|
CalebMonaghanSecondEssay 2 - 31 Jan 2022 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | | |
<
< | Paper Title
Davies J Curve and the Internet | >
> | Davies J Curve and the Internet | | | -- By CalebMonaghan - 04 Jan 2022 | |
<
< | Section I
Originally called Arganet, what we know as the Internet started during the Cold War and was a decentralized mechanism through which government actors could communicate with each other. Prior to this, the various computer networks did not have a standard way to communicate with each other. Since this time, the astonishing rise of the internet has heralded in unimagined social and economic change. Accompanying this transformational change has been societal expectations that conditions will continue to improve commensurately, and it was assumed that equality would be a principle directing these improvements. In some ways this dream has manifest. But, in many other respects, in particular related to personal privacy and identity, the internet has been a sheep in wolves’ clothing, ushering in a dystopian era of Big Brother tracking, identity theft and a host of other unintended maladies. The result of this has been a disconnect between what individuals have come to expect and the reality of their circumstances; and, while American sociologist James C Davies did not directly anticipate either the internet or its far-reaching impacts on society, he did philosophize on the social and political unrest that may be precipitated by a brief period of sharp decline in economic welfare after a prolonged period of economic growth and benefit. Davies’ writings, first introduced in 1962, became known as the J-curve hypothesis and is a crucial approach for understanding the dangerous crossroads at which society now finds itself in relation to the promised splendor of the internet vs. the stark reality of invasion of personal privacy. In other words, while it is easy to see the desirability of a revolution, Davies provides us with the framework to understand why this is an inevitable endgame as we look to tame the headless beast of surveillance capitalism and the internet.
Throughout history there have been numerous examples of two potential “end-states” for a society but existing but at differing levels of value to society. Think of pre and post civil war America. Consider the current states of North vs. South Korea. This situation can be imagines as the end-points on a capital letter “J,” This is a powerful visualization because we see there is no direct path to migrate from the lower endpoint directly to the upper, more desirable, endpoint. Rather, the only path is via descending through some lower and undesirable intermediate state. This downward journey is analogous to revolution. Davies’ J-curve hypothesis focuses on the circumstances under which a society would be willing to take this undesirable route in order to migrate from one steady-state to a more desirable one. These ideas, both of the J-curve shape and society’s rationale for traveling along it, are a powerful framework for understanding the society’s current predicament with the blessings of the internet and the attendant problems such as privacy and identity theft.
An antecedent condition for a society traveling down the J Curve is dissonance with the current state of affairs. There must be a gap between what a society expects and what it gets. The mode of comparison varies between theorists. Ted R. Gurr focuses on relative deprivation, and posits idea that within the J Curve model feelings of relative deprivation arise from discrepancies between what is and what should be across groups while Davies emphasized temporal comparisons. Though there are variations in terms of how different groups can access the internet, the previously mentioned maladies seem to be ubiquitous, implying that there is no ideal group that could serve as a source of relative deprivation. Rather, discontent stems from comparing the current situation to the promise the internet held before the undesirable practices were adopted.
Additionally, the degree and character of the dissonance is relevant in determining whether a society would be willing to travel down the J Curve. Marx posits that long lasting deprivation leads people to realize that they have nothing to lose but their chains. DeToqueville? , on the other hand, holds that there needs to be a glimmer of light that conditions can improve before people are willing to engage in revolutionary activities. Despite all the harmful features of the internet, it still provides beneficial services and has improved society in incalculably valuable ways. Thus, the complete razing and rebuilding associated with Marx is likely not what society would want; rather, society would simply need to believe that they can get back to a place that is better than their current position (i.e., they can improve their situation by traveling through the J Curve). | >
> | Originally called Arganet, | | | | |
<
< | Applying these concepts to the internet, the J Curve hypothesis fits neatly and suggests that a revolution is not only desirable but imminent. No technology determines its own future, and seemingly arbitrary decisions made decades ago have caused us to exist on the lower end of the J Curve. We spend every day with spy satellites in our pockets that not only monitor everything we do but also use this information to alter our behavior. This relationship to technology has become so normalized that it is now present in our educational platforms (Courseworks) and despite growing concern about how our data is used there do not appear to be any neat solutions to fix the problem. While regulation and economic policies could provide partial solutions, there is no silver bullet. Davies J Curve hypothesis suggests that once the gap between our expectations and our reality is sufficiently wide, our society will engage in revolutionary activity in an attempt to move from our current state to a higher, more desirable state. | >
> |
No, it wasn't. This is a mistake, not a typo. It results from not having done the learning that even a Google search would have produced. The ARPAnet was called that because it was supported by a grant from the Advanced Research Products Agency of the Department of Defense, now called DARPA. This history has been written many times but you didn't look for it.
