Week Six

Andrew Feenberg, "Subversive Rationalization: Technology, Power, and Democracy":

Feenberg's article seeks to contradict the idea that democratic theory cannot be extended to the economy because modern technology is incompatible with workplace democracy. Insofar as modern industries depend on modern technology, they will be subject to authoritarian hierarchies. Theories which subscribe to this belief include those such as dystopian modernity (which argues that we as individuals have become subordinated to a "technical phenomenon", and, which Feenberg argues fails to distinguish between specific technologies which have developed in the last century in the West and modernity itself) and technological determinism (the assumption that technologies have an autonomous logic that can be explained independently of society, being intrinsically independent of the outside world, leading to one, comprehensive definition of modernity). Feenberg instead leans more towards ideas towards technology contained within theories like constructivism (that when resolving a technological problem, social factors inenvitable result in the decision to choose one of the many workable solutions, using the example of the evolution of the bicycle to meet safety concerns) and indeterminism (technological progress is not unilinear but branches in many directions and technological development is governed by both technical and social concerns). Feenberg asserts that technology can be interpreted on the basis of its social meanings (what the signficance of the object in society is determibnes how it evolves over time) and cultural horizon (the constrainment of techonological development by social norms). As a result of these things, there is room for environmental concerns to be worked in as an intrinsic part of technological development, just as other concerns have historically been (Feenberg brings up cases such as boiler safety and child labor). When the design process incorporates more concern with environmental compatability, there will be a new code that is an even deeper realization of non-economic values intersecting the technical code that has already been somewhat realized. In order for this to happen, democracy needs to be extended to technology via legal rights, initiative, and participation, routinizing claims that are now asserted informally.

"A Round-Table Discussion of the History and Philosophies that Shaped Princess Mononoke":

The most interesting aspects I pulled from the discussion (I'm not gonna lie, a lot of the historical and spiritual aspects being discussed were a bit over my head...):
1. How historical inaccuracies are not problematic in Miyazaki's works because the internal reality of the film's "literature" is more important than any basis in historical reality. Thus, it is possible for Miyazaki to set his films in a somewhat defined time period and still toy with its elements without being "misleading." As Miyazaki says, the world in his film takes place simultaneously in a place that exists and a place that doesn't.
2. The similarities between Miyazaki - as an animator - and another Japanese film gian, Akira Kurosawa - as a live-action director. One commentator sees a similarity in their focus on detail in creating beautiful imager and simultaneous despair toward the world and belief in the love between humans.
3. Miyazaki's own assertion that his film sought to look at human goodness rather than presenting a critical look at civilization. Though he admittedley examines environmental issues, Miyazaki argues he strives to prevent those who brought on environmental destruction as simply trying to lead a decent life for themselves.