society

What's an economy for?

It feels almost embarrassingly cliche to mention that the Greek word from which our word "economy" is derived means "housekeeping." I think that regardless of what "economy" means in today's English, this etymology can be a helpful lens through which we examine our economic systems. To state it in the form of a question: what's an economy for? Very few would be so naive to answer "to make money," but that is often what the purpose of today's economy feels like to me.

To be fair, personal wealth cannot be totally separated from the proper goals of an economy. But I think the pursuit of wealth should not ever come ahead of those goals. To me, good housekeeping has to do with good food, clothing, shelter, strong families and neighborhoods, bodily health, good stewardship of resources, hospitality, amusement, etc. "Good" is of course the operative term there. A "good" house is not necessarily a big, new, or fancy house.

I find it odd that we could achieve in good measure the goals of good housekeeping with a much smaller economy. I'm not sure what the significance of that is.

Ideology in censorship: the bleep

Slavoj Žižek gave a talk at Powell's in Portland in 2008 wherein he addressed the ideology behind censorship. His basic point is that censorship does not really save the people from anything, because it is often clear what is being censored (e.g. an intimate scene in a film being replaced by a fade-out). Rather, he argues that there is some "other" which is actually being protected from seeing the vulgar material. It is a thought-provoking point.

I noticed this exact same phenomenon in how dirty language is bleeped and blurred from popular entertainment. Most times, given the context, it is obvious which bad word is being said, in spite of the sound being covered up. Sometimes the bleep leaves the beginning and ending sounds in tact, so that there can be no doubt what the offensive word is. And in some even more amazing cases, the word can actually be spelled (e.g. "foxtrot uniform charlie kilo") and pass censorship. That is, only the very naive (i.e. nobody) are protected by such censorship. So why do the censors continue in bleeping, in spite of the fact that everyone still knows what was said? It is a totally futile exercise, and yet it is still carried out.

The Berry Blogger's Dilemma

There is something slightly embarrassing for those readers of Wendell Berry who first discovered his work on the internet. I myself fit in to this category. It is a sure sign of being a Berry neophyte (note the agricultural metaphor), since someone who is initiated to his thought would know better than to approach his work through an electronic medium.

The reason for this is twofold. First, Berry himself has chosen not to use computers. He rejects the premise that computers increase the quality of writing. I believe that we can infer that his opinion of the internet and blogging would fare no better than the technology upon which they are based. There is something supremely ironic about reading about a man's case against the computer on the internet.

A second reason can be derived from Berry's thoughts on energy. Berry is a conservationist. He does not seem to mind, however, writing and purchasing works printed on the remains of trees. As an important conveyor of our culture (which he values quite highly), books are a worthy expenditure of natural resources. Another factor in favor of printed books as a medium is that they are durable. That is, one book, if cared for and shared liberally, might spread its value to many people over many years. I suspect that a calf-skin codex would be even better in Berry's estimation, since it could even last 1,600 years and bless millions. Read more »

Syndicate content