In various areas of our lives and spheres of our society, choice and freedom lead to diverse identities and communities. In the contexts of technology and brand identity, the choices we make can lead to very strong sentiments of allegiance and potential hostility towards those with different persuasions. History shows us various conflicts along these lines in the realms of religion, politics and geographic difference, but what about modern technological allegiances? This week, we welcome Jack Zellweger to discuss the phenomenon of “technological judgment”. How and why do we criticize those who use different software and hardware than us? In what ways to we internalize these arguments as statements on relative progress or stagnation? How might we better capitalize on these distinct communities to better appreciate different approaches to technology?
Episode 133: Proactivity in Friendship
Numerous cultural and societal fixtures encourage us to seize the day, to reach for what is ours and to trust in the engines of our ambitions. This mentality may benefit us in certain circumstances, but in the realm of developing social connections, the rules change. We are compelled to strike a balance with the friendships we hope to encourage. Too much honesty can scare some away while a more aloof approach may communicate disinterest. But the burden of pursuing and maintaining such a relationship does not always fall evenly. This week we welcome Olivia Sabik to discuss the value of proactivity in friendship. Are certain friends more likely to slip into the "driving" role of a friendship? To what extent does distance impede proactive behaviors? And ultimately, are we allowed to approach those we feel could be more even in maintaining the social responsibility of friendship?
Episode 132: "I Love You"
“I love you, not only for what you are, but for what I am when I am with you.”
“I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where. I love you straightforwardly, without complexities or pride; so I love you because I know no other way.”
Especially around and after Valentine's Day, it's worth reexamining our cultural definitions of love, how we express it and how we relate to it. In particular, the phrase "I love you" has various connotations and contexts tied to its utterance. It seems to represent gentle, almost habitual moments but also the dramatic, life-or-death circumstances depicted in romantic cinema and literature. It can be said in platonic, romantic and even euphoric circumstances. So this week, we welcome Anna Gomez to talk about how we use this phrase, what we might reduce or obscure in the process and what its cultural functions are. Do we overuse or misuse the phrase in any way? Has it become an emotional substitute for more complicated feelings? We would also like to thank Mark Ashin, Richard Pera, Charlotte Graham and Megan Carr for their written contributions to this episode.
Episode 131: The Path of Objectivity in Journalism
In our respective attempts to understand the world and societies in which we live, many of us turn to journalism and the narratives it helps convey. Some stories illuminate hidden details about our communities while others clarify obscurities surrounding our leaders and icons. But when looking for stories and journalists we find reliable, objectivity becomes key. Can we trust that a story is "fair" if it involves sensitive information and arguments? Does fairness mean equal representation or the acknowledgment of a biased perspective? This week we welcome Gabe Brison-Trezise to discuss his thoughts on the subject. How are journalists required to balance objectivity and gripping stories? How do economic concerns regarding journalism factor in?
Further Reading:
Columbia Journalism Review, "Re-thinking Objectivity"
The Center for Public Integrity, "Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash"
Politico, "WikiLeaks and the Oily Washington Press"
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, "‘Nothing to See Here’ Is Pundit Takeaway on DNC Leaks"
Harper's Magazine, "Swat Team"
Episode 130: The 2017 Golden Globes
“But there was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good; there was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh, and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back. It kind of broke my heart when I saw it, and I still can’t get it out of my head, because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life. And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kinda gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose. O.K., go on with it.”
“What does it mean, to dream urgently? And how will films continue to help people to do it? The Globes ceremony was, in the end, revealing not just about Hollywood’s love for itself—La La Land, the consummate film about filmmaking, emerged with the most Globe awards ever granted in one evening—but also about its sense of its own moral purpose. The telecast presented itself, for all its wacky antics, as an epic battle: kindness versus cruelty, good versus its absence, a Hollywood that emphasizes inclusion and understanding—“we have to remind each other of the privilege and the responsibility of the act of empathy,” Streep put it—pitted against a Washington that so often fails to see beyond the self. Here were some of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world, claiming their averageness by way of their empathy. But here, too, was Meryl Streep, the master of American drama, acknowledging—warning—that empathy, far too often, is not enough.”
A few weeks ago, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) awarded the 74th Golden Globes. As art reflects life and the societies in which we live, the films, shows and their stars and creators were given particular attention in these times of great social and governmental change. We are pleased to welcome Olivia Sanabria to help dissect some of the awards given, the status they confer and the atmosphere of awards season as a statement on our culture. How might recognition through awards actually delay meaningful conversation? What do the winners and nominees suggest about our preferences in the arts? What do their creations indicate about the stories which are and are not told and the tone with which we expect stories to be addressed?
