Judging by Your Markings

I can be a rather skeptical reader — but sometimes more toward readers than authors.

The Shoemaker's Holiday by Thomas Dekker (1599)

Yup, the readers. You’re probably wondering how this works considering reading leaves no mark on a book, but sometimes these efforts are, sadly, not so invisible after all. Oh, you know who I’m talking about: those godless creatures who mark up library books! [crackle of thunder here]

I remember the first time I bought a heavily used book for a graduate class. I had taken so long to pick up the play, Thomas Dekker’s 1599 The Shoemaker’s Holiday, that all that was left was a battered copy with more lines highlighted than not. I had the hardest time with that book. I’m usually pretty good (or at least I used to be) at remembering where to find particular passages, but my reputation was seriously damaged with this episode. I could hardly recall where anything was located because I was thrown off by visual markers that, to me, meant nothing and only convoluted how I understood the play. I had no mental pictures of those pages.

It was then that I first began judging these invisible readers by how they mark up a book. After the first few pages, if a reader has highlighted what I think is fairly commonsensical, they get thumbs down, and I proceed through the rest of the book skipping any portions highlighted with that same pen. Or, if a person highlights what I would probably notice and shows herself to be fairly consistent about catching the good stuff, then I’ll come to pay more attention to the brightly yellowed portions of the book.

In recent years, I’ve been making heavy use of online booksellers to get a hold of what I need. When possible, I always buy new books, but if they are excessively expensive I’ll go for a used book and pay good attention to the descriptions booksellers give of their inventory. The only problem is many online booksellers have taken to writing almost no description of the book they’re selling. Instead they offer this kind of uselessness:

And then there are more comical instances like this:

Perhaps considerable?! I don’t know what that means — nor how my purchase benefits world literacy when I’m already quite literate, if I do say so myself — but it makes me think how cool it would be if booksellers could explain whether the markings are smart, uninformed, or some other variety. Not that I’d believe them, though. But it would be amusing.

I already own a copy of the book this last comment is on. I’m no stranger to highlighting, but I only do so when a book is particularly important to my work and when I expect to own that book for a long time to come. I’ve happily highlighted this copy because I expect it’ll remain mine, but it definitely makes me think about the lifecycle of highlighting. The next time I read this book, I’ll be more informed than the first time or the second or the third time through, so I won’t need nearly as many passages highlighted. Funny, isn’t it, how highlighting and leaving notes becomes a record of your intellectual status at the time of your reading?

These days I always highlight for a particular purpose. And it’s possible that neither I nor anyone else will ever match that exact purpose again. With time being a luxury I don’t have these days, I read for particular types of information rather than to piece together the trajectory of a book. It makes me think I’ll be (actually, I probably already am) one of those people who when asked to lend a book quickly shuffles through the pages first to see if there are any stupid comments that might ruin my credibility. Because I, too, will be judged. Alas.

marginalia_book_writing_lecture by hyperscholar (Flickr)

How Extreme is “Extreme?”

Image by flattop341 (flickr)

Um, not quite as much as it used to be?

Sigh. I’ve become hyperaware* of the word. I’d rather I didn’t, but now I’m beyond hope. Every time I hear someone say extremely, my ears perk up because it seems abused fairly often (and please note I didn’t say “extremely often”). Someone is always “extremely nice,” or a movie is “extremely boring,” or a resource is “extremely useful.”

But seriously, if so many mundane qualities are described as extreme, then what happens to all those real-life instances of actual, um,  extreme stuff? Hearing the word used improperly so many times, I began thinking maybe I have the wrong definition in my mental dictionary (like those times as a teacher when I see a word misspelled so many times that I begin to think the wrong spelling is correct). Fortunately for my sanity (but not for overcoming my pet peeve), Dictionary.com defines extreme as “of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average.” Exactly! (Except that “farthest” should be “furthest” in this instance I believe.)

But if by popular usage extreme now refers to qualities that are just a few measly degrees beyond the norm, then what do we use in its stead?

Enter UrbanDictionary.com. (They know everything.) Of course, the site wouldn’t even have an entry for something as boring as extreme or extremely, but – get this – they’ve got extremliest! A user defines the word as “more extreme than ever, used when u need to express an outrageous amount of extreme-ness.” Uh, right. That’s totally extremely clear.

