I have just finished the three essay readings, ending with Deborah Lupton. I also found this the most intriguing to write about. I have been doing a lot of driving in the last week and have experienced these road rage problems firsthand. I have not been directly behind the wheel but am an eye witness in the front passengers seat. My boyfriend, Andrew, had been the designated driver in our road trips this past week.
The first was a trip down to Portsmouth, N.H. We were driving on the highway and like many other highways there was an entrance ramp where cars were entering the route. On this particular entrance ramp there was a women driving a large SUV with Massachusetts license plate. She was driving along side us but wasn’t showing any signs of speeding up to go ahead to slowing down to fall behind. There were cars to the left of us so Andrew could not move over for her oversized vehicle to join us on the road. We started to run out of space as the transition lane gradually disappeared. It didn’t seem like the women was going to make any effort to prevent an awkward car jam, so Andrew speed up in front of her. I turn back and see her making a pissed of gesture and mouthing the unoriginal word a**hole. The first thing that goes through my mind is the same letters only with an M in front of it. At the nest toll both the same lady goes through a different gate and then speeds passed us still looking very angry.
A couple days after that drive we headed into the heart of bad Mass drivers, Boston. It seems like everybody driving in Boston is irritated, angry and in a hurry. They beep every second something is not going exactly their way. I could feel the tension all around me. I didn’t experience any major road rage there just a lot of beeping while cars would get really close to intimidate you to push through the red light or run through the pedestrians.
I defiantly agree with Lupton that people’s road rage is a big problem. This essay also made me think of Julia’s car goal for this break. To try to treat and see drivers as people and not just another car. I know I can sometime be rude to other drivers too but I an not rude to the people that walk beside me or face to face. I think everybody could try to work on that concept and that would really help with the silly road rage.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Gazing Through the Anthropological Lens: Holistic Views
Of all the assigned readings in this segment, this first chapter in James Peacock's book was the one that held my interest most. I suppose, overall, that it opened my eyes to what anthropology truly is: A multidisciplinary means of studying a culture or cultures. It awoke me to the fact that I had unwittingly engaged in an anthropological study of my own in 1990, during which year I lived and worked with a Cuban family in Puerto Rico.
There is much here of significance to absorb and expound upon; more than time or space will permit. I'll attempt to address what I found to be the key highlights.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that Peacock's experience as an anthropologist has led him to place no small measure of gravity on Alfred North Whitehead's concept of "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness" -- or put otherwise, personification of abstract concepts. The last writer I've come across to have addressed this crucial concept was David Bergland in Libertarianism in One Lesson. One of the greatest problems, and most significant tragedies, in nearly all societies is to imbue fictitious concepts with the color of substance. We must pass this law for "the greater good" or to "protect the public." Yet both the "greater good" and the "public" don't exist. They are phantoms. What is real are individuals who may be thought of as collectively comprising the vessels that such cogitations propose. However, when these abstractions are deferred to in preference to the inviolable liberty of an actual physical individual, they cease to remain seated in reality. They cease at once to be of any use.
In this vein, I'd like to add my name to the long and distinguished line of libertarians who have taken it upon themselves to debunk Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Hobbes' ultimate conclusion, of course, is that ultimately men must give up their freedom to someone in order to be "protected" from everyone. What Hobbes so naively failed to address is whom, then, is going to "protect" such an individual from that very someone. Further, contrary to Hobbes' view, there is no "social contract." It's a myth and a flat-out lie. Government "laws" are mere opinions backed up by a lot of guns. Few, if any of us, actually consent to them. They are one-sided contracts -- in other words, non-contracts -- made up by the political class, and as such have no legitimate bearing on anyone. Anthropology, while of necessity a field of study that must take any number of factors into consideration, and so must too often adjudge matters from a collectivist perspective, would nonetheless do well to admit of the logic Hobbes failed to attain.
As for Emile Durkheim, in large part, I carry here no brief for his generally astute observations. I would only take exception to his insistence upon placing the collective first in summarizing the capabilities and measure of a given society. This is rather like placing the chicken before the egg. For example, while it may be perfectly true that the evolution of a language is dependent upon contributions and participation among many in order for it to grow and possess meaning (after all, what form of communication possesses any meaning without many to communicate amongst one another?), nevertheless it required one individual to innovate the concept. The fact that almost no person, regardless of the endeavor, accomplishes anything entire by themselves is missing the point. The nascent idea, the focus and foundation, must always come from one individual.
At any event, it would seem that anthropological holistics must deal with the often irrational ideosyncrasies of cultures not nearly as egalitarian, and thus, must encompass such views with nuetrality. Science must often be more dispassionate than philosophy (though philosophy does well to emulate science in this regard). Anthropology would seem to be a science that demands such temperance in all of its various modalities, often even to reach a purely subjective truth. That said, through the voice of James Peacock, it is made to be fascinating.
There is much here of significance to absorb and expound upon; more than time or space will permit. I'll attempt to address what I found to be the key highlights.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that Peacock's experience as an anthropologist has led him to place no small measure of gravity on Alfred North Whitehead's concept of "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness" -- or put otherwise, personification of abstract concepts. The last writer I've come across to have addressed this crucial concept was David Bergland in Libertarianism in One Lesson. One of the greatest problems, and most significant tragedies, in nearly all societies is to imbue fictitious concepts with the color of substance. We must pass this law for "the greater good" or to "protect the public." Yet both the "greater good" and the "public" don't exist. They are phantoms. What is real are individuals who may be thought of as collectively comprising the vessels that such cogitations propose. However, when these abstractions are deferred to in preference to the inviolable liberty of an actual physical individual, they cease to remain seated in reality. They cease at once to be of any use.
