Pensive

Crust

Dandelion

Tug

Clouds

I sit still for five minutes fixating on the tinny sound of a rusty ice cream van willing itself down the street. There are banana bombers and nutty buddies in their protective ice crusts waiting to be freed from the sad, humiliating parade. But I can not move. I am sitting zazen, watching my thoughts like clouds, pensive and hopeful that this time I can cast my eyes forty-five degrees down exacting a concentration toward the knot on the perfectly shiny cherrywood floor, like cutting the Hope Diamond when there is nothing left to do. I see faces in the boards now, and they are not urging me along, only trapped expessions presenting a possible future ripe with worry and clock watching and a wink. Perhaps my thoughts are not clouds. They are not rain and pollution, bunnies and fire engines-- and the sun can break them apart at will. My thoughts are dandelions. When they are attacked with the swift stroke of possession, they spread like ashes over a field of brown grass and shoot toward the sky. My thoughts are free and unprotected. But on the floor, they tug at me, and I am tucking them away, at least until the ice cream is gone.

The memory is one of the compensations which Nature grants to those who have used their days well; when age and calamity have bereaved them of their limbs or organs, then they retreat on mental faculty and concentrate on that. The poet, the philosopher, lames, old, blind, sick, yet disputing the ground inch by inch against fortune, finds a strength against the wrecks and decays sometimes more invulnerable than the heyday of youth and talent.

To praise a compensation of which he has been denied is a sad, brave thing.

In the lecture Emerson describes the qualities and importance of memory and what memory does while admitting the impossibility of saying what memory is. He begins the whole lecture with a description filled with wonderful metaphors:

Memory is a primary and fundamental faculty, without which none other can work; the cement, the bitumen, the matrix in the which the other faculties are embedded; or it is the thread on which the beads of man are strung, making the personal identity which is necessary to moral action, without it all life and thought were an unrelated succession. As gravity holds matter from flying off into space, so memory gives stability to knowledge; it is the cohesion which keeps things from falling into a lump, or flowing in waves.

Memory as cement. Memory as thread. Memory as gravity. I think I like the gravity image best because it offers so much to play with.

One of the important things that memory does for us is hold together past and present so that both exist together. The past is never gone, it is always with us in the here and now. Our memory then acts like a companion, a tutor, a poet--and what I like best--a library. Our memories keep records of experiences, thoughts, and facts and holds them for us so that we have them to compare with new experiences, thoughts and facts. Thus are we able to learn and make progress in our thinking. It is not without reason that the Muses are the daughters of Memory.

Memory does play tricks on us though and sometimes, says Emerson, it seems that it has a personality and will of its own like

some old aunt who goes in and out of the house, and occasionally recites anecdotes of old times and persons which I recognize as having heard before, and she being gone again I search in vain for an trace of the anecdotes.

Is that not a marvelous image? I wonder if Emerson had a name for his "old aunt" like Auntie Betsy for instance, and if, when he couldn't remember something, he ever said, "Auntie Betsy has left the room?"

Emerson has a few other things to say about memory but what it all boils down to for him is that memory "is a presumption of a possession of the future." He is certain that in living by principles and obeying "the law of the mind instead of passion," that the "Great Mind" will "enter into us" and we will not only be able to see past and present but the future also. Until that time we are only halves.

Next week's Emerson: "The Celebration of Intellect"

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Maria, or the Wrongs of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft

When Mary Wollstonecraft was born in 1759, to a fairly prosperous family in what is now Spitalfields in London, she seemed to have a life of comfort and good fortune awaiting her. Yet her father's tendency towards speculation and wasteful spending soon destroyed the greater part of the family income, and by the time Wollstonecraft reached adulthood she was faced with the plight of untold other young women of her age and social standing: she had too little money to marry well but few useful skills to support herself financially. She worked as a governess and tried to run a school for girls, then finally took a very great risk in attempting to earn a living through her writing alone. Having travelled to France to see the changes being wrought by the Revolution, she channeled much of her frustration at the conditions she saw in England into her writings. Hard on the heels of her A Vindication of the Rights of Men (written as a scathing response to Edmund Burke's conservative Reflections on the Revolution in France) came her best-known work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, in which Wollstonecraft addresses many of the concerns she had with the treatment of women and their education -- or more specifically, the lack thereof.

