In this piece, I will summarize the work Druids and Human Sacrifice by Bruce Lincoln (link here for original text). The work discusses the ancient Druids, the priestly class of Celtic Society, and outside views on the practice of these people.
### The Grey Areas of Historical Accounts
Little is known about the Druids from within Celtic society. Almost no written records exist that describe them, their roles, or their knowledge from Celtic sources--nearly everything we know about them come from Roman and Greek sources. This presents a problem. A large portion of Roman scripts concerning the Druids were that they were "Noble Savages," using sacrifice for no other reason that they are brutish. This is faulty for a number of reasons; one of those is that much of the information gathered on them came from earlier Greek sources, and was simply appropriated for a propaganda campaign; another is that some historians believe that the act was simply conjured up by the Romans to sway northern European influence from the Celts to Rome.
On top of these historical problems, there is a modern issue with regards to interpretation of these actions. A paradox exists, in which people today acknowledge the intellectual leadership of the Druids, yet ignore their role in human sacrifice; meanwhile, others focus solely on their participation in sacrificial rituals and ignore their positions of scholarly pursuit. This, however, does not have to be the case. The evidence points to Druids being both intellectual leaders as well as ritualistic sacrificers. The fact that there is a problem in which modern interpretation pushes a bias on us is irrelevant.
#### The Early Accounts
The acts of these Druids was recorded early by Pomponius Mela around 42 A.D., when he saw "[The Gauls] are arrogant and superstitious, and at one time they were so savage that they believed a man to be the best and most pleasing sacrificial victim for the gods...they take off a little portion [from the victims] when leading the consecrated ones to the altars. Still, they have their own eloquence and their masters of wisdom, the Druids. These ones profess to know the size and form of heaven and earth, the motion of the sky and stars, and what the gods desire." Mela goes on to say that they gave orders to noble leaders, and they taught that souls are eternal and that they go to another life among "the Manes." Mela is later confirmed by Diodorus Siculus. He writes "there are some men who are philosophers and theologians...whom they call 'Druids.' And they consult them as diviners, deeming them worthy of great approbation. And they foretell what is destined through the interpretation of birds and sacrifices of victims, and they hold all the multitude attentive." Then, Siculus describes an incredible custom: "For having consecrated a man, they strike him above the diaphragm with a sacrificial knife, and when the man struck has fallen, they know destiny from his fall, from the dismemberment of his limbs, and from the flow of his blood, for they trust to ancient and time-honored observance in these things."
These texts support the view that sacrifice, and dismemberment in particular, was an honored religious practice that held an integral part in the community. This is important in critiquing the Roman view that often Druids went into training simply to avoid military service. The importance of dismemberment is also confirmed by other religious texts, from the Persian text Skend Gumanig Wizar, which states "the bodily, material creation of the Evil Spirit--all the bodily creation is of the Evil Spirit. More precisely, the sky is from the skin, the earth is from the flesh, the mountains are from the bone, and the plants are from the hair of the demoness Kuni." Similarly, the poetic Edda from Iceland contains "From Ymir's flesh the earth was made//and mountains from his bones;//Heaven from the skull of the rime-cold giant//and from his blood, the sea." All of these share the similar themes of earth from flesh, mountains from stones, etc., and all support the cosmological importance of dismemberment.
Truly, however, the only way we can confirm its importance to Druids is from Celtic evidence itself. One Irish text which supports the theme of dismemberment is a myth about the origin of healing herbs. The story tells how Dian Cecht, physician of the Tuatha De Danaan, killed his son Miach when the son passed him in medical knowledge. The myth is reprinted here:
"That cure (performed by Miach) seemed evil to Dian Cecht. He let loose his sword on the head of his son, cutting his scalp down to the flesh. The youth healed that, through the exercise of his skill. He struck again, cutting the flesh to the bone. the youth healed that by the same exercise. He hewed a third cut, to the membrane of the brain. The youth healed that by the same exercise. He hewed a fourth cut, and reached the brain so much that Miach died, and Dian Cecht said that there was not any physician who could heal that blow.
After that, Miach was buried by Dian Cecht, and three hundred and sixty-five healing herbs grew up through his grave, according to the number of his joints and sinews."