| | | | |
>
> | what we know as the Internet started during the Cold War and was a decentralized mechanism through which government actors could communicate with each other. Prior to this, the various computer networks did not have a standard way to communicate with each other. Since this time, the astonishing rise of the internet has heralded in unimagined social and economic change. Accompanying this transformational change has been societal expectations that conditions will continue to improve commensurately, and it was assumed that equality would be a principle directing these improvements. In some ways this dream has manifest. But, in many other respects, in particular related to personal privacy and identity, the internet has been a sheep in wolves’ clothing, ushering in a dystopian era of Big Brother tracking, identity theft and a host of other unintended maladies. The result of this has been a disconnect between what individuals have come to expect and the reality of their circumstances; and, while American sociologist James C Davies did not directly anticipate either the internet or its far-reaching impacts on society, he did philosophize on the social and political unrest that may be precipitated by a brief period of sharp decline in economic welfare after a prolonged period of economic growth and benefit. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> |
No references?
| | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | Davies’ writings, first introduced in 1962, became known as the J-curve hypothesis and is a crucial approach for understanding the dangerous crossroads at which society now finds itself in relation to the promised splendor of the internet vs. the stark reality of invasion of personal privacy. In other words, while it is easy to see the desirability of a revolution, Davies provides us with the framework to understand why this is an inevitable endgame as we look to tame the headless beast of surveillance capitalism and the internet. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> |
As you say, Davies wasn't writing about anything like the Internet and whatever your estimation of the nature of social change occurring now, there is no relationship between the socioeconomic circumstances he was writing about and the effects, intended or otherwise, of the Net. The juxtaposition doesn't seem enlightening.
| | | | |
>
> | Throughout history there have been numerous examples of two potential “end-states” for a society but existing but at differing levels of value to society. Think of pre and post civil war America. Consider the current states of North vs. South Korea. This situation can be imagines as the end-points on a capital letter “J,” This is a powerful visualization because we see there is no direct path to migrate from the lower endpoint directly to the upper, more desirable, endpoint. Rather, the only path is via descending through some lower and undesirable intermediate state. This downward journey is analogous to revolution. Davies’ J-curve hypothesis focuses on the circumstances under which a society would be willing to take this undesirable route in order to migrate from one steady-state to a more desirable one. These ideas, both of the J-curve shape and society’s rationale for traveling along it, are a powerful framework for understanding the society’s current predicament with the blessings of the internet and the attendant problems such as privacy and identity theft. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1
Subsub 2 | >
> | An antecedent condition for a society traveling down the J Curve is dissonance with the current state of affairs. There must be a gap between what a society expects and what it gets. The mode of comparison varies between theorists. Ted R. Gurr focuses on relative deprivation, and posits idea that within the J Curve model feelings of relative deprivation arise from discrepancies between what is and what should be across groups while Davies emphasized temporal comparisons. Though there are variations in terms of how different groups can access the internet, the previously mentioned maladies seem to be ubiquitous, implying that there is no ideal group that could serve as a source of relative deprivation. Rather, discontent stems from comparing the current situation to the promise the internet held before the undesirable practices were adopted. | | | | |
>
> | Additionally, the degree and character of the dissonance is relevant in determining whether a society would be willing to travel down the J Curve. Marx posits that long lasting deprivation leads people to realize that they have nothing to lose but their chains. DeToqueville? , on the other hand, holds that there needs to be a glimmer of light that conditions can improve before people are willing to engage in revolutionary activities. Despite all the harmful features of the internet, it still provides beneficial services and has improved society in incalculably valuable ways. Thus, the complete razing and rebuilding associated with Marx is likely not what society would want; rather, society would simply need to believe that they can get back to a place that is better than their current position (i.e., they can improve their situation by traveling through the J Curve). | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | Applying these concepts to the internet, the J Curve hypothesis fits neatly and suggests that a revolution is not only desirable but imminent. No technology determines its own future, and seemingly arbitrary decisions made decades ago have caused us to exist on the lower end of the J Curve. We spend every day with spy satellites in our pockets that not only monitor everything we do but also use this information to alter our behavior. This relationship to technology has become so normalized that it is now present in our educational platforms (Courseworks) and despite growing concern about how our data is used there do not appear to be any neat solutions to fix the problem. While regulation and economic policies could provide partial solutions, there is no silver bullet. Davies J Curve hypothesis suggests that once the gap between our expectations and our reality is sufficiently wide, our society will engage in revolutionary activity in an attempt to move from our current state to a higher, more desirable state. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> |
We need a different sort of draft altogether. The subject should be not a metaphor or a theory fetched from afar, but a factual condition about which—seen from technical, legal and political perspectives—you can teach the reader something you have learned. "The Internet" is too big by far to be that subject. So is "revolution." So "Davies" or "Freud" or "Darwin." Begin somewhere concrete and help the reader learn outward from that starting point.
