I recall the television series “Star Trek” … and the entries entered into the “Captain’s Log”, which were spoken somewhat in the voice of a narrator. This didn’t occur odd to me at the time, but as I reflect on it now, I do find it odd that this narration seemed so trustworthy and reliable. Today I would no longer put so much faith into the perspective of some storyteller, and almost certainly not if that storyteller is telling “their own” story.
I want to reference another image from mainstream media — namely that of Robin Williams’ portrayal of the teacher named Mr. Keating in the movie “Dead Poets Society”, who was endearingly referred to as “Oh Captain, My Captain” by his students.
I find this mashup of stories particularly poignant for several reasons.
First of all, Star Trek emphasizes the organizational structure which is the glue holding together the fictional Star Trek world. In contrast, Mr. Keating is the iconoclast who liberates his students from their natural inclination to conform to the order embodied in a variety of social organizations which are integral parts of the setting at work throughout the film (such as school, families, religion, etc.).
While many writers prize their own liberty to engage in writing according to their own individual freedom, very few are very much aware of their own social engagement and how it is constrained by the natural order imposed on them through their own participation in the social cohesive forces at work when they address particular audiences. Perhaps the most fundamental of such constraints are the languages a writer chooses to write in — yet I imagine that many writers may overlook their language much in the same way as fish might overlook the fact that they are immersed in water.
There is another way — at least one other, probably many more.
The one I am thinking of appeals to another authority. It’s neither an appeal to an organizational captain, nor to an individual inner voice (note that many people seem to have many inner voices, rather than limiting themselves to just one). In order for me to adequately describe this other way, I need to clean up with a very widespread misconception about a term commonly referred to as “network effect”.
In most technology circles, a network effect is considered to be a purely technological matter. That is not very surprising or objectionable. What is, however, surprising and objectionable is to not consider natural language to be a technology. This is so blatantly obvious, it should actually be immediately recognized without needing me to point it out. If a person grows up in an English-speaking community, it should be obvious that the person will be “locked in” by the English language. Likewise with any other language. That there are some people who are versed in more than one native language is equally obviously the exception to the rule (I have an entire other blog devoted to this complex situation — see e.g. the article “Propaganda Information Technology vs. Indigena Information Technology — the Basic Idea” [ https://indigenous.news.blog/2022/05/07/propaganda-information-technology-vs-indigena-information-technology-the-basic-idea ] ).
Humans are caught in the crossfire between choosing which language(s) to learn and being constrained to the choices we have made … and the most significant choices are made even before we become aware of the fact that something is being chosen at all.
Let me conclude this post with a very odd (and also very widespread) misconception, which seems to be linked to the misconception about network effects described above. Many (if not most) people behave as if their entire existence is encapsulated within a brand name (or at most a few brand names). They ask each other things like “where can I find you?” and then exchange their brand name information. [1] Such limitations are essentially cases of self-censorship (and mutually accepted manipulation via third parties). This is of course completely ridiculous — but people actually do behave this way as if it were as obvious as the air we breathe and cannot live without. People prone to such behavior apparently integrate propagandistic pollution into their communications almost as if they had no choice in the matter at all.
Socio Business blog 
1 comment