Thoughts on "The Diamond Age"

As I first started reading "The Diamond Age", I had a hard time getting through the techno-babble.  Stephenson goes to great lengths early in the story to provide technical detail to various technologies that are talked about throughout the book.  However, after trudging through, I realized that it was a necessary ingredient to the story and made further reading easier to understand.

The underlying theme of the story, world globalization, was a good place to end our reading of colonialism and gave me a lot to think about.  In fact, what's still rumbling around in my pea-brain is the idea of philes / tribes replacing governments in the future.  This led to me start thinking (yes critically) about how we're already well on our way towards that reality.

If you buy into the idea that companies have HUGE influence on the world's economy, and that companies have a HUGE influence on politics and government, is it really that much of stretch to think that they don't already control the world?  While there might not be a country called "IBM" or "Oracle", how far are we from seeing such a reality?

This led to me imagining a time in the near future, when some huge conglomerate (let's say Futuretech, Inc.) buys out a large chunk of it's competitors and now becomes the leading manufacturer of nano technology.  Futuretech, Inc. then decides that it would be in its best interests to buy up a large section of land in Africa (the size of a small country) by buying off leaders and making them ceremonial high ranking company officials, and place its headquarters and all manufacturing there.  They relocate all of their research and manufacturing to this new Futuretech, Inc capital and begin terraforming the landscape to meet their agricultural and biotechnology needs.  In doing so, towns are built for employees and other companies are allowed to setup shop to meet the service industry needs (Wal-Mart and KFC anyone?).

After this happens, it doesn't take Futuretech, Inc. long to realize that there needs to be laws in put into place (codes of conduct) with some kind of justice system.  Police and judges are hired to enforce these codes of conduct and anyone wishing to live or work in Futuretech, Inc. will have to agree and abide by the codes of conduct.  Protecting their interests and ensuring that warlords from other areas of Africa don't try and get any ideas, Futuretech, Inc. hires the French Foreign Legion as its military force.  Futuretech, Inc. decides that it likes the idea so much, that it BUYS the French Foreign Legion and spawns a new division of the company called FutureTech Defense, Inc. with the goals of protecting themselves and contracting out these services to other similar companies or governments.

Currency would be an issue and so to make things easier, Futuretech, Inc. decides that it should conduct business using an already established monetary system called the EU.  This would provide compatibility with the rest of world's markets and allow Futuretech, Inc. the ability to regulate its own economic environment.

I could go on and on, but I think that this may have been what Stephenson had envisioned as the prehistory of "The Diamond Age".  Companies becoming so powerful that they in and of themselves take on their own global identity and adopt their own unique corporate culture.  The citizens themselves, would be working for the common goal of protecting the interests of the company instead of a country.

Far fetched?  Maybe not.

Abstract: Root Cause of Colonialism

There is little doubt that colonialism has changed the face of the planet and continues to affect postcolonial societies in a number of different ways.  Fusing of cultures, religion, economics, and language are but of few of the results of postcolonialism.  Some societies have adapted markedly well while others have fallen into abject poverty, civil war, social unrest, and in extreme cases extinction.  Regardless of the outcomes, this essay examines the texts we have read throughout the semester in an effort to determine the underlying reason ,or the "why", for colonialism in the first place.  The answer is undoubtedly capitalism.

In examining colonial Europe, the common thread found in examining the question of why colonialism happened can be seen clearly in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness",  Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart", and V.S. Naipaul's "The Mimic Men".   These novels show how the Europeans used various pretexts for rationalizing the colonization of other countries, in order to pave the way for private enterprise to make money.

Looking into more recent history, Ha Jin's story, "After Cowboy Chicken Came to Town" shows how America, a postcolonial society itself, uses capitalism as a means of spreading culture and values to other countries. Future evidence of capitalism's role in colonialism can be examined in the Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age".  In "The Diamond Age", we see a future "globalized" world that is controlled by tribes instead of countries.   In examining the relationship between the tribes and globalization, we see evidence that the most successful tribes are really technology corporations who's citizens are members of the corporate culture.