In this vein, I'd like to add my name to the long and distinguished line of libertarians who have taken it upon themselves to debunk Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Hobbes' ultimate conclusion, of course, is that ultimately men must give up their freedom to someone in order to be "protected" from everyone. What Hobbes so naively failed to address is whom, then, is going to "protect" such an individual from that very someone. Further, contrary to Hobbes' view, there is no "social contract." It's a myth and a flat-out lie. Government "laws" are mere opinions backed up by a lot of guns. Few, if any of us, actually consent to them. They are one-sided contracts -- in other words, non-contracts -- made up by the political class, and as such have no legitimate bearing on anyone. Anthropology, while of necessity a field of study that must take any number of factors into consideration, and so must too often adjudge matters from a collectivist perspective, would nonetheless do well to admit of the logic Hobbes failed to attain.
As for Emile Durkheim, in large part, I carry here no brief for his generally astute observations. I would only take exception to his insistence upon placing the collective first in summarizing the capabilities and measure of a given society. This is rather like placing the chicken before the egg. For example, while it may be perfectly true that the evolution of a language is dependent upon contributions and participation among many in order for it to grow and possess meaning (after all, what form of communication possesses any meaning without many to communicate amongst one another?), nevertheless it required one individual to innovate the concept. The fact that almost no person, regardless of the endeavor, accomplishes anything entire by themselves is missing the point. The nascent idea, the focus and foundation, must always come from one individual.
At any event, it would seem that anthropological holistics must deal with the often irrational ideosyncrasies of cultures not nearly as egalitarian, and thus, must encompass such views with nuetrality. Science must often be more dispassionate than philosophy (though philosophy does well to emulate science in this regard). Anthropology would seem to be a science that demands such temperance in all of its various modalities, often even to reach a purely subjective truth. That said, through the voice of James Peacock, it is made to be fascinating.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Neil Young Weighs in On the Auto Industry
If you pick up the latest issue of Rolling Stone, the editors have run a big feature piece titled "The Top 100 People Who Are Changing America." Number 78 is rocker Neil Young (who is actually from Canada, but 5 million North Koreans, I'm given to understand, don't give a shit), who recently made his 1959 Lincoln Continental environmentally friendly. Young was quoted as saying,"With all the money the government has given the auto industry to promote energy efficiency and pollution research, it just doesn't add up."
My apologies, Neil, but yes it does: Government + corporate kickbacks to politicians = CORRUPTION. Time to put down your guitar and go back to math class...
My apologies, Neil, but yes it does: Government + corporate kickbacks to politicians = CORRUPTION. Time to put down your guitar and go back to math class...
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Happy birthday, Rudolph Diesel!
Yes, it's Rudy's birthday - a special day for those of us who drive diesels because we like to be able to use vegetable-oil-based fuels. Rudolph Diesel experimented with powering his engines with peanut oil (and I even kind of understand why this works - ask me if you'd like to know!). In honor of this special day, my diesel Jetta actually passed her inspection - yay! I had a little talk with the gremlin that I suspected was living somewhere in the exhaust/turbo system, and explained to it that if the car wouldn't pass inspection because the darned "Check Engine" light wouldn't go out, then the gremlin would have nowhere to live and we would all be pissed off. I think it must have listened to me and gone to find another host vehicle, because after years of trying to figure out what the problem is, it finally got solved today and we now have a new inspection sticker. (It could also be that our mechanic friend Darryl is a genius, which certainly doesn't hurt.) So Gretta is legal for at least another year, and I can calm down from my state of chronic rage about the state inspection system refusing to issue stickers while the "Check Engine" light is on!
I Think I'm In Love
Hello car friends!(The first I have ever had.) Since we last met I have been unable to stop thinking about my own foot print on this planet. This topic (Cars and Culture) has raised so many other thoughts about my tread in general, maybe that is part of the point, part of the process. I should be honest and admit that I was actually extremely disappointed when I got this seminar because I had been so excited about the art and home class. Now I can honestly say that I am humbled and grateful that the process has led me to my current intro- as well as extro-spection (is that even a word? Hopefully you know what I mean.)
Anyway, as I was explaining, I have been thinking a lot about my personal commitment to keeping my car clean which so far has been easy. I even named it, I thought maybe it would help and it has. I chose Lulu, but that was a reference from advisee group which only Sarah will understand. I have also been working on another secret commitment I was too embarrassed to share at the last weekend. I have not spoken on my cell while driving, well almost haven't... and
I had also been seriously contemplating how to reduce my car use in general and then it happened. I got a postcard in the mail advertising the Nissan Cube. Five days after my initial frenzy and obsession I can say that perhaps this is not what I am going to do right away but I am definately continuing to give it serious consideration. I also think if you all haven't seen it yet, you should check it out. It seems to good to be true, maybe it is; 40 miles per gallon starting at $13,900. Keene's dealership is getting five in May, I look forward to checking them out. I can only hope that you are not all obsessing as much as I am about your daily habits, routine and life. Can't wait for our next weekend. See you soon, hope all is well, Bianca
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Interesting Opinion Piece from David Byrne
The following journal entry is from David Byrne's (singer/songwriter/artist/former Talking Head) website. I know everyone has enough to read already, but this is short and Byrne makes a great point. Here it is......