Here, the number of herbs correlates the number of bodily connectors, the "joints and sinews." These are the places where most critical repair is necessary; the correlation implies that there is a healing herb for each one, and correct healing involves finding the correct herb for the body part. It is clear that the implication is that one herb from Miach's body has the power to cure the same body part from which it came. This knowledge presupposes a knowledge of what Lincoln calls the microcosm and the macrocosm, or the small world and the large--the personal and the cosmos.
### Sacrifice and Healing: An Inverse Relation
The important point to be taken here is that sacrifice and healing are directly opposite to one another. Whereas sacrifice is taking from the body, the microcosm, to heal the cosmos, the macrocosm, healing is just the opposite; it is taking from the cosmos to heal the body. The Greeks and Romans called this interconnected discourse "physiology."
This is seen often in Celtic myth. Old legal texts such as Senchus Mor show that the Celts literally believed they created the heaven and Earth. A myth name The Seven Part Adam (which has been severely Christianized) tells of the creation of Earth by the seven parts of Adam, analogous to the dismemberment of Ymir. These tales help link the concepts of cosmogony--the creation of the universe--with anthropogony--the creation of humans. The belief that humans are created, or healed, by the universe, which is still held by many today, runs parallel to the belief that the universe is in turn created by all beings through sacrifice. Such macro- and microcosms run often in many Celtic myths.
### Other Reasons of Sacrifice
The fact that this justification proved valid to the Celts as a reason to sacrifice human beings should come as no surprise. One only has to look at the atrocities committed within the last 100 years in the names of religion, the people, etc. (genocides such as the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, the Palestinian Conflict) to see that this is not an uncommon aspect of human nature. Furthermore, the fact remains that most of those sacrificed were in fact prisoners of war or criminals. Dealing with these people in small-scale farming communities was not as simple as creating slave-farmer societies, as larger-scale plantation based civilizations did, nor was jail an option, for they simply did not have the resources necessary to house them. Sacrifice therefore offered a simple solution: knowing that cosmogony was important, it was preferable to eliminate the unappealing characters of society, all while knowing that "to kill a man was the most religious act."
Monday, July 13, 2015
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Human Sacrifice and it's Ordering of Society
Human sacrifice can easily be dismissed as a savage act by power-hungry religious leaders securing their place at the throne--or can it? In a world where human sacrifice is seen as some horrendous act, it's cultural significance within the context of its time periods means it cannot be ignored at the tables of history. Nor can it be misrepresented. So then, what exactly drove past civilizations to sacrifice human lives, and what continues to fuel the desire to kill fellow people?
There are a number of theories out addressing this issue. J. Z. Smith wrote a work on the subject which has very interesting points. It is noted that in the initial stages of civilization, before agrarian societies developed, there are no known instances of animal sacrifice among related cultures, while after societies settle down, sacrifice seems to develop in most of them (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). The sacrifice seemed to have been, "For the domesticator, killing is an act of precise discrimination with an eye to the future" (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). Essentially, Smith states that sacrifice was a method of weeding out the weak animals, keeping the strong ones fit for reproductive purposes while killing off the lesser breed. This is, essentially how human sacrifice seemed to develop as well. Those that did not confine to the boundaries laid out by a group, a people, a country, or a civilization were taken care of by making an example of them, "domesticating" the rest to conform or suffer a similar fate.
So why is there a connotation of sacrifice with primitive groups? An interesting things Smith points out in this respect is that there is no emphasis on the primitive nature of "initiation" rituals found within certain groups. Yet, throughout history it is found that "where there are elaborate initiatory rituals, sacrifice seems relatively undeveloped; where there are complex sacrificial cycles and ideologies, initiation seems relatively undeveloped" (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). Smith suggests the opposite; that sacrifice is in fact the product of an advanced civilization. It comes about when a group becomes large enough to warrant fractioning and division within itself; at this point, sacrifice is found necessary to try to hold the group together. After a while, the divisions may grow to large, at which time people move groups, and the process restarts.
