Final Project

     My original KYHOI involved maps and how they mediate us etc. Unfortunately, as the project progressed to the final stages, this became much less feasible. Now, I have not scrapped the idea – on the contrary, it is a very large part of the project – but having been given some advice, I went in a little bit of a different direction. My original submitted video (which you readers will probably never see) was criticized for not fully embracing the medium of video. The solution to this problem, apparently, is to use voice overs. Now, I personally think that my voice tends to kill the dark mood of the piece, but overall, I think it turned out better than expected. The other main point of criticism was that the project did not fully address the idea of mediation – there was too much history instead. Now, being a bit of a history buff, I tend to like putting bits of history, but overall... yeah, there was too much history. This version has the history scaled down a bit (though not too much) and spends a bit more time on the KYHOI as a whole. What is that you ask? Here's the short version: new forms of technology and communication can not save mankind.

     It is a bit of a take on Morozov's ideas on cyber-utopianism and how those sentiments are misplaced. This is placed directly in opposition of Rifkin's Empathic Civilisation ideas. He believes that new communication and technology will bring us together and harness our inherent empathic capabilities. Now, it is a nice picture and all – not to mention one that I would totally love if possible – but it is a bit like favoring Communism. Though Rifkin tries to suggest that flaws arise from people's lack of embracing empathy, I think the faults run a little deeper. Though Rifkin claims that empathy exists as man's desire to see death overcome, I tend to think of it more as a way for mankind to support groups to overcome life's obstacles – including other people. In essence, that we don't ever move past the alien other, just change what it looks like. Each new form of technology or innovation may bring people closer together, but people only come closer together in order to overcome, at this point, other people coming together. It's all in the idea of “the other” that just about anyone who has taken a social science course should be familiar with. For those that have not, “the other” is essentially the “us” versus “them” idea and how this is a pervasive thought in the human mind. If you want to extend it further, you can also claim that the thought is SO pervasive that even when a group is entirely in the “us” category, humans will find minor differences with which to distinguish themselves.

     As an aside, have you noticed that just about everyone in the United States is middle class? This is true for a number of reasons; wanting to belong and religious dislike of the rich are only a couple examples. Take another look, though, and you will find upper middle class people and lower middle class people and upper UPPER middle class people – the list goes on and on. Even though everyone is middle class, they want to distinguish themselves from all the other middle class people. Hooray for class based societies!

     Anyway, how this is depicted in the video. Well, I start out by outlining the opposing view: Rifkin. After that, I go and tell a little story about the Berlin Wall. It's really useful because you can get two separate main ideas out of it, and both work. The first, is that the Berlin Wall marks an ideology overcoming all other forms of separation and, when that happens, people fight against it in order to go back to the old patterns of separation. The Iron Curtain divided the world into two parts, and when it fell, the world became many many parts again. Now, the other way of looking at it is as a heart warming story of people overcoming adversity by banding together and ultimately succeeding. This would fit with Rifkin's ideas for the Empathic Civilisation – everyone working together to overcome death and all. The big kicker, then, is the end of the piece when I demonstrate that, no, people really don't want to come together. Germany became whole again, sure, but they still want to remain German and not integrate with the rest of the World. Cue Chancellor Merkel. Now, one can debate the pros and cons of such views, but the point still stands; given the choice, people want to separate themselves, not band together.

Resources:

Berger, Peter L., Brigitte Berger, and Hansfried Kellner. The Homeless Mind; Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Random House, 1973.

Carr, Nicholas G. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010.

Freud, Sigmund, James Strachey, and Peter Gay. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton, 1989.

Goody, Jack. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 2000.

Klinghoffer, Arthur Jay. The Power of Projections: How Maps Reflect Global Politics and History. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006.

Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion: the Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York, NY: PublicAffairs, 2011.

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge, 2002.

Overy, R. J. Why the Allies Won. New York: W.W. Norton, 1995.

Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: HarperPerennial ModernClassics, 2007.

Zeiler, Thomas W. Annihilation: a Global Military History of World War II. New York: Oxford UP, 2011.

Script of video, part three.

     This is just a finalization of the third part.

0-5 sec But what really happened when the wall fell?
5-10 sec Germany was made whole again...
10-15 sec but this change in a line on a map only moves the border.
15-20 sec We are still separated!
20-35 sec quotes from 'Empathic Civilisation' "we have to think as an extended family...we have to rethink the human narrative."

And there we have it.

Script of video, part two.