03.07.09: Good Investments and Bad Investments
An accounting firm that’s been analyzing GM says that even with the $30 billion bailout they’ve requested, GM won’t stay afloat. Pragmatically, it would be sheer lunacy to throw $30 billion at GM executives — who still ride around in their town cars and fly on company jets — only to see them allocate it for their own golden parachutes before their company, and the cities of Detroit, Flint and a few others, become giant ghost towns. I have a feeling there will be a knock-on effect, and other ghost towns will arise in the wake of those Rust Belt towns’ demises.
GM’s management has made few comments re: altering their course; there has been little mention of producing green cars, or building public transportation systems or infrastructure. They talk mostly about closing plants, cutting divisions and firing workers — but not about rethinking what they make, or their role in the world. It seems they basically want to stay the course — but in a smaller boat. The passengers who can’t fit get thrown overboard. The boat is headed for Niagara Falls, so as far as I can see, it doesn’t really matter what size it is.
There are options. Workers could take over the factories and start producing stuff that suits the world as it really is. Or the factories could be nationalized, and the government could force the factory infrastructure and manpower to begin making stuff that benefits the population. Assembly lines would have to be altered, refitted and modified — but it’s either that, or sell the machines as scrap steel. Or the companies could make changes voluntarily — re-jigger themselves to build trolley cars, high-speed rail systems, and hybrids. Some of these, being public works, would probably receive a large amount of government financing — funding for work, NOT a bailout.
03.07.09: Good Investments and Bad Investments
An accounting firm that’s been analyzing GM says that even with the $30 billion bailout they’ve requested, GM won’t stay afloat. Pragmatically, it would be sheer lunacy to throw $30 billion at GM executives — who still ride around in their town cars and fly on company jets — only to see them allocate it for their own golden parachutes before their company, and the cities of Detroit, Flint and a few others, become giant ghost towns. I have a feeling there will be a knock-on effect, and other ghost towns will arise in the wake of those Rust Belt towns’ demises.
GM’s management has made few comments re: altering their course; there has been little mention of producing green cars, or building public transportation systems or infrastructure. They talk mostly about closing plants, cutting divisions and firing workers — but not about rethinking what they make, or their role in the world. It seems they basically want to stay the course — but in a smaller boat. The passengers who can’t fit get thrown overboard. The boat is headed for Niagara Falls, so as far as I can see, it doesn’t really matter what size it is.
There are options. Workers could take over the factories and start producing stuff that suits the world as it really is. Or the factories could be nationalized, and the government could force the factory infrastructure and manpower to begin making stuff that benefits the population. Assembly lines would have to be altered, refitted and modified — but it’s either that, or sell the machines as scrap steel. Or the companies could make changes voluntarily — re-jigger themselves to build trolley cars, high-speed rail systems, and hybrids. Some of these, being public works, would probably receive a large amount of government financing — funding for work, NOT a bailout.
Monday, March 9, 2009
To clarify: Readings for April
You'll need to do four readings for our April seminar meeting:
(1) Chapter 1 ("Substance") from James Peacock's The Anthropological Lens, available as an e-book from Gary Library.
(2) Deborah Lupton's article "Monsters in Metal Cocoons", available from Gary Library's online collection of scholarly journals.
(3) John Jakle's article on how the American landscape was reshaped by and for cars, available in Google Docs
(4) Whichever of the following three articles (also available in Google Docs) you chose at our March meeting:
O'Dell, "Raggare and the Panic of Mobility" (on Sweden)
Stotz, "The Colonizing Vehicle" (Australia)
Verrips and Meyer, "Kwaku's Car" (Ghana)
Sometime before the next weekend meeting, post a written response to at least one of the first three readings. Save your thoughts on the Sweden/Australia/Ghana reading for our meeting, where we'll get into these in more depth.
And don't forget to do at least a little more journaling in your "auto-biography," to reflect on how (or if!) your planned changes in your automotive behavior are going!
(1) Chapter 1 ("Substance") from James Peacock's The Anthropological Lens, available as an e-book from Gary Library.
(2) Deborah Lupton's article "Monsters in Metal Cocoons", available from Gary Library's online collection of scholarly journals.
(3) John Jakle's article on how the American landscape was reshaped by and for cars, available in Google Docs
(4) Whichever of the following three articles (also available in Google Docs) you chose at our March meeting:
O'Dell, "Raggare and the Panic of Mobility" (on Sweden)
Stotz, "The Colonizing Vehicle" (Australia)
Verrips and Meyer, "Kwaku's Car" (Ghana)
Sometime before the next weekend meeting, post a written response to at least one of the first three readings. Save your thoughts on the Sweden/Australia/Ghana reading for our meeting, where we'll get into these in more depth.
And don't forget to do at least a little more journaling in your "auto-biography," to reflect on how (or if!) your planned changes in your automotive behavior are going!
Sunday, March 8, 2009
James Peacock - from "The Anthropological Lens"
This is an e-book, accessible through Gary Library. If you haven't used Union's e-brary before, you may need to add a bit of software and perhaps a username and password (I think we're all up to our eyebrows in usernames and passwords by now!). But there's starting to be some very good stuff available through this portal, and it's certainly a quick and cheap way to get books, plus it offers some interesting possibilities for note-taking, since you can highlight stuff electronically and save quotes to a digital file if you want to.