Wollstonecraft makes several basic points in the book, most of which centre on the nature of women's intelligence and a girl's ability to be educated in the same manner as a boy would be. She roundly condemns writers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau who insisted that boys and girls could not and should not be educated on equal terms. It is this attitude, she claims, that is responsible for so much of the vice, ignorance, and lascivious behaviour she dislikes in both men and women. As long as women are taught that their only use in life is to be sweet, charming, and pleasing to men, they will of course go to any lengths to keep a man's affections and attentions...even to the detriment of their children's welfare, their family's good name, and their own moral standards. Uneducated women teach their daughters to be flirts and courtesans, not good and rational mothers and wives. The sons of uneducated women learn that a woman is only worth something when she is young and pretty, tacitly condoning extra-marital affairs. An educated woman, on the other hand, will be more capable of caring for her children -- she will be less involved in constantly trying to keep her husband's affections, for one thing -- and will likely provide her sons and daughters with the proper example to follow as they grow up to become moral citizens and rational human beings:

Would men but generously snap our chains, and be content with rational fellowship instead of slavish obedience, they would find us more observant daughters, more affectionate sisters, more faithful wives, more reasonable mothers -- in a word, better citizens.

Education as the backbone of moral fibre is a point she stresses over and over again, and insists that any of the arguments about women being created mentally inferior to men cannot be true. No good and gentle Creator, she claims, would be cruel enough to create a being who was allowed neither the brute instinct given to animals nor the free will and reason given to men. Even if the writing of the Vindication feels more than a little repetitive at times, Wollstonecraft's message comes across plainly and passionately, as much a part of the works of the revolutionary Enlightenment writers as anything written by...well, a man.

The second work included in the book are the sections of Wollstonecraft's unfinished novel Maria, or the Wrongs of Woman. The 'wrongs' mentioned in the title include both the wrongs done to women and the wrongs done by women -- the central point of the plot involves the grim fate of a woman named Maria, who has been declared insane and locked up a private asylum at the whim of her debauched, spendthrift husband. While in the asylum, Maria befriends one of the female 'nurses', a girl named Jemima, who has likewise suffered greatly in the course of her married life. Wollstonecraft draws parallels across class boundaries in a manner that was quite radical for her day, pointing out the unsatisfactory condition shared by poor and well-to-do women alike. While the fragments of the novel are clearly sketchy and unpolished, there is enough available to give the reader an idea of what the story might have been like -- though it is difficult to tell whether Wollstonecraft intended the tale to have a tragic ending (like that of her first novel, Mary) or a more romantic ending where the heroine manages to overcome her condition.

The edition that I have (the Longman Cultural Edition) contains a selection of articles and other writings related to Wollstonecraft's work, ranging from contemporary reviews of the Vindication to longer sections from works that Wollstonecraft cited or referred to in the text itself. The articles and snippets help to place the writings within their era, complete with annotations and explanations designed to clarify quotations or references that contemporary readers might not immediately know. If I had the opportunity to select from a few different editions of Wollstonecraft's work, I think I would have preferred an edition which included only the Vindication and its related articles -- the unfinished novel seemed (to me) overly melodramatic and maudlin when compared to the firey feel of the polemic. Even so, the Vindication is required reading for anyone interested in early feminist writings and the work of Enlightenment authors, no matter what edition it happens to be in.

When I started posting on the chapters of The Kite Runner it didn't seem a daunting task but as I am only up to chapter seven ... maybe I was wrong.

So here goes -

In chapter seven Hassan dreams that Amir conquers the monster in the lake. Amir prays to win the competition - which he does and Hassan runs to retrieve the losing kite. Assef and his gang trap Hassan in an alley and Assef rapes him. Amir sees the rape but he runs away and pretends nothing has happened.