My only conclusion is that some words appear to lose power with younger generations. I use awesome fairly frequently but rarely because I’m struck with awe. On occasions of awe, I might say something like whoa, which, to be honest, doesn’t add much to a conversation — so maybe I shouldn’t complain after all. If extremeliest is now required to evoke the same response that extreme used to bring, I suppose it’s kind of like the more mainstream ginormous substituting enormous. Nonetheless, I can’t guarantee I’ll be saying extremeliest any time soon. Alas.

Anyway, let’s take a look at some real life examples. A quick Google search brought these sites up:

• 50 Extremely Useful PHP Tools: I suppose it’s relative.
• Extremely Green: As in the color of spinach versus the color of celery? Meh.
• Extremely Hungary Festival: Clever!
• 55+ Extremely Useful Online Generators for Designers: Seems techy folks have a liking for “extremely useful” stuff.
• 30 Extremely Elegant Serif Fonts: An oxymoron? Isn’t “elegance” based on a culture’s aesthetic norms?
• Extremely Smart: Clever, but the site needs a wee bit updating to keep pace with its name.

Well, I feel better having gotten this rant off my chest. Now I dare you to keep your eyes and ears shut to the word ;)

_________________

* My browser showed “hyperaware” as being misspelled, so I Googled it to make sure the combined form is a word. Ironically enough, hyperaware is defined at Wiktionary.com as “extremely aware.” Ha! I’m amused.

Memory and Legacies

I don’t always catch episodes of This American Life on National Public Radio (NPR) — though I have taken to listening to them online now — but I caught one by accident a few weeks ago. By the time I finished my drive home, I was glued to the story and sat parked in front of my home.

“Remember Me” aired in early April, and it focuses on how individuals try to shape how their legacies will be remembered. I was struck, touched, disappointed, and then oddly relieved in hearing the first story (starting at minute 9). I don’t want to give it away; in fact, if I were you, I wouldn’t even read the description of the story online but just simply listen to it. Its unfolding is captivating.

The Art of Rejection

The Wall Street Journal just published an article about colleges and their rejection letters: “Rejection: Some Colleges Do It Better Than Others.” It’s a gives an interesting report on recent discussions on CollegeConfidential.com where college-bound students have shared details about the letters they received.

by Brymo, flickr

I was struck by one example. Admissions at Boston University tried (it would appear) to soften the blow by stating they “give special attention to applicants whose families have a tradition of study at Boston University.” But as one student responded, for someone who was attempting to follow his family tradition by attending the school such a comment wasn’t comforting at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

It’s always interesting when a message can be understood so differently from how the author(s) intended (yes, I know, I should stay away from the “intentionality” quagmire), and I do wonder if the letter writers were aware of how that line could be understood. But this example also reminded me of an opposite situation, one in which excessive celebration had others hang their heads down in shame. Okay, I’m exaggerating, but I do remember hearing a thank-you speech that had enough superlatives for those who had helped in the project to make others who hadn’t worked on the project fidget uncomfortably in their seats. Ouch.

But if you have a minute, you should check out a thread on CollegeConfidential.com where users are spoofing rejection letters. They made me smile :)

How Times Change….

My, my. Nothing like economic turmoil to wreak havoc on what a society thought it knew.

A Times article, “Can Marijuana Help Rescue California’s Economy” by Alison Statemen, reports that California is revisiting its strict rules on medicinal marijuana to consider whether the cash crop could help straighten out a bad economic situation. Apparently there’s enough money in the economy — it’s just a matter of what people are (not) spending it on.

According to Statemen, marijuana is California’s “biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales, dwarfing the state’s second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion annually.” Further, she writes, “[c]urrently, $200 million in medical marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to alcohol, while prohibiting its purchase to citizens under age 21.”

Another reason lawmakers are reevaluating legalizing marijuana is that it would result in the decrease of arrests, prosecution, and imprisonment, saving the state as much as $1 billion a year, Statement writes.