Pundits may argue that there were other reasons for colonialism, such as religion, and that capitalism played a secondary role.  Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies", Diamond provides evidence through historical facts that the driving force behind colonialism was completely based on capitalism.  Further evidence can be found in Juan Gonzalez's "Harvest Empire" where he explores the history behind Spanish colonialism and provides compelling evidence that colonialism is rooted in capitalism.

Works Cited

Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Norton, 2009.

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. New York: Norton, 2009.

Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.

Gonzalez, Juan. Harvest of Empire. New York: Penguin, 2000.

Naipal, V.S. The Mimic Men. New York: Vintage, 1967.

Stephenson, Neal. The Diamond Age. New York: Bantam, 2008.
Jin, Ha. "After Cowboy Chickin Came To Town." Jin, Ha. The Bridegroom. New York: Vintage, 2000. 184-225.

Abstract: Colonialism - The Root Cause

Throughout the semester, we've been reading story after story about the affects of colonialism throughout various parts of the world.  While we have discussed the implications and effects of colonialism on both the colonizers and the colonized, we did not spend a great deal of time discussing the "why".  My essay will focus on the "why" by looking at the root cause (reasons) of colonialism: Capitalism.  Using the texts from our reading, along with additional material about U.S. colonialism I will be able to demonstrate that the single driving force behind all colonialism lies not with religion (although it is often used as justification) but greed, pure and simple.

The following is a list of works I currently plan to use:

Juan Gonzalez. "Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America". New York: Penguin 2000.
Joseph Conrad. "Heart of Darkness". New York: Norton, 2005.
Jared Diamond. "Guns, Germs, and Steel". New York: Norton, 1997.
Bernard MacLaverty. "Cal". New York: Norton, 1995.
Achebe, Chinua. "Things Fall Apart". New York: Anchor, 1994.
Naipaul, V. S.  "The Mimic Men". Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969.
Jin, Ha. "After Cowboy Chickin Came To Town." Jin, Ha. The Bridegroom. New York: Vintage, 2000. 184-225.

A Painful Case

I think the underlying theme of the story is how cities (and society) can give us an excuse to withdraw into our selves and forego dealing with other people on an emotional level.  It's very easy to get lost in crowd and forget what its like to have an emotional attachment to anyone.  The main character in this story definitely falls into this category.

However, a series of (chance?) encounters with Emily leads to friendship and his detachments begin to erode.  For the first time (ever?) he begins to find a friendship and companion who he can share his thoughts and emotions with but at the same time feels safe because she's married.  As I read this, I thought that he might actually have been using her marriage as an excuse NOT to get too close.  Sure, she was married, and their relationship was "improper", but they did have a common bond.

It was when she touched his face to his that it all clicked for me.  She got too close and he used his ability to emotional detach (hiding in a big city?) as an excuse to break off the relationship.  The books he was reading suggest that he was conflicted about the relationship and was looking for a way to justify it.  For example, when he wrote some quotes from Nietzche suggesting that men and women couldn't be friends because there was intercourse involved, he was using that as an excuse to justify his behavior.

Of course, after he found out that she was dead,it finally sank in.  He was a cold hearted SOB and the one person whom he had an attachment to was now dead, possibly because of him.  At this moment, he realized that he had blown it and that he may never find another.  In her death, he was now unable to hide his emotions and detach.  She had gotten to him in the same way he had gotten to her.  He was heartbroken.  

A Temporary Matter

Let me start this blog post off with "sorry I'm late to the party."  I actually started to work on this last night but was a bit confused.  I poked around at various blogs and didn't see anything related to Lahiri.  I then cowardly looked at other peep's blogs and noticed that they hadn't posted either.  I was waiting for someone to go so I could figure out what I was doing wrong.   After a bit more poking around and scrolling way way way down, I finally saw the Lahiri posts.  My bad...


This post is in response to Auggie's post on Lahiri and his idea that her writing suggests that marriages are fragile.  To use Julie's analogy of viewing this under a different " lens", I'm going to take a closer look at their respective roles in a traditional Indian marriage.