This is the most important chapter of the entire novel as it presents the problem that Amir will have to deal with the rest of his life. It shows his greatest sin and what Rahim Khan had referred to when he said, "There is a way to be good again." The dream is used to foreshadow Amir's victory in the tournament, but there are still monsters to deal with: Assef of course, and Amir himself. Amir's cowardice is made clearer by Hassan's courage in standing up for him the year before. The tournament is Amir's greatest moment in his search for approval from Baba, but in the end, it is his worst moment because of what he allowed to happen to Hassan. This event will form the basis for the remainder of the novel. Note that the foreshadowing set into place with Assef's warning that he was a patient person and would have his revenge eventually has come true. Hassan will pay a terrible price for that revenge, but then so will Amir.

So to be clear - the seventh chapter is very important. The key scene in which Amir witnesses the rape of Hassan and does nothing to protect him is the central event in the novel. This is the event that has haunted Amir. As readers we condemn Amir's cowardice and feel some repulsion at Amir's failure to defend Hassan. However, it is important to note that disgust for his cowardice is also shared by Amir himself. Amir knows that his abandonment of Hassan can be viewed as a sacrifice to win Baba's approval. Amir is afraid that he let Hassan get raped because he is "just a Hazara". Also note how Hassan's attackers, Assef, Wali and Kamal attack Hassan's ethnicity. Hosseini is making it clear to the reader just how embedded the idea that Hazara are inferior in Afghanistan is. I will mention at this point the image of the slaughtered lamb which recurs through the novel and is obviously developed further in this chapter. The key scene reinforces the idea the Amir had to sacrifice Hassan in order to win Baba's approval.

Preparations have begun.  Dates have been chosen, venues selected,dresses ordered, and attendants invited.  I'm honored to be a bridesmaid in both weddings, Melissa's in October in Los Angeles and Kaye's next May in Northern Virginia.

Weddings always make a woman think of her own wedding, whether she's a girl dreaming of the future or a matron thinking back to her own big day.  My sisters' preparations bring up all kinds of wedding-related memories for me:  the flowers, the guests, the dress, the ceremony, the handsome husband. 

I've been reflecting on what succeeded brilliantly (walking down the aisle behind a bagpiper was pretty sweet) and what failed miserably (here's some advice:  don't let your stupid drunk-ass friends slosh red wine near your ivory silk-satin dress).

I've discovered with surprise that some of the opinions that I held strongly as a bride have now completely changed.  Some of this change comes from experience.  I didn't realize at the time what would work and what wouldn't; it's amazing how much is riding on one day that you (hopefully) get one shot at.

Some of my changed opinions are due to my different life situation.  As a mom, for example, I've been touched that people have invited my kids to be part of their weddings, so I would have done the same. 

Some of this evolution I'll optimistically chalk up to maturity.  My different perspective would have led me to emphasize slightly different things.

On the whole, though, I think that I became more reasonable after my wedding, as I turned back from my crazed green hulk bride to my normal, saner self.  It's a common, well-documented phenomenon, and it definitely happened to me.

This brings me to a realization: the best thing that we can do for a bride is to simply get out of the way.  It might not be all about her, but it sure as hell isn't about us.  If she makes a mistake or two, we need to stay steadfast in our support.  In cases of real bridezilla emergencies we may need to give her a firm shake or a hard slap, but in general we simply smile and nod.

Here's a mantra that might help.  Silently (never, ever speak this aloud) repeat after me:  [Insert Bride's name here], I love you enough to let you temporarily act like a total whack-job bitch and not hold it against you for years to come.

Weddings are our number one cultural flashpoint*, bar none.  A girl's wedding day is built up to be the most important day of her life (which it isn't) and the most public (which it is).  Add to this everyone else's dearly-held opinions about everything wedding-related and you've thrown figurative gasoline and a lighted blow torch on the nuptial powder keg.