So is this still valid in today's world? Most certainly yes. Even in the progressive nations that exist today, human sacrifice exists and is supported often by majorities of countries in the form of capital punishment and war. As authors Carolyn Marvin and David W. Ingle point out, the nation is the most prominent proponent of sacrifice (Marvin and Ingle: Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Revisiting Civil Religion). They take it a step further, stating that the desire to kill keeps everyone working together, but "the group must sacrifice its own to survive [this] secret" (Marvin and Ingle: Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Revisiting Civil Religion). This has some interesting consequences. The group wants blood, and therefore supports seemingly irrational policies like the death penalty and war. This truth can be seen in a comparison of wars taken on by the United States: on one side, there was the Civil War and World War II, which had massive American casualties as well as a high approval rating by the American public. On the other hand, the Gulf War, which had only 147 American casualties, was lacking in support by its end. When sacrifice is not sufficient, it does not bring the group together.
When it is channelled well, however, the results are astounding. On September 10, 2001, terrorism was a moot point in American politics. The next day, the spilling of blood of thousands of lives prompted a nation of almost 300 million people to support a war against a vague target in the Middle East. Sacrifice is a strong tool, and it is still used in many ways.
Therefore, it is false to call sacrifice a savage power-mongering tool used by certain individuals. It is a methodical, well thought out process that serves a distinct purpose with intent on bettering the whole--or at least keeping it in check.
There are a number of theories out addressing this issue. J. Z. Smith wrote a work on the subject which has very interesting points. It is noted that in the initial stages of civilization, before agrarian societies developed, there are no known instances of animal sacrifice among related cultures, while after societies settle down, sacrifice seems to develop in most of them (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). The sacrifice seemed to have been, "For the domesticator, killing is an act of precise discrimination with an eye to the future" (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). Essentially, Smith states that sacrifice was a method of weeding out the weak animals, keeping the strong ones fit for reproductive purposes while killing off the lesser breed. This is, essentially how human sacrifice seemed to develop as well. Those that did not confine to the boundaries laid out by a group, a people, a country, or a civilization were taken care of by making an example of them, "domesticating" the rest to conform or suffer a similar fate.
So why is there a connotation of sacrifice with primitive groups? An interesting things Smith points out in this respect is that there is no emphasis on the primitive nature of "initiation" rituals found within certain groups. Yet, throughout history it is found that "where there are elaborate initiatory rituals, sacrifice seems relatively undeveloped; where there are complex sacrificial cycles and ideologies, initiation seems relatively undeveloped" (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). Smith suggests the opposite; that sacrifice is in fact the product of an advanced civilization. It comes about when a group becomes large enough to warrant fractioning and division within itself; at this point, sacrifice is found necessary to try to hold the group together. After a while, the divisions may grow to large, at which time people move groups, and the process restarts.
So is this still valid in today's world? Most certainly yes. Even in the progressive nations that exist today, human sacrifice exists and is supported often by majorities of countries in the form of capital punishment and war. As authors Carolyn Marvin and David W. Ingle point out, the nation is the most prominent proponent of sacrifice (Marvin and Ingle: Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Revisiting Civil Religion). They take it a step further, stating that the desire to kill keeps everyone working together, but "the group must sacrifice its own to survive [this] secret" (Marvin and Ingle: Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Revisiting Civil Religion). This has some interesting consequences. The group wants blood, and therefore supports seemingly irrational policies like the death penalty and war. This truth can be seen in a comparison of wars taken on by the United States: on one side, there was the Civil War and World War II, which had massive American casualties as well as a high approval rating by the American public. On the other hand, the Gulf War, which had only 147 American casualties, was lacking in support by its end. When sacrifice is not sufficient, it does not bring the group together.
When it is channelled well, however, the results are astounding. On September 10, 2001, terrorism was a moot point in American politics. The next day, the spilling of blood of thousands of lives prompted a nation of almost 300 million people to support a war against a vague target in the Middle East. Sacrifice is a strong tool, and it is still used in many ways.
Therefore, it is false to call sacrifice a savage power-mongering tool used by certain individuals. It is a methodical, well thought out process that serves a distinct purpose with intent on bettering the whole--or at least keeping it in check.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Using Religion in a Discourse on Happiness
In this work, I
will examine the concept of happiness, what it means, and how humans
seek to achieve it. This is taken from an original work of my own
done for a college class I have taken in the past.
In order to do that, I will view happiness through the view of "religion" as defined by various philosophers. So what is religion, exactly?