And, finally, adopting the law could make California “a model for other states” because as “[Democratic State Assembly member] Ammiano put it: ‘How California goes, the country goes.’” (Hmm. Perhaps this observation explains why the nation is so confused about gay marriage as well.)

Wow.

I’m really quite surprised, but I don’t know that I should be. Quite a bit would change and for the same reasons that some things have not. Smoking bans won’t result in a move toward outlawing cigarettes any time soon because the government makes a killing on taxing the item. Further, I’m sure a lot has been learned from the U.S era of alcohol prohibition. The country decided that profiting off alcohol consumption was better — economically — for the country than policing it’s illegal trafficking. If history repeats itself here, gone would be a black market and in would come flood of income in proper capitalist fashion.

In a rhetorical sense, one of the most interesting results would be a partial collapse of the War on Drugs. It could change quite a bit of what the nation stands for and how it continues to portray its surpriority in global terms. I don’t want to run too far ahead with this idea, but the change could be huge. In a time when the country has just finished a two-term presidency that resulted in a substantial rise in unfavorable feelings toward the country, I wonder how the doxa of the nation and the globe would change as a result of a change like this one.

Difficult times can change just about anything, it seems. Let’s wait and see what happens.

Harlot Symposium: Presidential Rhetoric

Check out Harlot’s latest call for contributions for a symposium on presidential rhetoric:

Presidents and Presidential Hopefuls of 2008/2009

Throughout a heady election season, the conclusion of a divisive administration, and an inauguration that attracted a record 1.8 million people to Washington D.C., American presidents and presidential hopefuls have performed a flurry of persuasive acts, some stilted, some eloquent, some mangled, some unintentional, some iconic. What have been the most pivotal moments in American politics in the last year? What stood out, made you laugh, made you yell, made you think? What conversations should the nation — and the world — have as we move forward?

We welcome short contributions of 500-750 words or video/audio productions of 1-2 minutes (or any combination thereof) that explore an issue or phenomenon you think is stimulating, amusing, or uncomfortable — as long as it is insightful. Submissions are due by Monday, March 2, 2009.

George W. Bush’s Farewell

I can’t help but feel it’s embarrassing the U.S. media has slighted its outgoing president.

Sure, his approval ratings are quite low, and sure a pilot crash landing on the Hudson River was riveting news, but I’m still surprised the major media outlets largely cut directly to and then directly away from President Bush’s farewell speech without giving much build up or much conversation afterward.

Even this Time’s piece from November 2008 says it’s “the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between,” and yet this article is anything but kind and celebratory. Googling “Bush” and “farewell address” shows an odd listing: The second hit is Ariana Huffington’s piece, “Bush’s Farewell Address: Still Delusional After All These Years,” which is anything but a charming look at Bush’s legacy. Even knowing the current atmosphere is not in Bush’s favor, I’m surprised the article ranks so high.

The eyes of the country are certainly looking forward, but it’s worth taking a look at how President Bush has been packaging the remaining days of his presidency. I can’t seem to remember where I read an article about the Bush administration working hard since the election to paint a flattering picture of the president, but it seems true. Bush gave a record number of interviews, and I recall reading a behind-the-scenes look at a day in the life of Bush, and the picture was flattering.

But then there’s Bush’s final press conference:

(The complete 47-minute press conference is hosted on C-SPAN)

I was watching CNN when I heard one commentator call Bush’s performance “pathetic.” They are really giving him no love.

And then there’s President Bush’s farewell address:

(Click here to see Part 2 of the farewell address.)

The speech contains some of the usual (see the transcript here) — gratitude for having served, a positive look toward the past, an optimisitic look toward the future, and honor expressed over remaining an American citizen (though I am surprised how close  line echos President Clinton’s farewell speech: Bush said, “It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your President. [. . .] I have been blessed to represent this nation we love. And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other – citizen of the United States of America,” while Clinton said, “In the years ahead, I will never hold a position higher or a covenant more sacred than that of President of the United States. But there is no title I will wear more proudly than that of citizen”). The speech also held some unusual moments, like the inclusion of American citizens and their individual stories, a touch that is reminiscent more of state of the union addresses than farewell speeches.

The line that struck me as the most poignant came after mention of the September 11th attacks:

As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did.