So. Here's how you get to "The Anthropological Lens: Harsh Light, Soft Focus" through the e-brary.
Go to the Gary Library homepage.
Search in the "Find Books" area at the top of that page - eg. for "anthropological lens"
When the title comes up, click on the web address (the URL) that's with it.
This should get you to the book itself. You only need to read the first chapter of this, called "Substance."
If you want to use any of the fancier tools (eg. to print, highlight, take electronic notes, save the book to your personal bookshelf, etc.), you'll need to download the "ebrary Reader" software and get a username and password so that you can use it. Let me know if you have questions about that, or contact Susan Whitehead at the library (susan.whitehead@myunion.edu). She's terrific at walking people through this stuff!
Remember, it's only Chapter 1 that you need to read for our April seminar meeting.
"Monsters in Metal Cocoons" - Deborah Lupton
There are various routes you might take to access this article. Here is one:
Go to the Gary Library homepage.
Scroll down to where it says "Find journals by title" and then choose "Search Journals A-Z directory."
Find the journal "Body and Society" (either by putting it in as a search term or searching alphabetically). Follow the link to the journal (from SAGE Sociology). Put in your Union ID# and password to get to the journal itself (logging in sometimes takes a little while).
Once you get to the actual journal, you can scroll down to the search box at the bottom of the page and put in a search term that will find you the article (eg. "metal cocoons") or you can go to the "Advanced Search" tab and put in more specific info about the article:
"Monsters in Metal Cocoons: 'Road Rage' and Cyborg Bodies"
Deborah Lupton
Volume 5, No. 1 (1999), pp. 57-72
"Monsters in Metal Cocoons: 'Road Rage' and Cyborg Bodies"
Deborah Lupton
Volume 5, No. 1 (1999), pp. 57-72
When you find it (you may need to scroll through a list of possibilities, depending on what you searched for), choose "Full-text PDF." There should be some way to save the file if you want to (sometimes by right-clicking on it). Or you can just download it and either read it on the screen or print it out.
Let me know if you encounter any obstacles...
For future searching on other topics, you might want to explore some of the databases of articles and experiment with plugging in specific search topics, to get a sense of what's out there. It's a brave new digital world for scholarly journals these days!
Pedal to the Metal
I found Auto Mania both fascinating and tremendously boring. I certainly learned more than I ever wanted to know about the history, development, marketing, production, etc. of the automobile. Conversely, this book provided me with a novel perspective on an object that I've simply accepted as a part of our cultural landscape. The automobile is, of course, much more than cultural scenery; it has been integral in the formation of that landscape.
Honestly, I was bored to tears by all the sales figures, mechanical jargon, and traditional economics (which don't account for the real cost of economic activities in terms of environmental and ecological destruction and impacts on health). Also, I found the discussion of the environmental impacts of the auto-industry extremely orthodox, to the point of being bland. The only statement McCarthy made that struck me as novel was his assessment of zero-impact vehicles, where he concludes that our own two feet are the only true zero-impact vehicles (p. 252).
However, McCarthy presents some rather fascinating psychological connections between car consumption and cultural change (deterioration-?) in the 20th century. The Industrial Revolution has undeniably accelerated history, fostering the rapid change on which our powerful economy is built. People, however, fear change because it creates uncertainty. Uncertainty means insecurity and this creates anxiety. Where do people turn in an industrial society for comfort? In place of the institutions and relationships that individuals have traditionally relied upon for affirmation, Americans have turned to status symbols to affirm to themselves and others that they are happy and in control. Ironically, the very machine they turn to for comfort has been the major instigator in creating this change-driven culture, and is at fault for much of the isolation, alienation and depression that plague Americans today. Fascinating!
I admire McCarthy skill at weaving together, in such a comprehensive book, the convoluted intricacies of the auto industry. Auto Mania is the tale of the consumer's love affair with the car and it clearly illustrates how the fickle, emotionally charged American consumer, eager to give the "right" impression, yearning to "fit-in", clamoring for the newest item, and for self affirmation, has shaped the largest driving (haha) factor behind the Great Experiment. It all seems rather pitiful.
Honestly, I was bored to tears by all the sales figures, mechanical jargon, and traditional economics (which don't account for the real cost of economic activities in terms of environmental and ecological destruction and impacts on health). Also, I found the discussion of the environmental impacts of the auto-industry extremely orthodox, to the point of being bland. The only statement McCarthy made that struck me as novel was his assessment of zero-impact vehicles, where he concludes that our own two feet are the only true zero-impact vehicles (p. 252).
However, McCarthy presents some rather fascinating psychological connections between car consumption and cultural change (deterioration-?) in the 20th century. The Industrial Revolution has undeniably accelerated history, fostering the rapid change on which our powerful economy is built. People, however, fear change because it creates uncertainty. Uncertainty means insecurity and this creates anxiety. Where do people turn in an industrial society for comfort? In place of the institutions and relationships that individuals have traditionally relied upon for affirmation, Americans have turned to status symbols to affirm to themselves and others that they are happy and in control. Ironically, the very machine they turn to for comfort has been the major instigator in creating this change-driven culture, and is at fault for much of the isolation, alienation and depression that plague Americans today. Fascinating!