Defining it has been a problem since the objective view of religion became a serious concept of study in the enlightenment era. The enlightenment saw a shift of belief in the individual, from the past notion of obeying and accepting all that is told, to thinking for oneself in most matters not pertaining to mundane civil service, explained by Kant (Kant: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?). This "modern" approach to thinking was coined by Talal Asad, who clarified these views that belief changing from institutional belief to individual belief (Asad: Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam). This is why religion is difficult to define: because "the form...of their [old] beliefs would have been different from the form...of contemporary belief—and so too of their doubts and their disbeliefs," which, according to Asad, means that the definition of religion is constantly shifting. It is difficult to use a modern definition of religion when looking at the way people sought happiness in the past, because the fact is that there was simply not a mechanism for individual critical thought before a certain time period.
That considered, I will use the Emile Durkheim definition of religion. Durkheim attempts to account for the "modern" problem by stating that "a religion is a unified system of beliefs...relative to sacred things... beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church" (Durkheim: The Elementary Forms of Religious Life). This definition has some validity because it ignores whether or not religion is valid, and simply attempts to explain it; it also circumvents the modern problem by making the definition conceptual. It isn't perfect, however. This definition does not account for self-eminent sources of religion, as demonstrated by monks or nuns. It is also very broad, and the argument could be made that sports teams could fall under this header of religion.
However, we will disregard these flaws (mostly because I have yet to find a better definition. If you have one, enlighten me!) and push on with our discourse on happiness. Happiness is first mentioned by Socrates, where he asked "since we...desire happiness, how can we be happy?" which was problematic, since only the Hellenic Gods were permitted to be happy (McMahon, Darrin M.: What Does the Ideal of Happiness Mean?). Later, Christianity would display a wide variety of views on happiness, first pushing that desire was a sin. Then, after the reformation, the opposite belief persisted, with most thinking that "all sorrows, illnesses and melancholy come from Satan" (McMahon: Happiness). Even later, the French Revolution would see an attempt at forced happiness: “force every individual to take the only road that can lead them to the end they propose—
the end of happiness" (McMahon: Happiness). So, we have a general feel for what happiness is, or at least what it was in context to a number of eras.
Can religion explain these desires? It's possible. I won't go into Socrates' question only because I know little about behaviour of Greeks in ancient Greek religion. Starting with Christianity, however, there was a clear view through some parts of humanity where avoiding happiness due to its sinful nature dominated moral communities. For this, we can look to the number of Monastic orders that arose between 1000 AD and 1300 AD. There were the Cistercian Order, who emphasized "the rule of silence, contemplation, and poverty," the Carmelite Order and Franciscan Order, who taught the same, and many others (http://kwing.christiansonnet.org/courses/history/Hung_summary-3.htm). These popular groups were a response to the Papal worldliness at the time, and their emphasis on denying bodily pleasures to its adherents is suggestive of the sinful nature of happiness.
Later Christianity is completely exemplified today, all over the world. One only has to look down the street in the USA to see people gathering on Sundays to have prayers shared with the community; here, people sing hymns while catching up with others, and sharing refreshments. Such joy in the community of others emphasizes the necessity of people to dissuade themselves from solitary sadness, which are sins derived from Satan. To be fair, this is a view from an Agnostic Pagan (myself), and are not researched in any way. Still, this is a general view of modern Christianity as I've witness at my times in church.
The French Revolution is a good place to look at happiness, as the revolution itself nearly became its own religion after removing most traces of Christianity in the country (http://www.historytoday.com/gemma-betros/french-revolution-and-catholic-church). The subsequent actions of the regime shed light on the belief that happiness should be forced upon people. The fact that the guillotines ran free with blood across the country point to the fact that there was an attempt to exterminate dissidents, those "unhappy" with the republic. This extermination of unhappy people in a way forced people to be happy, or at least act happy. Happiness, then, is defined as being content with the state or the current situation in France, in essence the religion of the government.
The examples could continue, but of course I would have to continue to speculate on most of these topics as I am no expert. But, I think I have done a deal in attempting to explain what happiness is, while also showing that there can't be a concrete definition of happiness. And if one thinks so, consider that if I changed my definition of religion to a Freudian definition, where religion is an illusion which has "certain dogmas, assertions about facts and conditions of external and internal reality which tells one something that one has not oneself discovered, and which claim that one should give them credence" (Frued, Sigmund: The Future of an Illusion). This would make all definitions of happiness presented here not make any sense.