Sadly, what followed didn’t build up on the emotion of the statement. The job of the president can be a lonely, harrowing experience. Some more humanity and  humility in the president’s words and demeanor would probably have the media — and the public — respond more sympathetically and respectfully to a departing United States President.

Dearest Nobody

In the news yesterday, the U.S. Army apologized for 7,000 letters sent to the surviving families of deceased soldiers who fought in the present Iraq war. Apparently the contracted company suffered a printing problem where the placeholder salutation, “Dear John Doe,” was not properly replaced with the recipients’ names and titles. Ouch. The letters were meant to notify the fallen soldiers’ families of services or gifts they could receive from nonprofit organizations.

(Download the .pdf file hosted by CNN here.)

(On a quick side note, I’m fascinated that they chose to capitalize “Soldier” and “Survivor.” While the move strikes me as archaic, it’s simultaneously respectful for that exact reason.)

I don’t bring up this story to poke fun at the U.S. Army for this mistake — it’s much too sensitive an issue — but I wonder how  the recipients must have responded to the letters. The Army has supposedly sent out an apology, but I can’t seem to locate it. You can read their press release here.

I am reminded of two related stories. One is admittedly minor and even silly in comparison, and the second is one that comes with the gravity of history, great loss, and a way with words from an important man.

Related Story #1

On November 5th, 2008, I received an email from JetBlue, the cool, fresh airline I frequented back when I lived near a city it serviced. Now I simply ignore their emails until I move again (from what I could see, they don’t seem to have an easy way to delete one’s account without contacting customer service — very clever). The critic in me, however, can’t help but open these emails to see how companies represent themselves these days, and I certainly had a moment when I opened this particular email.

I am addressed as “Mr. Soandso.” Huh. My mind quickly did a few loops at the time, the first beginning with the technology problem and then ending with questions regarding the company’s views of its customers: (1) obviously an improper or mistakenly forgotten link to the database caused the problem; (2) the placeholder doesn’t sound nearly as cool as JetBlue markets itself; (3) people actually use “soandso” these days? (4) why am I a Mr.? (5) I can’t believe I’m a Mr., especially a Mr. Soandso; (6) what general image must they have of their customers?

Somehow I really got put off at the idea that JetBlue thinks of me as “Mr. Soandso” rather than a “Dear Jetsetter” or even something as innocuous as “Dear JetBlue Customer.” (JetBlue sent out an apology within an hour or more of the error, but it appears I didn’t save the email.) To be honest, I’m really surprised at how much I was bothered over the “Mr.” From what I understand of technology, a placeholder doesn’t need more than a single character to tell the software where to insert the proper data. Adding the gendered title, if I’m correct, would be unnecessary. In my mind, then, it really says something about who the heads of the company think they’re servicing.

A quick aside: I’m reminded of an old classmate who would write “snazzy title here” at the top of her academic papers when she couldn’t come up with a title. She shrugged and looked a bit embarrassed the first time I noticed it, but I loved the idea and still do. It evoked such a positive feeling about the work: By intending to write a really snazzy title, she meant she intended to write a really snazzy paper as well. How else to get a graduate student pumped about writing a seminar paper?

But if Jetblue thinks I’m simply “Mr. Soandso,” they don’t think I’m snazzy at all. When I imagine the character they construct to represent the target audience of their marketing materials, I can only picture shiny shoes, a suit, and tie. A business man. Am I taking this slip personally? No. But I feel like I’ve been given an accidental glimpse into the company. It’s like taking a peek into a restaurant’s unkempt kitchen and realizing why some people in the business tell us we’re better off not knowing what goes on back there if we want to continue enjoying the luxury of eating out.

Alas, I am making too big a deal about this particular story, but I’m doing so to make a larger point: If I could read so deeply into a human and/or technology failure in a case where nothing more than my ego and consumerism are at stake, I can only imagine (or, honestly, perhaps I can’t) what it must feel like to receive a letter regarding the death of a family member and be addressed so coldly.

Related Story #2

And then I think about one of the best letters of all time, one attributed to Abraham Lincoln nearly hundred and fifty years ago, in which the president addresses the mother of five soldiers who where thought to have been killed during the Civil War. (A print version follows below.)

