If you know anything about this little blog of mine, it should come as no surprise that he had me at, “standards of granularity.” Of course, as you may already know from my previous lauding, this is because Grant McCracken is the only man on the planet who gets me.  I’ll admit that Grant’s ability to tap into my consciousness holds limited and subjective importance in the grand scheme.  I (humbly) assure you that he has far more significant insights, too. For instance, this one on the new show Harry’s Law.

Since I no longer have cable, the show automatically fails to achieve my audience in its distribution and reach – content, be damned. But that’s an insight on shifting technologies. Grant’s musing considers the shift in cultural aesthetics and presentation over time.

His words could stimulate a whole evening of discussion on cultural hegemony, the formulaic articulation of a degenerative zeitgeist, and how the push of philanthropy-in-action by the everyday hero has shifted who can and what it means to make a difference.

And..if you’re buying the wine, I’m in on the discussion.

For Grant’s insightful blog post, in entirety –> Harry’s Law: flourish or fail?

Advertisements

(Can’t be treating my academic essays like redheaded step-children. I have to put ALL of the work on the fridge! Enjoy!)

100 years into our post-industrialized, modern existence and technology is most often reconciled in beneficial terms (“progress” and “advancement”) that can be utilized for personal or consumptive profit.  However, we often fail to recognize the impact of emergent technologies in shaping the politics of identity, as well as the sociopolitical trajectories of our habitus.  Like an awkward teenager, we have struggled through the formative rites of passage.  When performance and technology synchronized well, progress proved a momentary coup.  But we have realized in retrospect that these moments were greatly evanescent and not maintainable by the antiquated expectations of behavior we, as the audience, posit to those who perform for our idealistic benefit on an ever-amplifying stage of technological succession.  Old doctrines of information exchange must be reconsidered; instead of changing our performance in an attempt to project and reinforce an outdated and constructed ideology, we must strive for a level of maturity allowing both the active and passive participants the freedom to exchange in an authentic and trustworthy manner.

If we compare how tenets of ritual and rhetoric were the means of integrating technological systems in the mid-19th Century as suggested by the sociological observations of de Tocqueville, Veblen and Hawthorne (Marx) Read the rest of this entry »