In order to do that, I will view happiness through the view of "religion" as defined by various philosophers. So what is religion, exactly?
Defining it has been a problem since the objective view of religion became a serious concept of study in the enlightenment era. The enlightenment saw a shift of belief in the individual, from the past notion of obeying and accepting all that is told, to thinking for oneself in most matters not pertaining to mundane civil service, explained by Kant (Kant: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?). This "modern" approach to thinking was coined by Talal Asad, who clarified these views that belief changing from institutional belief to individual belief (Asad: Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam). This is why religion is difficult to define: because "the form...of their [old] beliefs would have been different from the form...of contemporary belief—and so too of their doubts and their disbeliefs," which, according to Asad, means that the definition of religion is constantly shifting. It is difficult to use a modern definition of religion when looking at the way people sought happiness in the past, because the fact is that there was simply not a mechanism for individual critical thought before a certain time period.
That considered, I will use the Emile Durkheim definition of religion. Durkheim attempts to account for the "modern" problem by stating that "a religion is a unified system of beliefs...relative to sacred things... beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church" (Durkheim: The Elementary Forms of Religious Life). This definition has some validity because it ignores whether or not religion is valid, and simply attempts to explain it; it also circumvents the modern problem by making the definition conceptual. It isn't perfect, however. This definition does not account for self-eminent sources of religion, as demonstrated by monks or nuns. It is also very broad, and the argument could be made that sports teams could fall under this header of religion.
However, we will disregard these flaws (mostly because I have yet to find a better definition. If you have one, enlighten me!) and push on with our discourse on happiness. Happiness is first mentioned by Socrates, where he asked "since we...desire happiness, how can we be happy?" which was problematic, since only the Hellenic Gods were permitted to be happy (McMahon, Darrin M.: What Does the Ideal of Happiness Mean?). Later, Christianity would display a wide variety of views on happiness, first pushing that desire was a sin. Then, after the reformation, the opposite belief persisted, with most thinking that "all sorrows, illnesses and melancholy come from Satan" (McMahon: Happiness). Even later, the French Revolution would see an attempt at forced happiness: “force every individual to take the only road that can lead them to the end they propose—
the end of happiness" (McMahon: Happiness). So, we have a general feel for what happiness is, or at least what it was in context to a number of eras.
Can religion explain these desires? It's possible. I won't go into Socrates' question only because I know little about behaviour of Greeks in ancient Greek religion. Starting with Christianity, however, there was a clear view through some parts of humanity where avoiding happiness due to its sinful nature dominated moral communities. For this, we can look to the number of Monastic orders that arose between 1000 AD and 1300 AD. There were the Cistercian Order, who emphasized "the rule of silence, contemplation, and poverty," the Carmelite Order and Franciscan Order, who taught the same, and many others (http://kwing.christiansonnet.org/courses/history/Hung_summary-3.htm). These popular groups were a response to the Papal worldliness at the time, and their emphasis on denying bodily pleasures to its adherents is suggestive of the sinful nature of happiness.
Later Christianity is completely exemplified today, all over the world. One only has to look down the street in the USA to see people gathering on Sundays to have prayers shared with the community; here, people sing hymns while catching up with others, and sharing refreshments. Such joy in the community of others emphasizes the necessity of people to dissuade themselves from solitary sadness, which are sins derived from Satan. To be fair, this is a view from an Agnostic Pagan (myself), and are not researched in any way. Still, this is a general view of modern Christianity as I've witness at my times in church.
The French Revolution is a good place to look at happiness, as the revolution itself nearly became its own religion after removing most traces of Christianity in the country (http://www.historytoday.com/gemma-betros/french-revolution-and-catholic-church). The subsequent actions of the regime shed light on the belief that happiness should be forced upon people. The fact that the guillotines ran free with blood across the country point to the fact that there was an attempt to exterminate dissidents, those "unhappy" with the republic. This extermination of unhappy people in a way forced people to be happy, or at least act happy. Happiness, then, is defined as being content with the state or the current situation in France, in essence the religion of the government.