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

Dear Madam,

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln

The letter and the (now inaccurate) storyline may be familiar to those of you who have seen an adaptation in the film, Saving Private Ryan. How sad to think that such a deep apology was (apparently) promptly destroyed by the receiver, for the mother was sympathetic to the South rather than to the views Lincoln held.

I wonder how the “Dear John Doe” letter was received today — even if it’s not the letter that actually breaks the news — if over a hundred years ago a mother and citizen could so decidedly disregard a personal letter from the President of the United States of America.

Cheese

I was shopping at a health food store last week, and I stopped at the dairy section to pick up some cream cheese. Lo and behold, there was a new (well, new to me anyway) alternative to cream cheese with 1/3 less saturated fat. Now, who can possibly resist such an appeal to logic? (Not to mention the emotional appeal of a slim waistline). It’s called Neufchatel (see “Nuefchatel” on Wikipedia) — and, as we all know beyond any rational doubt, food items with foreign names have to be good. I imagined what the consistency and flavor of the cheese must be, and although I wasn’t super impressed with my imagined cheese (I guess I don’t buy into the purchase-worthiness of foreign names after all), I decided to give it a try.

I opened it today, but I began looking over the packaging while my toaster did its toasting. I always wonder at how different cheeses are made, and yet the ingredients list rarely helps when “milk and cheese cultures” tops and often ends the list. It’s interesting how much is and is not told with an ingredients list. I quickly scanned the item’s nutrition facts, and right next to it, in a relatively prominent location, was this:

MADE WITH MILK FROM COWS NOT
TREATED WITH rGBH.
The FDA has said there is no
significant difference between milk
from cows treated with rGBH and
untreated cows. No test can
distinguish between milk from
treated and untreated cows.

Hmm, I thought. How interesting that valuable packaging real estate went into making a claim (that the milk came from cows not treated with a growth hormone) only to usurp all power from that claim (the milk from treated or untreated cows is not significantly different). But, then, I was in a health food store, and FDA findings and rulings are met with a critical eye from these shoppers. In this context, the statement in all-caps would get a nod of approval and the disclaimer would be ignored or scoffed at.

I began researching the topic on the Web to see how the labeling of rGBH (also known as rBST) (see Bovine Somatotropin on Wikipedia) is restricted, and I discovered the conversation regarding its approval and use is quite involved. It turns out that a movement toward banning statements about rBGH-free cows began in Pennsylvania in fall 2007 with Dennis Wolff, the state’s agriculture secretary, who claimed that “consumers were confused” about the quality of milk from these cows (“Fighting on a Battlefield the Size of a Milk Label,” The New York Times). If the law passed, consumers would have no way of knowing whether milk had come from cows treated with rBGH or not.

But after pressure from consumer groups and the governor of Pennsylvania – along with Wolff acknowledging he had no consumer reports to support his cause – the case was dropped and turned, instead, into a push toward restricting the language on labels, and this time similar cases began in New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Missouri and Vermont as well. Farmers and resellers, meanwhile, argue that their first amendment rights are being hampered. It appears these battles are still ongoing.

The layers to this story continue to be interesting, however. I’m always interested in what factors are ignored or overlooked and whether the lapses can be seen as intentional or unintentional. Here are some instances that are interesting to me, but there are certainly more to be found.

American consumption levels

The FDA approved the growth hormone in 1993, and The American Council on Health and Science gave this reason for acknowledging the need for what they are calling a “technology”:

As the world’s population grows, the National Research Council estimates that the supply of food required to adequately meet human nutritional needs over the next 40 years will be equal to the amount of food previously produced throughout the entire history of humankind. To meet this demand, animal scientists must develop new technologies to increase productive efficiency (that is, the yield of milk or meat per unit of feed), produce leaner animals and provide increased economic return on investment to producers. During the past decade, scientists have developed many new agricultural biotechnologies that meet these goals. Their adoption will have many positive effects on food production, processing and availability. (“The Efficacy, Safety and Benefits of Bovine Somatotropin and Porcine Somatotropin,” The American Council on Health)

What it doesn’t discuss is the overproduction of milk. Various web sites discuss this problem, but more reputable sites on dairy markets offer statistics spread over various dairy products. If anyone wants to crunch the numbers for us, feel free to post a comment with your analysis.