     Before I start listing off stuff again, I first need to say that Diigo is a good source for cataloguing videos if you need to. Second, I need to praise my fortune at finding some good public domain material on the Berlin Wall. The point being made in this footage is actually fairly similar to what I'm discussing - though I intend to make a three minute video, whereas this one is thirty minutes. Anyway, on with the show.

Second Part
0-5 sec "...the blocks they established became known as the "East" and the "West"..."
5-10 sec "...due to the doctrinal differences and the geographical divisions of Europe." - Klinghoffer
10-15 sec No where was this more visible than in Berlin.
15- 25 sec (Images and clips of Berlin divided by the Berlin Wall)
25 - 30 sec The Berlin Wall was erected to keep the people of East Germany contained,
30 - 35 sec but the sudden enforcement separated families.
35 - 45 sec (Clip of two groups waving to each other on opposite sides of thick barbed wire)
45 - 50 sec At first, people fled through the wall...
50 - 55 sec (Clip of people running into and through the barbed wire)
55 -60 sec ...but the boundary was maintained through deadly force.
60 - 65 sec (Image(s) of dead bodies at the base of the wall)
65 - 70 sec But in time, people overcame their fear and started protesting.
70 - 90 sec (Clip of protesters in East Germany. It shows the rise in numbers of protests over time and then concludes with ~ "the border guards have two options... the rest is history.")
90 - 95 sec (Clip of wall being destroyed - both by man and machine) Over this is played the famous bit, "...tear down this wall."

     Which concludes the second part. Total running length thus far would then be somewhere between 2 minutes 10 seconds and 2 minutes 20 seconds... and I've just gotten to the turn. So, something may need to come out in the final production... or I may need to jiggle my seconded intervals a little. I'm thinking right now that I could probably but less screen time on my written words... so I'm actually probably on track. Time will tell.

     The third part is going to focus on the fact that, even though we have destroyed some borders, we simply make new ones and continue to enforce old ones. For example, you have the new bounds of Germany which, while not separated from one another, is still separated from the rest of the world. Also up for inclusion is discussion on the US/Mexico border fence that is in the works. A line on a map sees the US as distinct from Mexico, and the result is that we build a wall. I could also possibly include stuff on the two Koreas... but the conclusion is probably going to be that bit from Empathic Civilization that discusses how we can live in harmony. That, or, I could go with the "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech and focus on the message that we can form a peaceful and unified globe. Things to think about.

Script of video, part one.

     The process of script writing is a long one - so I'm getting what I have so far down for future reference. This part is mainly focused on showing the idea of the Iron Curtain becoming mapped which then causes us to see the spatial distinction. For images in this section, right now I'm just thinking a series of images, like political cartoons and maps, that can show this development. Then, here is what I have for script/voiced quotes.

0-5 sec "The map is a medium that not only stores and transmits information..."
5-10 sec "...but also embodies a particular mode of seeing and thinking." -Nicholas Carr
10-22 sec "An iron Curtain has descended across the continent..." (excerpts from Churchill's speech)
22-31 sec "all these capitols lie within the soviet sphere..." (Churchill once again.)
31-43 sec "it is these courses of action that have brought about..." (excerpt from Truman's speech on the Truman Doctrine)

all told, and with a bit of leeway for editing purposes, I anticipate that this first part should be 40 to 45 seconds in length. The second part then moves on to discuss Berlin in particular... but I'll write more on that as I finalize it on paper.

Lost at sea.

Where to begin......
     Well, I need to provide an analytical defense of my KYHOI. Despite the lack of structure asking what exactly that entails, and ever fearful that I may not have written enough on the subject already, I suppose I'll write some more. We learn by doing right?

     The first problem, though, is that I'm having a bit of crisis in faith in this whole project. At the beginning of the semester, I was all for the idea of media mediating our lives... but the more I look at it, it really is just a correlation. I mean, sure, it's nice to say that the way that we communicate has fundamentally changed how we act, but could it also not be just as valid to say that the changes in how we act caused us to communicate differently? It seems to me to be a chicken or egg phenomenon. Not really though, because that one is easy - no one ever specified that the egg belonged to a chicken. In this case, however, we have to address the fundamental question of whether we shape our environment or our environment shapes us. Sure it might be tempting to say, "both," but in this case, it's too much of a cop out. Added to that, one cannot really prove either viewpoint - it's subjective. We must, however, move past these unsightly thoughts. It just so happens to be too close to crunch time to change course - in a course that stresses unconventional education - graded in a highly conventional manner. We must hold the line - we learn by doing.

