Charles Brass wrote:
>
> John Courtenage suggests that a task for the future of work is to
> eliminate inequality.
>
> Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I value the fact that I am
> unique - something which by definition could not exist if there was no
> inequality.
>
> Sure, there are excesses of inequality in this world (though it is
> arguable if they are really of any greater scale than in other
> historical societies, which is an interesting thought in itself) and it
> would be fantastic if we were smart enough to reduce these.
>
> But, overall vive la difference - and all the tension and conflict and
> doubt and confusion that this brings.
[snip]
I woke up this morning thinking about an ever-present danger
of The Internet that has long concerned me. Interested?
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/internetWarning.html
--
But, to get to the topic of "Who pays, who benefits?", I
awoke to another recollection which my inner-editor superego
controlled me from dumping into that webpage:
On NPR All Things Considered a while back, there was a piece
on the musicians who play in nightclubs and other places.
It struck me as a parable of what new communication media
in general tend to do to *increase* inequalities and to create
ever higher "heights" for a few than were previously
possible for anybody:
Before the advent of phonograph records, and, especially,
"LPs", a performer's maximum possible audience was limited
to the number of persons who could be brought into
the real acoustic range of his or her voice. There were
many *small* audiences, and the very biggest audience
was a relatively small multiple of the average. This meant
a lot of work for a lot of good but not "stellar" performers
to service all those separated little audiences. It
also limited the top pay for the very best.
You can already see how this story is going to end: The
LP record enabled a very few to access immense audiences,
and, correlatively, it vastly shrank the number
of little isolated audiences which supported those who would
never be good enough (or lucky enough or whatever) to
gain the level of capitalization needed to get recorded.
--
Advances in communication
media tend centrifugally to separate the few at the top
ever further from the many, and to both: (1) raise the highest
attainable "elevation" above the previous ceiling limit,
and (2) increase the maximum number of the "many" who
can be socially coordinated together.
(Marshall McLuhan did not look forward with
enthusiasm to the coming of "the global village"....)
--
A couple days ago, looking for a book to read that
might be "robust" enough in its appeal and other qualities
for me to be able to read it a page or so at a time in
my new "six feet by six feet" work cubicle (which has
been increased to 6 X 8!) -- Husserl just isn't up
to these new working conditions... I came across a
book that is relevant to all this:
Karl Polanyi, _The Great Transformation_, 1944
(Beacon Press, 1957)
Yours in the discourse which must subsume the
economy if human[e]ity is to have a chance for
a present, a future, and even a past....
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