I admire McCarthy skill at weaving together, in such a comprehensive book, the convoluted intricacies of the auto industry. Auto Mania is the tale of the consumer's love affair with the car and it clearly illustrates how the fickle, emotionally charged American consumer, eager to give the "right" impression, yearning to "fit-in", clamoring for the newest item, and for self affirmation, has shaped the largest driving (haha) factor behind the Great Experiment. It all seems rather pitiful.
Readings for our April meeting
It's great to see people figuring out how to navigate this blog site so well! The site is already becoming a fun place to visit (should we consider going public with it?). ;-)
For our next meeting, in April, the readings are all in digital format, but (just to make it interesting) there are three different formats.
First, we'll be using a chapter from an e-book that is available through Gary Library.
Second, we'll be reading an article from a scholarly journal available online via Gary Library.
And finally, I've uploaded some PDF files as "Google Docs," and sent you all an invitation to view them.
We'll talk more about this when we meet in person on March 8, and I'll post more detailed instructions shortly for how to find these resources and how I'm envisioning our pre-meeting discussion about them in this space. Stay tuned!
Friday, March 6, 2009
Hopeless Wish
Through out this book, I found myself getting angry and frustrated with humans. It made me so upset to know that, when cars first came out, researchers and scientist new that gasoline wasn't sustainable and were looking for another way to run cars. They also were concerned with the pollution that cars created which got worse when they added lead to gasoline. Nobody wanted to here these concerns because they were so caught up in the idea of automobiles and of course the amounts of money that could be made of these products. I read most of this book with a feeling of shame for the human society and was wishing that cars were never invented. I kept thinking what that would be like. Would it even haven been possible for cars to never have been created. I feel like one way or another humans would have sought for new technology and the urge to make everything more convenient.
It was very interesting to see the timeline of cars because I've only been an eyewitness for a few decades to the actual subject. I never knew that people had looked into the possibility of running cars off alcohol. I wonder if that is still an option and if so why hasn't been in the running for the search of alternative fuel? It was great to hear about Henry Ford and his goals on trying to recycle as much as he could even when it wasn't profitable, that's what we need today. I wish more car companies now had similar moral like him. I loved that he wanted to make his cars last as long as they could and when they did break make the part easy to repair. Car companies today make it so difficult to get parts for cars and let alone fix them. My uncle got a Prius last year or so and one of the bulbs for the headlights broke. I guess the bulb was some sort of special bulb so to replace it would be hundreds of dollars. I was astonished that people pay so much or a new Prius and they can't even make the bulb to replace it more accessible.
I know everybody feels the " need" for their car, I don't even own a car and I still feel that need. I also feel guilty when fact about cars are right in my face. which they were while reading this book. It seems today, the only way to function is with a car. I know I wouldn't be able to get to work or to this seminar class with out one.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Who shaped who, the Auto Industry or the Government????
I like how McCarthy starts his Intro by asking the question, can six to nine billion human beings find contentment through the unending acquisition of material possessions without irreparably harming the planet they depend on? Wow! Take a look around you right now; I’m sure there are all kinds of objects made of plastic and other petroleum based products that we just had to have because we just had to have them. The things we just have to have are the items that seem to be filling our land fills and killing our oceans, knowing this we still have to have our little trinkets. McCarthy really gets the environmental question stuck in your head before we even get too involved in his book.
Always thinking Henry Ford was the father of automobiles, McCarthy states it was Vanderbilt and his wealthy friends that fathered the American love for the automobile by always keeping the car in the public’s eye through magazines and racing. Speeding tickets and reckless driving never entered my mind. I always thought the early years of the car as sluggish and slow, but Vanderbilt and Bostwick proved to be the first hellions on wheels.
In the early 1900’s gasoline was a waste product when they distilled kerosene from petroleum. Kerosene producers would dump gasoline back in the natural environment. In our life time gasoline has always been one of the important commodities. Imagine gasoline only costing 7 cents a gallon. Life would be so different if we had a fuel that was affordable and had a high EROEI. In 1906 when Roosevelt signed the free alcohol act into law it gave everyone the opportunity to switch from petroleum to alcohol powered cars, but the auto industry and consumers kept pushing for petroleum since gas powered cars where already formatted for production and a proven raw power which Vanderbilt was the poster boy. Think of life if we did switch to alcohol in the early 1900’s. Would our energy needs be less complex? Would we still depend on foreign energy? Would we have the pollution problems that we have today from our cars?
Ford would rather build a car that the common man could afford. He wanted to build a car that would last a life time. What a concept! He wanted to build a car that could be easily and inexpensively repaired. I think we all wish that he could have fulfilled his dream. How many times have we had our cars break down to find out that only a specially trained mechanic could fix it, for a very outrages price? We can thank Sloan and GM for wrecking Ford's dream. GM made cars more fashionable and stylish than Ford. GM created an automobile market that would persuade people to buy a new car before it’s time was up. For the first time in automobile history the consumer was caught up in the material world of what’s new and what’s different. Ford stood his ground until he realized he needed to start updating his cars to stay in business and to compete with GM, which is when Ford came out with his Model A. With cars starting to change annually, it was model and year to be the cause of retirement, not the mechanics of the vehicle, which caused more unnecessary environment waste and damage.