To be fair, a bride can't help but to piss some people off.  It simply can't be avoided.  Someone won't get invited, or chosen as a bridesmaid.  The bride may accidentally swipe someone's favorite song for her first dance, or demand that her attendants wear dyed-to-match turquoise shoes. 

When this happens, you just need to let it go.  Repeat the mantra above thirty or forty times and you'll feel better about it.

My point is, she was your friend or sister before her wedding, and she's probably going to live another eighty or so years after her wedding, so keep the big picture in mind. 

As you'll probably hear during the ceremony, "love is patient, love is kind...love bears no record of wrongs..."  St. Paul was talking to you, Missy, even if the bride did make you wear green taffeta and not let you bring a date even though you schlepped your sorry butt all the way from Michigan to get here (ahem, sorry about that). 

My sisters, by the way, have been models of bridal graciousness.  Perhaps they'll continue this perfect behavior all the way to the chapel, but I doubt it, and I'm ready.  Bring it on, ladies; I can take it!

Thank God my own bridesmaids must have followed this advice.  Eight years later they are all still speaking to me, and they're still my beloved friends.  Either I've redeemed myself or the open bar really paid off.

 
*Definition:  A critical situation or area having the potential of erupting in sudden violence.  Equally applicable to the Middle East and your average wedding.

The perception is that this group of unknown, but of assumed large size,  is wary of the right and the left. They are believed to be suspicious of radicalism in general, liberal or conservative. They don't want anything too awfully "different" at all, but some body they feel is "normal" whatever that means. And for a very long time in politics, once a candidate gets his party's blessing, he (so far they have all been he's)  starts to sniff around the heels of the great "middle."

Of course, McCain has tried to do this a bit, mostly hoping nobody notices. He has a huge problem with doing so however because his base is so reactionary that it doesn't leave him much wiggle room to court the ghostly middle. It makes him look down right radical to make any overtures. No, his only real way of doing so, has been to turn his back on legitimate liberal policies he has embraced in the past and move to the right, hoping his former liberal supporters won't notice. Therein has been the place of his flip-flopping.

And to tell the truth, given what we know about McCain, we expected this. He is not at all the maverick he works so painstakingly to portray. He proved that with the infamous bear hug of joyous adoration he gifted one George W. Bush with in 2004. He made it clear at that moment in time that everything in terms of principles was up for sale to get what he wanted.

But, Obama, now we had come to think of him differently. He was not telling us what we wanted to hear, he was speaking truth as he believed it. No changing to embrace the supposed flowing tides of public opinion for him. Until he got the nomination sewed up. Then it began to change, imperceptibly at first. We told ourselves, well, it's not really a change, it's a refinement. We have to win the big one, after all.

But then, the issues started to be ones we really cared about, like FISA and the death penalty and gun control and NAFTA, and our boy, secure that he has us in his hip pocket, well now he's wandering around salivating at the great "middle" of undecided America, convinced so it seems that he can't win without attracting their fickle imprimatur.

Is that the case? Do people,  who are so totally uninterested in what is happening in this country that they haven't made a choice yet, really matter at all? Are people this shallow not open to the last razzle dazzle they see before entering the voting booth? You get 'em today and lose them next week to the newest slick ad. People this unsophisticated can't tell the truth from a lie in the first place.

And what kinda price are you paying for this so-called middle? You are turning off the people whom you energized. You are losing those who for a moment thought you were different. They realize you aren't and they opt out once more, a tad more cynical, a sad more cheated, and even more unlikely to ever bother again.

How does this happen? When did it start? I mean was there ever a time in our entire history when a candidate said, "This is who I am, this is what I stand for. If that's what you stand for, vote for me." Is that so politically naive that it must be met with gales of laughter and derision as the mere thought? Is it impossible to tell the damn truth any more? Do we have to incessantly make excuses and whisper "he's not really changing, this is just to get the center vote, hint, hint, nudge, nudge."