| | |
|
|
|
CalebMonaghanSecondEssay 1 - 04 Jan 2022 - Main.CalebMonaghan
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
Davies J Curve and the Internet
-- By CalebMonaghan - 04 Jan 2022
Section I
Originally called Arganet, what we know as the Internet started during the Cold War and was a decentralized mechanism through which government actors could communicate with each other. Prior to this, the various computer networks did not have a standard way to communicate with each other. Since this time, the astonishing rise of the internet has heralded in unimagined social and economic change. Accompanying this transformational change has been societal expectations that conditions will continue to improve commensurately, and it was assumed that equality would be a principle directing these improvements. In some ways this dream has manifest. But, in many other respects, in particular related to personal privacy and identity, the internet has been a sheep in wolves’ clothing, ushering in a dystopian era of Big Brother tracking, identity theft and a host of other unintended maladies. The result of this has been a disconnect between what individuals have come to expect and the reality of their circumstances; and, while American sociologist James C Davies did not directly anticipate either the internet or its far-reaching impacts on society, he did philosophize on the social and political unrest that may be precipitated by a brief period of sharp decline in economic welfare after a prolonged period of economic growth and benefit. Davies’ writings, first introduced in 1962, became known as the J-curve hypothesis and is a crucial approach for understanding the dangerous crossroads at which society now finds itself in relation to the promised splendor of the internet vs. the stark reality of invasion of personal privacy. In other words, while it is easy to see the desirability of a revolution, Davies provides us with the framework to understand why this is an inevitable endgame as we look to tame the headless beast of surveillance capitalism and the internet.
Throughout history there have been numerous examples of two potential “end-states” for a society but existing but at differing levels of value to society. Think of pre and post civil war America. Consider the current states of North vs. South Korea. This situation can be imagines as the end-points on a capital letter “J,” This is a powerful visualization because we see there is no direct path to migrate from the lower endpoint directly to the upper, more desirable, endpoint. Rather, the only path is via descending through some lower and undesirable intermediate state. This downward journey is analogous to revolution. Davies’ J-curve hypothesis focuses on the circumstances under which a society would be willing to take this undesirable route in order to migrate from one steady-state to a more desirable one. These ideas, both of the J-curve shape and society’s rationale for traveling along it, are a powerful framework for understanding the society’s current predicament with the blessings of the internet and the attendant problems such as privacy and identity theft.
An antecedent condition for a society traveling down the J Curve is dissonance with the current state of affairs. There must be a gap between what a society expects and what it gets. The mode of comparison varies between theorists. Ted R. Gurr focuses on relative deprivation, and posits idea that within the J Curve model feelings of relative deprivation arise from discrepancies between what is and what should be across groups while Davies emphasized temporal comparisons. Though there are variations in terms of how different groups can access the internet, the previously mentioned maladies seem to be ubiquitous, implying that there is no ideal group that could serve as a source of relative deprivation. Rather, discontent stems from comparing the current situation to the promise the internet held before the undesirable practices were adopted.
Additionally, the degree and character of the dissonance is relevant in determining whether a society would be willing to travel down the J Curve. Marx posits that long lasting deprivation leads people to realize that they have nothing to lose but their chains. DeToqueville? , on the other hand, holds that there needs to be a glimmer of light that conditions can improve before people are willing to engage in revolutionary activities. Despite all the harmful features of the internet, it still provides beneficial services and has improved society in incalculably valuable ways. Thus, the complete razing and rebuilding associated with Marx is likely not what society would want; rather, society would simply need to believe that they can get back to a place that is better than their current position (i.e., they can improve their situation by traveling through the J Curve).
Applying these concepts to the internet, the J Curve hypothesis fits neatly and suggests that a revolution is not only desirable but imminent. No technology determines its own future, and seemingly arbitrary decisions made decades ago have caused us to exist on the lower end of the J Curve. We spend every day with spy satellites in our pockets that not only monitor everything we do but also use this information to alter our behavior. This relationship to technology has become so normalized that it is now present in our educational platforms (Courseworks) and despite growing concern about how our data is used there do not appear to be any neat solutions to fix the problem. While regulation and economic policies could provide partial solutions, there is no silver bullet. Davies J Curve hypothesis suggests that once the gap between our expectations and our reality is sufficiently wide, our society will engage in revolutionary activity in an attempt to move from our current state to a higher, more desirable state.
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|