The lack of intelligence in the humanities
A whilte back I mentioned that I had an old school essay that I wanted to post online. In the same flavor of the Sokal hoax, I wanted to see how much I could get away with by spouting nonesense if it fit the teacher’s ideas.
As a little background, as a part of my engineering degree, I was required to take a course on the impact of technology on society. This deals largely with how people perceive technology, and so forth. However, it seemed as although I was sitting though a Marx lecture. I even brought upthe word ‘proletariat’ once just to see what the teacher would think. Anyways, as a part of the course we were required to write an essay on any piece of technology. And by technology, the professor meant any way of doing something. She suggested that we could do a garbage can if we so chose.
My initial thoughts were to go with a surface-mount resistor. They are found on circuit boards and are pretty much plain blocks of carbon stampted with a number. Not very exciting, but fund to play with. She rejected that idea, but accepted my second proposal. In my frustrated state, I picked up the pen I had in front of me and decided to use it. The Mitsubishi uni-ball ballpoint pen.
The goal of my essay was not to get a high mark. Though a low mark could have conceivably required me to repeat courses, I wanted to see what kind of intellectual honesty was present in the sociology department. I prepared the most rediculous paper that I could in the time alloted and with the resources available. I ended up with one of the highest marks in the class - 87 on that paper. I later realized that I missed a few opportunities to go over the top, but was nonetheless happy with the result.
A freind of mine who works for another, related, department told me that because I had submitted the paper and it was (mostly) grammatically correct and reasoned, they had to give me a good mark. I take exception to getting a high mark for something with obviously little intellectual rigor. In fact, I was hoping that I would flunk the paper - at least this way I could claim that the department held some intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, I can’t. I’m now publishing this because I have recieved my degree and they would have a hard time punishing my for my actions. Here’s the text:
Dehumanization and the uni-ball Ballpoint Pen
Sociology 2755
Garrett Kajmowicz
March 29, 2005The Mitsubishi uni-ball pen is one of the more popular mid-range writing instruments. Yet, like all other pieces of technology, it carries values with it. These values need to be properly understood in order to understand the context in which they are used and how they impact society, especially preconceived notions of societal norms. These can be found in the structural reinforcement offered by the styling and manufacture of the pen, the physical requirements to use the writing instrument and the emphasis it places on writing. The pen will be shown to carry an extensive underlying set of social values.
When one first looks at the pen, it is easy to be in awe of the instrument. It is solid flat black with a matching cap with a flat silver clip. Upon removing the cap, the exposed part of the pen shaft is shiny black, as although something special has been brought to life. Upon further examination, it is discovered that the pen is made out of plastic. However, unlike inexpensive pens used by students and lower class individuals, the pen is styled to evoke a sense of power and authority. It does not compare with the styling of an expensive metal pen used by the upper class executives, but projects an air of being of a certain minimum social standing.
Social standing is very important in hierarchical authority structures such as those found in corporate environments. Moreover, pens are used today primarily for the purposes of signing documents. As such, the use of a pen signifies both the completion of a significant amount of work, as well as the social standing of the person wielding it. As such, a well styled pen will be used to provide additional reinforcement of the position of the person using it. Since this pen is not of a style used to impress people in upper management, one can conclude that it is not intended to be used in such an environment. Such styling in a writing instrument is designed to solidify the power positions held by those in middle-class positions such as middle management.
Martin notes that generalized action has an impact on the design of an instrument. �The behavioural demands made on … operators caused a transformation in the … labour process, which was instrumental in the construction of a specific structure of the telephone system.� (Martin, P. 61). This quote shows how workers are directly effected by seemingly innocuous changes in technology and the form in which it is contained. This pen has changed how we look at power, appearance and technology. Thus the pen in question carries with it the existing values of the corporate structure, but it is designed to reinforce the power structures within the bourgeoisie � middle management.
While the styling has been previously mentioned, its manufacture has not. The uni-ball pen is largely of plastic construction, both the exterior as well as the ink reservoir. This belies a subtle point � the pen is designed only for short-term use. Unlike a more expensive refillable pen, the uni-ball ballpoint pen is designed specifically to be disposable. The plastic exterior is designed to last through just enough use to use up the ink supplied with it. Already, the pen I have in front of me is developing scratches which mar the surface. This allows people of middle and lower-class backgrounds to attempt to elevate their status by using a good quality pen while at the same time investing little money. This promotes the societal importance of a facade. The use of plastic also shows disregard for the environment because it uses a scarce resource, oil, while harming the environment by creating more refuse. All of this is done in search of greater and reoccurring profits for the pen manufacturers.
The use of a writing instrument is an often-disregarded ability. In order to be able to write with the uni-ball pen, one must have sufficiently dexterous and strong fingers so as to be able to grip and manipulate it. This provides automatic discrimination against a large number of people for several reasons. Firstly, this requires that people have arms and fingers which blatantly discriminates against those who have suffered through the loss of a limb or digit. Such a loss either renders the pen unusable or vastly reduced in functionality.