I'm tired of making the excuses frankly. I'm tired of explaining that in the real world one must make these kinds of compromises for the greater good-- the greater good meaning getting elected. AT WHAT PRICE? Is this freaking price worth it? If this country is so shallow that it cannot clearly see that one candidate's policies and platform is vastly superior to the other, then to hell with it. To hell with American politics, and the fact that we continue to look like idiots to the rest of the planet. Elect your moronic war-mongering dottering old man and I'll spend my time in solitude in my meadow, ignoring the whole lot of you.

How dare you count on me, because I have no where else to go! I can stay home you know. I can say to hell with your realpolitik excuses and spend the rest of my days tending my flowers and sojourning with God. I am way too old to be continually slapped in the face with so-called "new politics" turned to "old politics" in the blink of an eye. As was said in the movie, "I'm mad and I'm not going to take it any more."

Beware Mr. Obama, I'm growing tired of "change I can believe in" turning to the same old "change I have to compromise." Remember who the hell got you where you are, and stop be seduced by the party hacks who think they know better. I think you are legit, but I suggest you better start proving that. Your election may depend on it.

The life and works of Dmitri Shostakovich are inextricably linked to the politics of the Russian Communist regime. Although he was recognised as “perhaps Soviet Russia’s most loyal musical son, and certainly her most talented one”,[1] he found his creative freedom restricted by the Party. The first and most infamous example of such political mistreatment was the opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, which after two years of success was denounced and banned. Shostakovich had become the “sacrificial lamb”[2] through which the Party displayed its power over the arts: his fate served as a warning to those who strayed from the dictated aesthetic path of “socialist realism”. His official rehabilitation came with the polysemous Fifth Symphony, which reaped “an orgy of public praise” and later “Stalin prizes and titles and honorary posts”[3] – for the Party had to show it could deck with roses as easily as it could revile and humiliate.[4]

     That Shostakovich was Russia’s most talented offspring there can be no doubt. His First Symphony, composed when he was still a teenager, skyrocketed him into international fame. His formative years corresponded to the era of artistic liberalism ushered by Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1921. It was widely accepted that a revolutionary society had to have revolutionary art; the period was marked by the enthusiastic espousal of modernism and an exchange of ideas with the progressive West. Leningrad and Moscow became dynamic centres of cultural life where works by Schreker, Křenek, Berg, Hindemith, and the expatriate Stravinsky were performed.[5] Many Soviet composers devoted themselves to the creation of modernistic music. Socialist ideology “emphatically” rejected “the separation of Art from Life”; accordingly, their music often portrayed the shifting and grinding of factories and the bustling sounds of the city.[6] The organisation behind the Western-inspired musical avant-garde was the Association for Contemporary Music, the ACM, which propelled Russian music into an age of modernism. But a rival group, the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM), called for a simplified musical language that could be comprehended by the masses. From the outset, the RAPM’s attitude was vehemently anti-modernistic.

     As soon as Shostakovich graduated from the Leningrad Conservatory in 1925 he embraced the cause of modernism. Perhaps most striking of the radical pieces he produced during this period are his Aphorisms for piano (influenced by Prokofiev’s Sarcasms) and his Gogolian opera The Nose. The latter work discarded convention to such an extent that it became a sort of anti-opera; in it we can find the naturalistic portrayal of snoring and other nasal sounds and a full exploitation of the satire of the story it is based on.[7]  Shostakovich also undertook a commission to create the Symphonic Dedication to October (later to become his Second Symphony) for the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution in 1927.[8] That the work is characterised by clamorous dissonances and includes a factory hooter in its instrumentation suggests close affinity to the ACM; its choral ending, on the other hand, is undeniably propagandist, leading to approval by the RAPM.[9] The fact that many of Shostakovich’s works are on similarly revolutionary topics supports the hypothesis that he was “perhaps the most loyal” of Soviet Russia’s composers. His many film scores were often so propagandist that “Stalin himself attached great value to Shostakovich the film composer.”[10] His patriotic songs, ballets, and theatre pieces were written in the same vein of radical socialist ideals. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether Shostakovich truly believed in the ideology he supported; many have argued that he was actually a clandestine dissident.

