an adept mimic or a secret outcast on the other. (49)

If one agrees that the purposes for exile by a government, or any organization, is to remove a person’s voice, a perspective that those in power deem a threat, then they must not only cut off information to the exiled individual [tell why], but also cut off any means for that individual to influence the group [tell why].

Said appears to acknowledge that those in exile can keep up with, or learn of, the activities in their native land. At the time of this writing, 1996, communications was one way. Information was discovered and produced by a very few with the technical abilities to capture and develop stories. These groups then distributed the information over specific resources; tv channels, news papers, even the emerging web (as a push media). People could only consume information as the costs of production limited access to publication methods. Therefore, with such limited resources, centralized authorities could control what was produced and broadcast.

Said, offers many examples of those who have been exiled, and in their new land found a more accepting population or authority in which their ideas are not only accepted but sought.

Here I want to focus on “the intellectual who because of exile cannot, or, more to the point, will not make the adjustment, preferring instead to remain outside the mainstream the unaccommodated, unco-opted, resistant.” (52)

Said does not limit his definition of an exile to one who has been displaced, removed by those in power from his native land, “the social and political history of dislocation” and thus unable to interact with others who may share his views or ideas, and potentially sway them.

Said, recognizing that the intellectual, by definition, is an outsider, includes those who are not physically removed from a land, but removed socially, culturally or even organizationally by stripping a person rights, access, “privileges, power and honors.”

NOTES

The Dalai Lama, as a political exile, is not removed.

Said also notes the metaphysical exile. This exile is set as an outcast, who while still may have access to the community or physical space, is not considered.

I was very interested in questioning if these conditions can still exist. That is, with the prevalence of technology that not only provides access to information, but allows for the distribution of information, can one be physically or even metaphysically exiled? Consider those living outside Tibet or Burma. While many people were unable to get into these countries, they learned of the various political and human rights issues through various technologies, the web, cell phones, and texting. So the physical removal from a place can no longer be used to keep information from people. On the other side, the metaphysical exile, a person can force their views to be considered through the same technologies. Again, wikis, blogs, email, cell phones, social networking, etc. all provide instant a free publication and distribution of a individual’s ideas.

However, lately the discussions going on in class have me wondering if there might be a more interesting paper in discussing the role or definition of an exile. I have been drawn to the discussion posts that ask what an intellectual is, what traits and practices can be identified that would describe the intellectual or intellectualism.

I am struck with Said’s definition that includes “a single universal standard” and “speak truth to power.” This paper would argue that the single standard is truth: truth must be evidence-based rather than beliefs or faith (experience-based?); truth must be consistently applied to one’s own understanding, one’s own practices and every issue that arises (reflection, honesty, courage?); truth must always be presented to authorities.

Not sure yet…