Secondly, the uni-ball pen is unable to be used by people who suffer from neurological diseases or damage. This reduces the available strength and dexterity in the available limbs and digits. These two facts combine together to provide startling results: the uni-ball pen discriminates against some of society’s most vulnerable people. This lends significant weight to the pessimistic view of technology. Moreover, it enforces societal norms of people as being intact, without any physical impairments. These people are pushed to a lesser position by the role in which this piece of technology finds itself being used.
This view of conforming to a particular mold is echoed in by Martin when talking about the forming of the telephone operator: �To satisfy subscribers … the subjection of the operators was directed not only toward an increase of production as such, but also toward attitudes that met the ‘general,’ ‘ideal’ values of the ruling class.� (Martin, P. 65) This clearly illustrates that technology is only seen by the ruling class as worthwhile if it conforms to their preconceived notions of how society ought to be. In the case of the ballpoint pen, it assumes that everybody is of equal functioning and denigrates those who are significantly different. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a model of this pen will ever be made that would be easily used by people with mobility impairments.
People do not like to think about others with disabilities because it would remind them of their own physical fallibility. In �Chorea/graphing Chorea�, Wexler notes that �The number of people who are choosing to get tested [for Huntington’s disease] remains low, around 10 to 15 percent of all those at risk� (Wexler, P. 206). The possibility of knowing that they are at a greater risk for a disease puts people on edge. This is likely because, as Wexler also noted �the ability and fear women experience and seek to escape … are in part created by cultural values and biomedical institutions more interested in a quick fix and individualized remedies than in social and environmental change that might accommodate a wider range of disabilities.� (Wexler, P. 208). This clearly shows that people do not like to think about the possibility of their own body failing them. Moreover, it also shows that there is a systematic refusal to consider adoption of a wider range of inclusiveness in society. The uni-ball pen’s inability to be used by people with physical impairments reinforces that idea of shunning those who are different from ourselves instead of promoting the inclusiveness that modern society claims to support.
The final issue about the uni-ball ballpoint pen which needs to be addressed is that of emphasis on the written form. A ballpoint pen is by its nature designed for writing. The commercial success of this pen shows us that there is indeed a need for writing. In Western civilization, there is a premium put on writing. Reading and writing are considered the two most important things which define a learned person. These values are incorporated into the pen. However, incorporating such values into an object shows a distinct disregard for other traditions.
The written tradition is not the only system of knowledge communications used in the world. Even to this day in North America there is a complete set of oral traditions which are kept alive by aboriginal peoples. This entire system of knowledge is based around unwritten methods of keeping knowledge and culture alive. The mere existence of the uni-ball pen shows the general view of requiring writing to be civilized. This is combined with the carried value civilization requiring writing results in an object which is directly opposed to the oral traditions of aboriginal peoples. In short, this pen embodies the complete destruction of native culture and tradition.
As mentioned before, writing is highly regarded in Western civilization � the literacy rate is extremely high. According to the CIA World Factbook, the world literacy rate is 77%. To compare, Canada and the United States of America have a literacy rate of approximately 97%. The United Kingdom and France both have a literacy rate of 99%. Because of the high literacy rates, governments are readily able to require forms to be filled out for government services, such as immigration services.
Requiring a skill found predominantly in your own society is way to reduce the number of immigrants which enter your country. This discrimination is most noticeable for potential immigrants from the most impoverished states in the world � those least likely be literate or to be able to afford education. Though this might not have been an intentional result, this emphasis on literacy carried in the uni-ball ballpoint pen serves to discriminate not just against potential immigrants but against the poorest people in the world. Literacy, being common in the Western world, readily allows free movement. However, the others, those frequently of different race, colour or culture are kept out of a state by the simple ability to require a form to be filled in. Thus a tradition of xenophobia and perhaps racism can be said to be associated with the uni-ball pen.
As has been shown, the Mitsubishi uni-ball ballpoint pen carries a wide variety of values with it. The pen reinforces existing class hierarchies through styling and promotes profit over environment values. People with physical difficulties are shut out from using the instrument. The pen is associated with the dismissal of non-written traditions speaking further to the discrimination suffered by aboriginal peoples around the world. Finally, the uni-ball also supports racism and Xenophobia. This is a shining example of why the pessimistic view of technology exists. The pen most definitely carries values with it.Works Cited
CIA World Factbook. 18 February 2005. Central Intelligence Agency. 18 March 2005.
Martin, Michele. �The Making of the Perfect Operator.� �Hello, Central?�: Gender, Technology and
Culture in the Formation of Telephone Systems. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press,
1991.
Wexler, Alice Ruth. �Chorea/graphic Chorea: The Dancing Body of Huntington’s Disease.�
Biotechnology and Culture: Bodies, Anxieties, Ethics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana
University Press, 2000.