    In 1929, Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan brutally put an end to the artistic euphoria of the NEP. Russia underwent a Second Revolution, in which any potential opponents of Stalin were mercilessly liquidated. Land collectivisation and industrialisation put immense pressure on the country and caused a rapid decline in living standards.[11] In the arts, modernism was forcefully suppressed by the Party and became known under the black label of “formalism”, a slippery term that was plastic enough to mean anything the regime wanted it to.[12] Formalism, officially defined as the “separation of form from content”,[13] was seen as an esoteric expression of bourgeois-inspired corruption that had no place in the proletarian Soviet Russia. Accused of formalism, modernists such as Roslavets, Mosolov, and Lourié were ushered out of Russian musical life and had their names literally expunged from the history books.[14]  The Party further dissolved the ACM and put the RAPM in domination over the Soviet musical world: after three years in power, the latter was replaced by the party-run Union of Soviet Composers in the perestroyka[15] of 1932.[16] Although most composers were relieved to be free of the hegemony of the RAPM, the Union soon showed itself to be even more intimidating: it was the instrument of political control over Russian musical life.

     “Socialist realism”, introduced in 1934 at the First Congress of Soviet Writers, became the goal towards which all Soviet artists were to strive.[17] Officially defined as “the truthful and historically concrete representation of reality in its revolutionary development”, it meant almost exactly the opposite.[18] The irony was biting: socialist realism was supposed to present an undyingly optimistic vision of Soviet life, “the harsh every-day reality…seen through rose-coloured glasses.”[19] Everything was portrayed as evolving towards the revolutionary ideal, a cheerfully uniform society.[20] It was clear from the outset that all new socialist art would have to be positive, comprehensible to the masses, and suffused by a kind of heroism. Soviet music cemented into a style of vulgar cliches that effectively hedged it off from the outside world: “there was a curious sense of disillusionment at the discovery that Revolutionary Russia could produce such far from revolutionary music.”[21]

    
     In fact, “so little was socialist realism understood” at the beginning that Shostakovich’s second opera, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, “was accepted as the embodiment of it.”[22] When it was premiered in January 1934 it was a phenomenal success. The first Soviet opera to enter the repertoire, its fame soon spread abroad. It was soon being performed in Sweden, Czechoslovakia, England, Yugoslavia, Switzerland, Denmark, and America. At home, both the critics and the general public were ecstatic: Lady Macbeth was hailed as a work that “could have been written only by a Soviet composer brought up in the best traditions of Soviet culture.”[23] While the music met with disapproval from the conservative faction of the Union of Soviet Composers, they could do nothing to blight Shostakovich’s triumph.[24] At 27, he was the most famous composer in the Soviet Union. In the euphoria of success Shostakovich, who had initially planned a trilogy of operas on the theme of strong Russian heroines, announced that he would complete a tetralogy, à la Wagner’s Ring Cycle. Lady Macbeth was to be the Rheingold.[25]

     Lady Macbeth was based on a story of the same name by the 19^th-century writer Nikolai Leskov, which, according to Shostakovich, “expressively characterises the position of women in the old prerevolutionary time”.[26] Nevertheless, some significant alterations were made to the plot by the composer and his co-librettist Alexander Preis. Shostakovich sought to whiten the character of Katerina, the “Lady Macbeth” of the title; the murderess was interpreted as “a vigorous, talented, beautiful woman, who perishes in the dismal, cruel domestic environment of the Russia of merchants and serfs.”[27] The opera’s portrayal of the corruption of the old bourgeois society is relentless: Shostakovich was evidently attempting to apply the Marxist theory of progress to the story.[28]