Then the Cadillac became America’s obsession. Ford and Chevrolet were both forced to transform their cars to resemble the Cadillac. Cadillac was a status symbol; it was a symbol that told others that they have achieved financial freedom. After World War II, Americans wanted more for more, not more for less. More for more meant, more horse power, more chrome plating, more steel, and more pollution. The Big Three and the consumers were forgetting about the environment and instead, thinking of status and success.
The water pollution always received the most publicity because of the sportsman who hunted and fished, but the air pollution couldn’t be ignored. Henry Ford’s Rouge was the biggest polluter. The Rouge was then how a lot of China factories are today. Many of their rivers have no fish to be fished, because of the toxins. Their air is so bad they had many of their factories shut down during the Olympics. You would think that we as humans would learn from our mistakes. Maybe that thought should be in our heads when we purchase our next material object from China. The Environmental Protection Agency, which was formed in 1970, was in charge of enforcing the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1972 Clean Water Act. The Clean Air Act is considered the most controversial law ever passed. Thanks to these laws it put pressure on the automotive industries to produce a better product, they had no interest in reducing pollution or increasing fuel efficiency on their own.
After the Clean Air Act was passed into law the auto makers knew they needed to clean up the exhaust from their automobiles. One of the steps to cleaning the exhaust was to get the Tetra ethyl lead out of the gasoline. Lead in gasoline is absurd, it is poisonous to humans and our environment. Lead in gasoline meant lead in our atmosphere and permanently in our lungs. The sad part is they knew how dangerous this was and still kept manufacturing it. Auto Mania was a very informational read. It did have a lot of scientific facts and governmental statistics, but I feel McCarthy had to put the data in to get the whole feel about just how massive and powerful the automotive industry is. It also shows how the automotive industry was the cause for some of our big government. I could ramble on about so many other areas, but I will save the rest for class.
Always thinking Henry Ford was the father of automobiles, McCarthy states it was Vanderbilt and his wealthy friends that fathered the American love for the automobile by always keeping the car in the public’s eye through magazines and racing. Speeding tickets and reckless driving never entered my mind. I always thought the early years of the car as sluggish and slow, but Vanderbilt and Bostwick proved to be the first hellions on wheels.
In the early 1900’s gasoline was a waste product when they distilled kerosene from petroleum. Kerosene producers would dump gasoline back in the natural environment. In our life time gasoline has always been one of the important commodities. Imagine gasoline only costing 7 cents a gallon. Life would be so different if we had a fuel that was affordable and had a high EROEI. In 1906 when Roosevelt signed the free alcohol act into law it gave everyone the opportunity to switch from petroleum to alcohol powered cars, but the auto industry and consumers kept pushing for petroleum since gas powered cars where already formatted for production and a proven raw power which Vanderbilt was the poster boy. Think of life if we did switch to alcohol in the early 1900’s. Would our energy needs be less complex? Would we still depend on foreign energy? Would we have the pollution problems that we have today from our cars?
Ford would rather build a car that the common man could afford. He wanted to build a car that would last a life time. What a concept! He wanted to build a car that could be easily and inexpensively repaired. I think we all wish that he could have fulfilled his dream. How many times have we had our cars break down to find out that only a specially trained mechanic could fix it, for a very outrages price? We can thank Sloan and GM for wrecking Ford's dream. GM made cars more fashionable and stylish than Ford. GM created an automobile market that would persuade people to buy a new car before it’s time was up. For the first time in automobile history the consumer was caught up in the material world of what’s new and what’s different. Ford stood his ground until he realized he needed to start updating his cars to stay in business and to compete with GM, which is when Ford came out with his Model A. With cars starting to change annually, it was model and year to be the cause of retirement, not the mechanics of the vehicle, which caused more unnecessary environment waste and damage.
Then the Cadillac became America’s obsession. Ford and Chevrolet were both forced to transform their cars to resemble the Cadillac. Cadillac was a status symbol; it was a symbol that told others that they have achieved financial freedom. After World War II, Americans wanted more for more, not more for less. More for more meant, more horse power, more chrome plating, more steel, and more pollution. The Big Three and the consumers were forgetting about the environment and instead, thinking of status and success.
The water pollution always received the most publicity because of the sportsman who hunted and fished, but the air pollution couldn’t be ignored. Henry Ford’s Rouge was the biggest polluter. The Rouge was then how a lot of China factories are today. Many of their rivers have no fish to be fished, because of the toxins. Their air is so bad they had many of their factories shut down during the Olympics. You would think that we as humans would learn from our mistakes. Maybe that thought should be in our heads when we purchase our next material object from China. The Environmental Protection Agency, which was formed in 1970, was in charge of enforcing the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1972 Clean Water Act. The Clean Air Act is considered the most controversial law ever passed. Thanks to these laws it put pressure on the automotive industries to produce a better product, they had no interest in reducing pollution or increasing fuel efficiency on their own.
After the Clean Air Act was passed into law the auto makers knew they needed to clean up the exhaust from their automobiles. One of the steps to cleaning the exhaust was to get the Tetra ethyl lead out of the gasoline. Lead in gasoline is absurd, it is poisonous to humans and our environment. Lead in gasoline meant lead in our atmosphere and permanently in our lungs. The sad part is they knew how dangerous this was and still kept manufacturing it. Auto Mania was a very informational read. It did have a lot of scientific facts and governmental statistics, but I feel McCarthy had to put the data in to get the whole feel about just how massive and powerful the automotive industry is. It also shows how the automotive industry was the cause for some of our big government. I could ramble on about so many other areas, but I will save the rest for class.