     That out of the way, it's time to move on to the meat of the project: how maps impose boundaries and how these boundaries are arbitrary. I may extend this, however, to the human psyche (as previously discussed) with the implication that it's not really maps that mediate us, but our desire to create boundaries between ourselves. Of course, we choose to do this by means of making maps, but are the maps mediating us? Nicholas Carr would have us believe so. In Tools of the Mind, he associates the use of maps as a progression of mankind to more abstract thinking. "The map is a medium that not only stores and transmits information but also embodies a particular mode of seeing and thinking... The technology of the map gave to man a new and more comprehending mind, better able to understand the unseen forces that shape his surroundings and his existence." We understand that people can control space because we have mapped it.

     Well, things have changed a little bit. Sure, there is the development from the feudal estate to the nation state and all that comes before and in between, but there have been newer developments, and they follow the same pattern - spheres of influence. For the sake of example, this project will focus on a few details of the Cold War -> who could ask for more well defined spheres of influence? Quoting Klinghoffer in The Power of Projections, "The Soviet Union and the United States emerged as the dominant superpowers, and the blocs they established became known as the "East" and "West" due to the doctrinal differences and the geographical division of Europe." Protection was extended into Europe, according to Klinghoffer, because Europe was the hub of aviation by means of it's central location in flight access to the world. Polar projections were used to show how close Europe really was to the Americas - and also how close the Soviet Union was. Spheres of influence were in place, and this, in part, led to the adoption of "containment doctrine."

     So what we have here is a map, either a polar projection or geopolitical spheres of influence, defining Strategy. It's by no means a new occurance, in fact, it's so common, people often overlook it. America opted for containment because of maps. Also, maps became secondary in the face of a nuclear threat. Because of advances in military technology, time and space on the global perspective became irrelevant - you could destroy anything, anywhere, very quickly.

     This is all very broad though. Despite what might be said about maps allowing the person to understand global phenomena, I'm going to claim that the person really only notices those changes that come close to home. For that reason, I want to focus on Berlin. As the Iron Curtain dropped, it created a boundary. This boundary was mapped. And then this boundary became real. Once again, maps of ideologies influenced the creation of physical barriers -> and this was felt heavily in Berlin. The city was split in two (or four, if you want to be technical, but we're talking ideology here) and the Iron Curtain became a physical wall that divided families and friends. The Soviet construction is often described as a net keeping people in, and this definitely has some merit, but of importance for this project is the simple fact that an idea, once mapped, came to personally affect people's lives. I could go on discussing people's attempts to cross the wall, or talk about the differences between modes of living on the two sides, or give a heart warming tale of a family reunited, but this is all fluff.

     The interesting thing for me though, and it happens here at the end, is what happens when the Berlin Wall falls. As the Soviet threat is contained through diplomacy and the Iron Curtain lifts - physically and ideologically - what was the result? Families were finally reunited and freedom was gained, but was it really? Germany is still Germany as distinct from France or Switzerland or whatever. The German people are still distinct just as the Russians and the Americans. We as people are still separated by lines on a map, and none of us ever stops to think about it. The Sphere of Influence game is still being played. The names have changed, and so too the rules, but it's still the same game. I ask you now, when you hear of the wars overseas, they're just that, aren't they, those wars overseas? Sure, casualties have been taken on either side, and this can bring the war close to home, but I ask you, are you afraid to walk in the streets? When the United States decided to invade Iraq, what did they invade? Sure, there was a very sizable military in place and a dictator the US decided that it didn't like anymore, but the threat of WMDs is gone. And the military. And the dictator. We continue a war that is not political, and certainly not for the benefit of any of the locals, but ideological. We, with our predilection toward maps, have defined the thoughts of entire peoples based on lines of ink.

How is that for a Knock Your Head Off Idea?

On empathy.