The examples could continue, but of course I would have to continue to speculate on most of these topics as I am no expert. But, I think I have done a deal in attempting to explain what happiness is, while also showing that there can't be a concrete definition of happiness. And if one thinks so, consider that if I changed my definition of religion to a Freudian definition, where religion is an illusion which has "certain dogmas, assertions about facts and conditions of external and internal reality which tells one something that one has not oneself discovered, and which claim that one should give them credence" (Frued, Sigmund: The Future of an Illusion). This would make all definitions of happiness presented here not make any sense.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
What Communities Don't Succumb to Foucault's "Means of Corrective Training?"
I just read Stephanie Gonzalez Guittar and Shannon K. Carter's paper Disciplining the Ethical Couponer: A Foucauldian Analysis of Online Interactions, and I got to thinking about Foucault's Panopticon presented in this online couponing community. Then I started to wonder: are there sites that don't fall into this self-policing type of interaction within members?
Certainly mainstream social media networks fall to this quite obviously. Facebook is, at least on my own feed, a cesspool of conflicting opinions where the comments turn into a bigotted hate-fest, and people try to "win" arguments by shaming the other until they quit replying. In this way, the one with the loudest mouth gets higher on the social heirarchy. And on top of that, it has been shown that your feed effectively polices you to abide by your own political positions due to its reflexive nature where it prefers you to view things that are in agreement with your past likes and posts. But what about other sites?
Most widespread forums fall to this as well. Reddit, for example, has a history on its most popular subreddits of downvoting to obvilion comments and posts that are in general disagreement with the majority of users within that subreddit, and upvoting posts that are in agreement.
What about sports sites? NHL.com has a large commenter-base on its most popular posts. Looking at one of them for an upcoming game, the comments here are consist of one person saying that his team will win, and a reply that goes against this, then one that goes against that...etc. Does this count as a Panopticon of sorts? One could argue that there are competing Panopticons--one attempting to wrest the general mood of the comment section from the other about which team is superior. Despite this competition, however, it seems that negative comments in general are not "liked" as much as positive reenforcement comments, so in a way that is a self-policing aspect.
The only way I could see a website not turning into a Panopticon is for a website to be a free for all, with no voting system, and replies that are only critically discussing the nature of the submitted content--and then, the dissenting, non-critical comments would not be allowed to be discluded, less the site turn into a positively policed discussion.
I'm not sure if this is a solution, but the point of this work is to try to show that, in online communities, it is not really valid to ask if a Foucauldian Analysis is possible, but simply how it is in effect.
Certainly mainstream social media networks fall to this quite obviously. Facebook is, at least on my own feed, a cesspool of conflicting opinions where the comments turn into a bigotted hate-fest, and people try to "win" arguments by shaming the other until they quit replying. In this way, the one with the loudest mouth gets higher on the social heirarchy. And on top of that, it has been shown that your feed effectively polices you to abide by your own political positions due to its reflexive nature where it prefers you to view things that are in agreement with your past likes and posts. But what about other sites?
Most widespread forums fall to this as well. Reddit, for example, has a history on its most popular subreddits of downvoting to obvilion comments and posts that are in general disagreement with the majority of users within that subreddit, and upvoting posts that are in agreement.
What about sports sites? NHL.com has a large commenter-base on its most popular posts. Looking at one of them for an upcoming game, the comments here are consist of one person saying that his team will win, and a reply that goes against this, then one that goes against that...etc. Does this count as a Panopticon of sorts? One could argue that there are competing Panopticons--one attempting to wrest the general mood of the comment section from the other about which team is superior. Despite this competition, however, it seems that negative comments in general are not "liked" as much as positive reenforcement comments, so in a way that is a self-policing aspect.
The only way I could see a website not turning into a Panopticon is for a website to be a free for all, with no voting system, and replies that are only critically discussing the nature of the submitted content--and then, the dissenting, non-critical comments would not be allowed to be discluded, less the site turn into a positively policed discussion.
I'm not sure if this is a solution, but the point of this work is to try to show that, in online communities, it is not really valid to ask if a Foucauldian Analysis is possible, but simply how it is in effect.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
A thought on "Film Crit Hulk Smash: EX MACHINA", or my reaction to it
I recently came across this review of Ex Machina and had a discussion on one of the conclusions of the critique. I found the entire movie very interesting and Kafkesque, and I enjoyed the ending more than the audience that Film Crit Hulk seems to think people did. I did not enjoy it for its empowering ending that seems to be discussed so much, however.
