Skip to main content

When people are porn

My story has occasioned a healthy amount of reaction around the web, including from TED and Chris Anderson himself.

First, the snark: Maura at The Awl (a commentary site run by ex-Gawkers) calls the story “breathless” and “smug”. Most of the commentators admit that they enjoy watching TED talks anyway. I batted back with some snark of my own but also tried to answer what i took as her serious point, which was that TED seems just as elitist as the old-line institutions it’s being compared with:

“I actually think we have similar concerns about elitism vs. openness.

My contention is that many of the cool things that TED does spread more widely than the cool things that Harvard does, because of its attitude toward openness and its use of social media.
Harvard has a crappy open courseware site–it’s very difficult to find and view many Harvard lectures online. MIT has the best open courseware site, but even the most-watched video lectures have been watched a few hundred K times, while the most watched TED talks have been viewed over 6 million times.

Lectures are admittedly a small percentage of the benefit offered by either TED or Harvard, but they’re not nothing. The spread of the TEDx platform with over 600 events worldwide offers a way for ever-more people to participate, often for free, in a much closer approximation to the TED experience. I would love to see Harvard & Yale try something like that.”

Open Culture, a cultural blog, took umbrage too: “Will watching 18 minute lectures – ones that barely scratch the surface of an expert’s knowledge – really teach you much? And when the 18 minutes are over, will the experts stick around and help you become a critical thinker, which is the main undertaking of the modern university after all?”

I responded: “I never claimed that watching TED talks=attending Harvard. If you read the article closely, I’m asking if *participating in* TED–and to a lesser but broader extent, TEDx–-confers a lot of the benefits of attending Harvard, albeit in abbreviated (and much cheaper) form. That means talking about the ideas with the presenters, including asking questions; forming relationships with fellow TEDsters; and having TED on your resume, which can open all kinds of doors.

In addition, I’m asking if there’s any way that Harvard and other universities can follow TED’s lead and open up to more people. When a single Harvard lecture has been viewed 5 million + times on YouTube, this goal will be closer to being reached.

[. . .]

Finally, TED’s Chris Anderson seems to be getting concerned that TED is being accused of overreaching. When the article came out, he Tweeted “Fast Company have just published
a truly amazing feature on #TED. Wow. http://bit.ly/aNOsQH.”

Today, he added, linking to Salam’s and Yglesias’s posts above, “For the record, we don’t for 1 min think “TED is
the new Harvard”! http://bit.ly/arU8Z1 Backlash! http://bit.ly/ciCJEV“ (Anya Kamenentz, “Is TED the New Harvar? Reactions from around the web,” DIY U, 16 August 2010)

People seem irritated that your response wasn’t properly subdued (i.e., too breathless). Your real “problem” — as is true with other good people like Alfie Kohn — is that you truly understand that EDUCATION, LEARNING is the point, with how we get “there” a truly open possibility. The way you think is that if someone is educated, and you find out that this person got that way sans university but simply Goodwill Hunting-like through a library card, then you’re one to give the library full credence: “it” doesn’t first acknowledge the university (as) clear master before listing its strengths, but, through evidence, has proven it can stand fully equal to all. This isn’t what’s going on in other people’s minds, and to them it’s merely convenient that TED’s lectures are gratefully near-dismissably only 18 minutes long. What they’re thinking is that becoming educated is primarily about being educated, being acted upon, by someone else — being broken in. They dismiss TED for its apparent lack of interactivity, but what they hate about it is actually that it seems to privilege the individual’s right to be an active, choosing, fully-enabled “consumer” of education — what they see probably as its “fickleness.” In a way, to a certain extent, the web-browser becomes akin to empowered gentleman-amateur of the past, who would attend a professional’s lectures but never once feel his inferior: s/he has picked and chosen, sampled and savored, and became more worldly; the professional wallows in a technician’s expertise. People just now aren’t any longer allowed / permitted to think of themselves that way: the web has demonstrated that people are porn, not participants or prodigies. Itunes U (to them) is better, because it’s potentially more arduous — it’s not so much about entertaining, about lecturers finding ways to please your credit-worthy sensibilities, but about you developing the discipline, the seriousness, to best engage with them: they’re reaching out, but the signal will not be received unless you’re able to listen (a talent best nurtured, of course, after serious engagement with a physical university). The “they” I’m talking about are moving away from the more Romantic estimation of people as flowering best away from institutions, toward understanding them as requiring the breaking-in that institutions can still yet enable. Names like “Harvard,” “Princeton,” “MIT” are summoned not to be matched or breezed-by, but because the overall cacophony and indulgent behavior is such that it REQUIRES the attention, the schooling-down, of long-experienced 'wakening Kings.

Interactivity is being mentioned a lot. I’m with Stanley Greenspan (note: he’s as good as Kohn) in thinking that back-and-forth conversation is so all. But as the psychiatrist R.D. Laing made clear when he established how the wrong sorts of conversations can lead to the like of schizophrenia, further involvement isn’t always to be preferred to standing back, aloof, and in charge. Personally, I don’t much trust that interactivity in universities isn’t now more about a way to feel more securely enmeshed behind walls that are keeping the rabble at bay. Not about responsiveness for growth, but about further relinquishing for security and safety.

Link: Is TED the New Harvard? Reactions from around the web

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

"Life" as political analogy, coming to you via Breitbart News

Immediately after seeing the film, I worked over whether or not the movie works as something the alt-right would produce to alienate us from the left. Mostly the film does work this way  -- as a sort of, de facto, Breitbart production -- I decided, though it's not entirely slam-dunk. There is no disparagement evident for the crew of the space station being a multicultural mix, for instance. Race is not invisible in the film; it feels conspicuous at times, like when the Japanese crew member is shown looking at his black wife on video conference; but the film maker, wherever he was actually raised, seems like someone who was a longtime habitat of a multicultural milieu, some place like London, and likes things that way. But the film cannot convince only as macabre relating to our current fascination with the possibility of life on Mars -- what it no doubt pretends to be doing -- because the idea of “threat” does not permeate this interest at all, whereas it absolutely saturates our …