     Lady Macbeth was innovative in many ways. The orchestral interludes, which ensure a sense of dramatic continuity, “serve the purpose of developing basic musical ideas and illustrating the action.”[29] The unflinching realism of the love scene between Katerina and Sergei shocked audiences worldwide. Nevertheless, Lady Macbeth is less stylistically arcane than The Nose; in fact, it is relatively conventional. The voice parts are “built on broad cantilena, making use of all available resources of the human voice”.[30] Shostakovich showed himself the equal of a Verdi or a Mussorgsky in his scope for powerful dramatic clarity. “I have tried to make the musical language of my opera as simple as possible,”[31] he said. It was in Lady Macbeth that he achieved a balance between the conventional and the modernistic, creating a “psychological drama with socio-critical overtones.”[32]

     In January 1936, Stalin announced the new criteria for Soviet opera: these were “a libretto with a Socialist topic, a realistic musical language with stress on a national idiom, and a positive hero typifying the new Socialist era.”[33] As has been demonstrated, Lady Macbeth’s portrayal of the bourgeoisie could be seen as socialist propaganda, and the “realism” of the musical language can hardly be questioned, although the national idiom is largely obscured by the parody of “the false and lying methods of the composers of bourgeois society”. Shostakovich’s Katerina could be perceived as a modern woman trapped in a stifling archaic society, acting as a revolutionary who topples her oppressors; thus she typifies “the new Socialist era”. But could she be perceived as a “positive hero”? Shostakovich indeed wrote that he wanted to “justify Katerina so she would impress the audience as a positive character”,[34] and it is possible to interpret her as a noble human being that has cracked under appalling outward circumstances. Thus it is arguable that, on one level at least, Lady Macbeth met Stalin’s criteria.

     Despite the fact that Shostakovich was perhaps the most ideologically committed of all the composers of his generation, he was fated to become the proverbial tall poppy of Soviet Russia. On the 26 January, 1936, Stalin and his close colleagues attended a Bolshoi production of Lady Macbeth; they left  before the end of the opera.[35] Two days later, an unsigned editorial titled “Muddle instead of Music” was published in the Party’s official newspaper, Pravda. The editorial attacked Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District as a formalistic, “leftist deformation instead of natural, human music”, and warned that if Shostakovich continued in the same vein things “might end very badly”.[36] As Taruskin notes, “the same merciless rhetoric of political denunciation was directed, for the first time anywhere, at an artist.”[37] As if to make things absolutely clear, another article appeared in Pravda on February 6, condemning Shostakovich’s ballet portraying life on a collective farm, The Limpid Stream, as “Balletic Falsehood”.

     The editorials had far-reaching consequences. For Shostakovich it meant a sharp fall from grace, a loss of income, and, if he did not correct his “mistakes”, a threat to his freedom and possibly his life. Pravda took pains to make it clear that all the arts, not just music, must follow the same rules, and that whoever continued in a formalistic vein would suffer the same fate as Shostakovich.[38] As far as Soviet music was concerned, everybody involved felt the impact of the editorials; composers and musicologists alike endorsed the Pravda articles, afraid of the consequences of not stepping in line with official opinion.[39] The Quiet Don, a song opera by Dzerzhinsky that Stalin and his companions had seen and approved a week before Lady Macbeth, was declared the prototype of Soviet opera. It was a work of little artistic merit, ironically dedicated to Shostakovich.[40] Its optimism and lack of complexity surely endeared it to Stalin; this was the kind of “socialist realism” he sought. The sphere of Soviet opera was subjected to numerous emulations of the work; meanwhile, Shostakovich withdrew his Fourth Symphony, deeming it risky to perform such a complex, pessimistic work in the circumstances.

     It took Shostakovich almost a year to work up enough courage to begin the composition of his Fifth Symphony; but when he did, the process was incredibly swift. The third movement, for example, was written over three days.[41] Infamously subtitled “a Soviet artist’s response to just criticism”,[42] it received its immensely successful premiere in November 1937 under the baton of the young, then almost unknown, Yevgeny Mravinsky. Shostakovich said that “the theme of my symphony is the formation of a personality. At the center of the work’s conception I envisioned just that: a man in all his suffering.”[43] That Shostakovich was talking about himself there can hardly be any doubt. The symphony was seen as a personal perestroyka, or restructuring, by the authorities, and as such was approved, abetted, praised. Here was the work in which Shostakovich “apologised” for his former mistakes and sought to rectify his “formalistic” impulses of the past, adopting a clear musical idiom. The symphony was written on a large, heroic scale, classically divided into four movements. Formally, it was a return to tradition.