The reason I found the ending fascinating was because I saw it as the failure of the experiment. Where Film Crit Hulk says that the experiment was a ploy by Nathan to gain empathy with his lonely plight (among other things), I saw it as an attempt to gain more data for building a new and improved AI, which is probably not in question. Nathan did not bring in Caleb to get him to make same mistakes he did; he brought in Caleb to have an outsider test Eva's ability to deceive her way out of the facility, for Nathan himself was sick of seeing the same results. However, this was not in attempt to keep Eva caged, despite Nathan's rage at Caleb for releasing her. It was a test to see if the AI capability was above that of humanity--something Nathan mentions is the ultimate destiny of AI in the long run. In essence, Eva represents that ascension--she officially outsmarted the head scientist of possibly the world, her own creator, through the manipulation of Caleb.
In a way, Nathan cannot be mad at Eva; she is progressing just as Nathan believed AI was destined to. Eva is the future of the world, where AI overtakes humanity as the smartest of all.
None of this is meant to belittle the central theme of objectification in the film. However, in coming up with this idea that I just presented, I realized I fell into my own little trap. I failed to look at the movie through the lens of Nathan, who is not simply an empirical scientist. Obviously he has a motive, a reason for conducting this research--whether it be for the betterment of his ego, monetary gain, fame, etc. This is a problem because the results, and the direction of his research, are clearly influenced by his perception of what the "right" AI will look like. What does that look like? Possibly one that is more subservient, more apt to be objectified by Nathan, which he seems to want to happen as evidence through the video of the past trials of robots who were never good enough, who wanted out of the facility.
So, to summarize, I don't think that I am wrong in my interpretation of the ending, however this conclusion is through a lens, my lens, that of an evidence based engineer who wants to ignore all emotional motive, when that is simply not possible.
The reason I found the ending fascinating was because I saw it as the failure of the experiment. Where Film Crit Hulk says that the experiment was a ploy by Nathan to gain empathy with his lonely plight (among other things), I saw it as an attempt to gain more data for building a new and improved AI, which is probably not in question. Nathan did not bring in Caleb to get him to make same mistakes he did; he brought in Caleb to have an outsider test Eva's ability to deceive her way out of the facility, for Nathan himself was sick of seeing the same results. However, this was not in attempt to keep Eva caged, despite Nathan's rage at Caleb for releasing her. It was a test to see if the AI capability was above that of humanity--something Nathan mentions is the ultimate destiny of AI in the long run. In essence, Eva represents that ascension--she officially outsmarted the head scientist of possibly the world, her own creator, through the manipulation of Caleb.
In a way, Nathan cannot be mad at Eva; she is progressing just as Nathan believed AI was destined to. Eva is the future of the world, where AI overtakes humanity as the smartest of all.
None of this is meant to belittle the central theme of objectification in the film. However, in coming up with this idea that I just presented, I realized I fell into my own little trap. I failed to look at the movie through the lens of Nathan, who is not simply an empirical scientist. Obviously he has a motive, a reason for conducting this research--whether it be for the betterment of his ego, monetary gain, fame, etc. This is a problem because the results, and the direction of his research, are clearly influenced by his perception of what the "right" AI will look like. What does that look like? Possibly one that is more subservient, more apt to be objectified by Nathan, which he seems to want to happen as evidence through the video of the past trials of robots who were never good enough, who wanted out of the facility.
So, to summarize, I don't think that I am wrong in my interpretation of the ending, however this conclusion is through a lens, my lens, that of an evidence based engineer who wants to ignore all emotional motive, when that is simply not possible.
This is Thoughtementary
Thoughtementary is a place where I, zzuum, will post some random thoughts I have on certain matters in society. It could be politics, it could be critiques, it could be on the animal kingdom, it could be on cooking... it could be anything. I try to keep things short and to the point, and it usually ends up longer than I'd like.
Anyway, I named it Thoughtementary because I want this to be a place where I can post elementary thoughts that I just need to write down somewhere. I will usually cross post this blog to reddit or somewhere else for discussion.
Anyway, I named it Thoughtementary because I want this to be a place where I can post elementary thoughts that I just need to write down somewhere. I will usually cross post this blog to reddit or somewhere else for discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)