Car-Free Family
Because I grew up in a family that never owned a car, I probably come to this seminar with a completely different perspective of automobile ownership than those of my classmates. My father is a retired artist who worked for forty-eight years as a map maker at The National Survey, which was located around the corner from our family’s house. My mom worked at both the local elementary school and at a micro-printing business, both of which are located within easy walking distance from our home.
As I read Auto Mania, I found myself proud of my parents for being able to comfortably exist and have a fully-functional family without the benefits of a family car. As children growing up in the 1960s, my sister, two brothers, and I never felt the least bit slighted by the fact that we had no car. Tom McCarthy describes the general feeling in the 1930s regarding a man who doesn’t own his own automobile in this way, “To be without an automobile was increasingly a form of public nakedness in which a man, as one commentator put it, “ran the risk of being singled out among his fellows…as either hopelessly poor or perversely out of the swim”(53). I also realized that my family contributed nothing to the environmentally damaging results of automobile use, at least not directly.
As Alex wrote in his post, I was surprised to read of how much thought was given to the amount of waste created and the environmental impact of automobile production and use. I was always under the impression that there was little, if any, thought given to this during the early years of the auto industry.
Henry Ford was impressive with the way he ran his company in the early years. I was left feeling that Ford was a man of integrity that was determined to give the working man the most value possible in his automobiles.
Another man that I found to be impressive was GM president, Ed Cole. Cole’s adamant championing of catalytic converters was a shining example of a high-level executive that truly understood the problems that we were facing as a result of our unquenchable thirst for the automobile. McCarthy writes, “No Detroit executive played a more important role in forcing the industry to reduce smog-causing emissions” (178). Ed Cole was the kind of executive that the automobile industry is undoubtedly in short supply of these days. “He was just magnificent,” GM’s Joe Colucci recalled. Ford’s (James C.) Gagliardi agreed. “He did what I was hoping we at Ford would have done, and had the balls to do it” (192).
It’s both interesting and disturbing that the Big Three felt they were above the government regulations and consistently found themselves behind the foreign automakers in the areas of mileage and low emissions.
While reading the beginning of the book, I was surprised to see where we, as a society, refused to take heed of what we were told by experts regarding the impact of the manufacturing, use, and disposal of the automobile. I find it disheartening that we have presently, at least until the recent economic downturn, once again embraced the larger, more environmentally unfriendly SUVs. Will we ever learn?
As I read Auto Mania, I found myself proud of my parents for being able to comfortably exist and have a fully-functional family without the benefits of a family car. As children growing up in the 1960s, my sister, two brothers, and I never felt the least bit slighted by the fact that we had no car. Tom McCarthy describes the general feeling in the 1930s regarding a man who doesn’t own his own automobile in this way, “To be without an automobile was increasingly a form of public nakedness in which a man, as one commentator put it, “ran the risk of being singled out among his fellows…as either hopelessly poor or perversely out of the swim”(53). I also realized that my family contributed nothing to the environmentally damaging results of automobile use, at least not directly.
As Alex wrote in his post, I was surprised to read of how much thought was given to the amount of waste created and the environmental impact of automobile production and use. I was always under the impression that there was little, if any, thought given to this during the early years of the auto industry.
Henry Ford was impressive with the way he ran his company in the early years. I was left feeling that Ford was a man of integrity that was determined to give the working man the most value possible in his automobiles.
Another man that I found to be impressive was GM president, Ed Cole. Cole’s adamant championing of catalytic converters was a shining example of a high-level executive that truly understood the problems that we were facing as a result of our unquenchable thirst for the automobile. McCarthy writes, “No Detroit executive played a more important role in forcing the industry to reduce smog-causing emissions” (178). Ed Cole was the kind of executive that the automobile industry is undoubtedly in short supply of these days. “He was just magnificent,” GM’s Joe Colucci recalled. Ford’s (James C.) Gagliardi agreed. “He did what I was hoping we at Ford would have done, and had the balls to do it” (192).
It’s both interesting and disturbing that the Big Three felt they were above the government regulations and consistently found themselves behind the foreign automakers in the areas of mileage and low emissions.
While reading the beginning of the book, I was surprised to see where we, as a society, refused to take heed of what we were told by experts regarding the impact of the manufacturing, use, and disposal of the automobile. I find it disheartening that we have presently, at least until the recent economic downturn, once again embraced the larger, more environmentally unfriendly SUVs. Will we ever learn?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
And I Thought Cars Were Supposed to be Fun: A Short Critique of Auto Mania
Well, I finally finished Tom McCarthy's book, and I must say it became a very different read than anything I'd initially anticipated. I would, however, echo Bianca's commentary as to the relevant section of McCarthy's introduction. Indeed, it is not an angry book, and presents the development of automobile industry and culture, along with the environmental challenges the advent of cars has brought along with it, without bias or animus. That said, I think it is still fair to be critical -- albeit in a separate arena -- in that many parts of the book tend to be very dry and technical. True enough, at times the very nature of the matter at hand (such as the passage of new environmental legislation, or the advent of the catalytic converter) demands a rather clinical tone. Nonetheless, I don't think Jack Kerouac's On the Road has anything to worry about in the way of competition just yet.