While I don't disagree that Lahiri might be making the statement that marriage is a fragile thing, I think that the story delves deeper into issues of Indian culture in America.  For example, if we buy into the idea that Indian women are to be subservient to their men, then we have to look at this story as being contrary to that.  


What I mean is that in this story, we see a man and woman of Indian descent that are dealing with the loss of a child.  Each person is dealing with (or not) this loss and the story revolves around not only how they dealt with it individually, but as a couple.  However, in the story, we see that the stereotypical roles Indians are associated with simply do not apply.  For example, it is the husband who is so distraught that he has had to stay home (can't teach) and work on his dissertation.  The wife on the other hand goes back to work as soon as possible.  This is our first clue that not only are the roles reversing, but that each is dealing with the issue differently.  


The husband is actually trying to deal with it.  He is clearly depressed and sad.  However, in spite of this, he assumes the womanly role around the house and cooks the food and cleans the house.  His wife on the other hand goes back to work almost immediately.  She comes home late, throws her stuff around like she lives in a hotel (for him to clean up no doubt) and doesn't actually engage in the relationship.  Sure sounds like role reversal to me.


It is when the power is out and they are eating by candlelight that they are able to finally break through the ice a bit and start communicating again.  The naive husband is delighted by this and begins to feel as though they might actually be heading in the right direction.  During their conversations we begin to learn some of their secrets.  The wife details various secrets, which upon closer examination, detail her selfishness.  The husbands' secrets however, detail his selflessness.  For example, the wife mentions staying late to go out with a coworker for drinks.   The husbands mentions forgetting to tip a waiter and driving all the way back to give him a tip.   His motives were always for her benefit and her motives were for her own benefit.


Near the end of the story the husband learns that she has been staying late to find an apartment.  While it certainly hurt him, his response was unselfish.  He wanted her to deal with the problem and  to face the fact that "they" had  both lost a child.  He told her that he had seen and held the child.  He was at the hospital that day. He didn't say anything because he was keeping a promise to her that he wouldn't tell her the sex of the child.  It wasn't until he felt that this was all he could do to help her did he betray his own promise.


In the end, I think we see a complete role reversal from a typical Indian couple.  The husband becomes the nurturer and the wife becomes the typical stubborn male not willing to deal with her problems.  Do they get back together?  Who knows.  But his unselfishness causes her to finally break down and feel something.


Any thoughts?

FA331 Group Art Project - Teamalicious

Hello all, welcome to group #1.  Please post your email addresses so we can at least keep in touch.

maurice.smiley@email.wsu.edu

Conrad, Jin, and Postcolonial Literature

After spending a few days reading and discussing Jin's work, it's clear to me now that he had something to say and used English as his means of saying it.  Had he chosen to write it in Chinese, he would have alienated the very audience for which (I believe) he intended his writing for.  That is to say that Jin wanted westerners to gain a better understanding of the political and cultural differences between the east and west.  What's interesting in his writing is that he is very careful and deliberate in painting a scene and telling a story without actually demonizing anyone. For example, in "Saboteur" he writes about the police have mistreated a Chiu.  Instead of going on and on about how EVIL the state is, he balances the story with Chiu later purposefully spreading his hepatitis.  In "Cowboy Chicken", he shows Mr. Shapiro as a greedy capitalist, but he then shows the Chinese actually doing the same things when they wanted to have Peter fired and his divided amongst them.  He has had his feet firmly planted in both worlds and uses that knowledge to tell creative stories that reflect the realities of life in China. 

Had Conrad written his novel in Polish there's almost every certainty that his writing would have fallen into that exclusive group of writers in Poland that had a lot to say, with no audience to read it.  All kidding aside, I believe that Conrad made a conscious choice in writing in English because he knew very well that the majority of the powers most involved in colonialism at the time were in fact Western Europeans and almost all, English speaking on some level.  Even the Americans were involved in colonialism (just ask the Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and almost everyone in Central and South America).  To make the greatest impact and reach the largest target audience, he made the only logical choice at the time.  Of course, we'll never really know what would have become of it if he had written in French or Spanish, but my guess is that it would have whithered on the vine.  He took advantage of a receptive audience and made the most of his it.