     So as a part of the mediated cultures class we took a view at this video. The big point of this clip being that humans are innately empathic and that this empathy has expanded to larger groups throughout human history. As children grow they realize that life is vulnerable and feel that plight in others. Essentially, "Empathy is grounded in the acknowledgment of death and the celebration of life. It's based on our frailties and out insecurities." So his question is if we are capable of extending our empathic abilities to the entire world. Over the course of history, the empathy of communities expanded, each step extending the "family" of people we associate with. After discussing all people come from two genetic sources and how we should all get along, he comments that our truly empathic nature is repressed by our upbringing, our education etc. which, to me, says our own cultures.
     I find it difficult to see this empathic nature as repressed by other negative aspects of our society. I may perhaps accept, 'at odds with,' or 'separate from,' but not repressed. It has always bugged me when people attempt to pin down human nature to one specific aspect of human behavior. Human nature is very complex, and is more often than not found to be differently defined by every person who thinks about it. The question still remains open as to whether or not man (in the sense of humankind) is inherently good or evil. Hang empathic or greedy or kind or frightened or a virus.
     But, putting this all aside, let us assume that humans are, in fact, empathic creatures. Why do humans have empathy and how do they gain from it. When a child is growing, as is stated in the formerly linked clip, it comes to it's own personal realization that life is fragile and death, while undesirable, is inevitable. But, rather than passively accept this and simply realize and feel sorry that life is like this for all things, I choose to believe that humans take a more active approach. I think humans try to fight for life. Of course, there are different ways of fighting for one's life from destroying everything else that could harm you to incorporating it all into your state of being... regardless, one can not easily survive alone. This is where I'm well disposed to place the importance of empathy -> that desire to help others get through life so that they may help you through life.
     When looking at empathy this way, the progress of creating larger groups is a response to new types of media. Each new media grants many more opportunities for communication and identity building that allow a sufficient and independent community to form. Now, while it might be nice to think that such communities could grow to encompass the entire planet, there are obstacles -> human ones. While humanity is building larger and larger support communities, it is also excluding many many people from these support communities. Think of it as a struggle for finite resources, and we sure have our share of those. You have a community that is vying for a sustainable existence, but across the river, or whatever, you have another community vying for the same thing. Now, if there is not enough available to support both communities to the level of comfort or ease or simply in survival they wish to exist at, there will be conflict over the region. While you have built your support off of your community and therefore see them as an extension of yourself, another community can easily be placed in the category of 'the other.'
     They are not you or an extension of you and therefore are not necessary and even a hindrance to your survival or desires or what have you. Humans are actually very good at finding reasons to place others in the category of 'other,' and it is even occasionally useful to overlook many of those reasons, but the concept of the 'other' still looms as a threat. The expansion of communities is as much a product of the influences of new media as a response and defense to the growing threat of other communities. In order for the world to come together as a community, there would have to be an 'other' created that was not of earth, or not physical. So, excluding the possibility of convenient alien contact, we have to rely on people getting behind a unified idea. The problem with culture is that it makes a nice breeding ground for the creation of many separate and often conflicting ideas. Perhaps globalization is the key, but in order to globalize, there would need to be a need to come together. It becomes a closed circular loop of necessity. As it is conceivable, it is therefore possible to overcome the barriers of this loop, but this author is cynical.

     Thinking about all of this, however, got me thinking back to this project I'm doing on maps and how they mediate us. The big idea behind this being that maps represent and impose boundaries and these boundaries are arbitrary. When thinking about the concept of 'the other,' I found that it fit perfectly within the framework of borders. To go back to the Cold War model, The Iron Curtain was mapped and outlined a clear border between Us and Them -> a clear case of 'the other.' In contrast to this, however, is the Berlin Wall and it's separation of those who did not consider each other 'the other,' but were forced to be such. This wall was, however, torn down. It was even done so to the ring of much fanfare and celebration. The Cold War, too, came to an agreed end, but this never settled the big problem. Borders, and the idea of the other that they support, still exist. Even after Germany was unified once again, it was still Germany as distinct from France, etc. Lines continue to cross the continents and each separates people from people. Now, I can't advocate for the removal of maps as a tool, but we need to be aware of the effect they can have on the way we perceive the world.

So for project direction, I need to shore up and solidify my big ideas, and begin to do some more research on the specifics of the Cold War and Berlin as well find some more ties between maps and their influence on imposing borders. Suggestions welcome.

On the realization of ideas.

     First off, it must be recognized that maps don't actually create boundaries - boundaries are a mindset. Just because a map is drawn doesn't mean that a line falls upon the earth, quite the opposite is true. What a map is, is a representation of a mindset. It is not the fault of the cartographers that these boundaries exist, it is a construct of the human mind. This, however, got me thinking. I've done quite a bit on the mapping side of things, borders and whatnot, but I have done very little in the way of making it into a story. With the understanding that the class project is moving in a more modern direction and, with all of this talk on borders, I had a bit of an inspiration.

The cold war.
Specifically, something like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmRPP2WXX0U

The Berlin wall is something most people are probably familiar with, but my guess is that most people of my generation do not quite comprehend the gravity of what actually happened when it fell. So, what I'm thinking about for a video here... is a bit of the rise and fall of borders in Germany. I mean, maps were created and separated people - almost literally overnight - and even families were separated and could not be reunited. But what is really great about this story is that it involves a separating of people, a binding together of a new people and then, when the border was torn down, a re-unification of a people. That's just a big deal to me. So direction... now all I need to do is walk...