I must say that I was fascinated by how early on the scientific community were concerned about subjects appertaining to the appearance of automobiles on the scene as diverse as smog and air pollution, and the continued availability of "fossil" fuels (I place the relevant word in quotations since more modern scientific theory has hypothesized about crude oil actually being "abiotic," or perpetually produced by chemical reactions taking place at the earth's core, rather than as the product of ancient plant, animal, and other biological matter). It was also interesting -- though far from surprising -- to learn how rapidly governmental bodies imposed speed limits, driver's licenses, license plates, and traffic tickets in response to the exuberant indiscretions of early motorists like William K. Vanderbilt, Jr. One of the places where things did really start to get fun was when McCarthy revealed the central role the Cadillac played in the 1950s auto market -- in no small part because of Elvis Presley's much-publicized purchase of a pink one (later to become a rock and roll pop culture cliche'). It was also a definitive sign of the times that Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 and the Clean Water Act in 1972 (after overriding a veto from Richard Nixon), both acts coming as they did at the end of the 1960s, the consummation of a long-held countercultural cause celebre.
Overall, I would've liked to see more about '57 Chevys, Cadillacs, and Elvis, and less about government legislation and scientific data. However, I realize this was not the purpose McCarthy had in mind when he wrote Auto Mania, and to the extent that the book remains true to its purpose, the author still did a fine job.
I am looking forward to some of the further reading in this seminar. As stated, my tastes tend to run towards the fun, pop culture, sporting nature of cars -- probably, not unlike the typical consumer, as McCarthy points out repeatedly. Let's hope there's some of that waiting for us in the road up ahead.
I must say that I was fascinated by how early on the scientific community were concerned about subjects appertaining to the appearance of automobiles on the scene as diverse as smog and air pollution, and the continued availability of "fossil" fuels (I place the relevant word in quotations since more modern scientific theory has hypothesized about crude oil actually being "abiotic," or perpetually produced by chemical reactions taking place at the earth's core, rather than as the product of ancient plant, animal, and other biological matter). It was also interesting -- though far from surprising -- to learn how rapidly governmental bodies imposed speed limits, driver's licenses, license plates, and traffic tickets in response to the exuberant indiscretions of early motorists like William K. Vanderbilt, Jr. One of the places where things did really start to get fun was when McCarthy revealed the central role the Cadillac played in the 1950s auto market -- in no small part because of Elvis Presley's much-publicized purchase of a pink one (later to become a rock and roll pop culture cliche'). It was also a definitive sign of the times that Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 and the Clean Water Act in 1972 (after overriding a veto from Richard Nixon), both acts coming as they did at the end of the 1960s, the consummation of a long-held countercultural cause celebre.
Overall, I would've liked to see more about '57 Chevys, Cadillacs, and Elvis, and less about government legislation and scientific data. However, I realize this was not the purpose McCarthy had in mind when he wrote Auto Mania, and to the extent that the book remains true to its purpose, the author still did a fine job.
I am looking forward to some of the further reading in this seminar. As stated, my tastes tend to run towards the fun, pop culture, sporting nature of cars -- probably, not unlike the typical consumer, as McCarthy points out repeatedly. Let's hope there's some of that waiting for us in the road up ahead.
What does driving a Honda Element say about me?
Auto Mania
Bianca Fernandez
3/3/09
Cathy Stanton
I realized upon completion of this book that I had never actually considered how shaped by automobiles society has been and how shaped by society automobiles have been. The sheer level of connection between politics, pop culture, science and technology and sociological/anthropological studies that can each be tied to automobiles and the automotive industry is astounding. I will never be able to see (or not see) cars in the same way again.
Close to my heart of the above mentioned areas of study have always been sociology and anthropology, and so the references to automobiles from that perspective – specifically the relation to socioeconomic class and status- were of particular interest. I loved learning both about the early millionaires who were likened to morphine addicts. Also fascinating was the massive and successful marketing campaign which shifted social norms about “the family car” to “the personal car.” I found this to be both brilliant and disturbing. It’s so funny to consider widely accepted social mores that we just accept as a part of daily life and then draw back the lens, examine where that assumption comes from and say “wow…”
The discussion about baby boomers and what was expected to be their spending and consumerism trends versus what it actually was (the mass purchasing of light-duty trucks) was mind blowing! It is such a great example of human nature. Despite living through war times, gas shortages, and the creation of the EPA and pollution controls they wanted large, inefficient, expensive, gas guzzling monsters and they were not apologetic. This is such a beautiful illustration of human nature.
I enjoyed reading this book. While it is not something I would have ever chosen on my own time, it was informative and I thought the wide breadth of topics from a cross section of disciplines was great. There was certainly a way for almost any type of person, with any level of interest to engage in the book and in McCarthy’s ideas. Something that truly spoke to me in my reading was in his introduction:
This is not an angry book. We don’t need another angry book about automobiles, a perspective neither new nor helpful. There are many wonderful things about being an American in the twentieth century. Having cars and driving were certainly among them. Automakers that work hard to sell their cars to consumers are not evil. Self-interested and oblivious consumers are not evil. But the two together do pose problems for the environment… p.XX
This for me best summed up what I imagine McCarthy to be like as a person and
what he was really trying to get across through the writing of this book. There were no judgments handed down from high, no standing on soap boxes, just the sharing of information for information’s sake. It is rare to find this type of dissemination and I cannot imagine a better introduction to a class than this. I so look forward to what will come next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