Human Health

Another issue that has arisen is the presence of IGF-1, a protein hormone, in milk from treated cows. Some groups claim the protein “is an important factor in the growth of cancers of the breast, prostate and colon” (“rBGH / rBST,” Center for Food Safety), but the FDA gave this response to a citizen petition to take the hormone off the market:

The FDA has previously maintained and continues to maintain that levels of IGF-I in milk whether or not from rbGH supplemented cows are not significant when evaluated against the levels of IGF-I endogenously produced and present in humans.” (Response to Robert Cohen, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Note: This link will open a Microsoft document file.)

I guess time will answer this one for us.

Animal Health

Most of the debate surrounding this issue seem to deal solely with the quality of the milk, but it’s context, so to speak, seems to be disregarded to a large extent in the scientific studies we see. Some groups claim that the hormone causes various deformities and diseases in the animals that farmers must then treat with antibiotics and other drugs, which find their way into milk.

Nonetheless, the FDA’s update on the safety of milk doesn’t address the alleged problem but only discusses the safety of milk in terms of humans:

FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has reexamined the human food safety of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) in response to recent inquiries about the safety of this product. FDA’s CVM approved Monsanto Company’s rbST product, PosilacÒ in November 1993 after a comprehensive review of the product’s safety and efficacy, including human food safety. CVM has issued a detailed report based on a careful audit of the human food safety sections of this approval. CVM’s finding upholds the Agency’s original conclusion that milk from cows treated with rbST is safe for human consumption. (“Update on Human Food safety of BST,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration)

So is milk from cows treated with rBGH (or rBST) safe and humane? I don’t know. I’m just interested in how it’s marketed and how the studies and subtopics are fed to the public.

As for Nuefchatel, it’s pretty good. I couldn’t tell a difference between it and regular cream cheese, but I’m also suffering from a cold today, and supposedly our sense of taste mostly derives from our sense of smell, which I’m missing for the moment. My scientific research has suffered another disabling factor too: a second variable called “pumpkin butter with port.” You gotta try it.

Promiscuousness of Promiscuity

I just started going through a book called The Information Society Reader, a collection of foundational readings on the study of the Information Society, and a few pages into the editor’s introduction I had a déjà vu moment with this oddly familiar statement:

It can seem that the [concept of “Information Society”] is used with abandon, yet as such it is capable of accommodating all manner of definitions. Readers should look carefully for the definitional terms used, often tacitly, by commentators in what follows. Are they, for instance, emphasizing the economic, educational or cultural dimensions when they discuss the Information Society, or is it technology which is given the greatest weight in their accounts? One might then ask, if the conceptions are so very varied and even promiscuous, then what validity remains [. . . ]? (p. 10)

Webster, Frank (Ed). (2004). The Information Society Reader. London: Routledge.
(Or click here to see the text in Google Books)

Is this warning not incredibly similar to those we hear about the study of rhetoric? Varying definitions, an undefined scope of study, questions of validity? Lately I’ve felt lulled into a (likely) false state of security. How many times do we hear of academic programs stating with pride that they are interdisciplinarity, crossdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity? Promiscuity is a characteristic more and more fields of study display with some pride. This crossing of borders has become something of an academic movement, but all movements have a beginning and usually an end, or even if it has lifecycles and never entirely dies out, the times when it tapers out can be painful – as the history of rhetoric can attest to.

What’s interesting to me about the study of the Information Society is that its inception has been some sort of uber-manifestation of interdisciplinarity. It’s flowed and found nodes of connection in the same manner as the Network Society itself. It’s almost like the global community’s entry into the Age of Information is what has made this move toward interdisciplinarity possible in the first place (both in terms of technology and of an emerging climate that condones and even celebrates such behavior), and it’s quite fitting – if not problematic – that the field purporting to study this new age should mirror it as well.

But I can’t help but think there’s bound to be a tide building against such breadth and promiscuity. And if so, I wonder when its time will come, what it will look like, and what the alternatives may be.