    But, contrary to what the exultant regime believed, the Fifth Symphony did not present a radical change of style. The influence of the Pravda article over Shostakovich cannot be called into question: the composer certainly felt the threat over his head, fully comprehended the situation he was in and feared for his own life. Nevertheless, the style he exhibited in the Fifth Symphony was not an artificial break with his former ouvre; rather, it was the result of a natural evolution towards a more mature idiom.[44] For example, the strikingly conservative cello sonata that Shostakovich wrote in 1934 before the Pravda attack demonstrates a connection with the form, texture, tonality and rhythm of the Fifth Symphony.[45] Thus, it could be argued that the Fifth, officially celebrated as the composer’s perestroyka, would not be much different if the Pravda attack had never occurred.[46]

    Nevertheless, Shostakovich was painfully aware of what was expected of him. Sensing that the funereal slow movement might be criticised for its pessimism, Shostakovich endeavoured to justify it by writing that “Soviet tragedy, as a genre, has every right to exist; but its content must be suffused with a positive idea, comparable, for example, to the life-affirming ardor of Shakespeare’s tragedies.”[47] It was thus that the symphony was given the oxymoronic epithet of “optimistic tragedy”.[48] Yet the “triumphal” quality of the D major coda, which “resolves the tense and tragic moments of the preceding movements in a joyous, optimistic fashion”,[49] is an object of controversy: ever since the first performance listeners have detected an element of hollowness in the fanfares. The dry ostentations of the trumpets and timpani, combined with the sparse orchestration and the linear, almost sketchy quality of the music, give credibility to such a reading. To quote Solomon Volkov, “It’s as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, ‘Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing,’ and you go marching off, muttering, ‘Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing.’”[50] It seems appropriate to conclude, then, that the ending is a monument to socialist realism, as it leads the imagination to wonder what would be revealed were the brightly-coloured paint peeled off.

    The importance of the polysemy and latent content of Shostakovich’s music is enormous.[51] The Fifth Symphony’s mournful slow movement provoked open weeping during its first performance, which was, crucially, at the height of the Yezhovshchina period of political terror. By the end of the period in 1953, the number of innocent victims executed in Stalin’s purges amounted to millions. Others were sent to gulag prison camps and often did not return. The music offered an outlet for sorrow that was rare in a socialist society that was forced to put on a brave face in a time of catastrophe; it also unified its audience with what has been called geselleschaftbildende Kraft or community-binding power.[52]  The long-lasting ovations at the end of the symphony were a testimony to its greatness; it was a work that could be understood on many levels, pleasing both the officaldom and the general public. Ultimately, Shostakovich was awarded four Stalin Prizes and became Secretary of the Composer’s Union, Member of the Supreme Soviet, and Hero of Socialist Labour.

If our nation’s Founders could visit us on this, our 232nd Independence Day, what would they make of us? What would they declare of us?
A hint can be discerned in a letter from John Adams to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776, as the Declaration of Independence had just been approved. “It ought to be commemorated,” said the man who would become our second president, “as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Day’s Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.” …
Our Founders believed that independence was more than a choice; they viewed our break from royal rule as necessary.
Consider the first statement of the Declaration: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The signatories were emphatic that separation from the crown was not only an objective, but an obligation: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.” In conclusion, the Founders wrote, “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation...”
Their cause, of course, was not anti-government. Rather they objected to the misgovernment of the king, saying, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Furthermore, the Americans had been patient, petitioning their British rulers for redress for over a decade. …
One year before taking that step for nationhood, on July 5, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted the Olive Branch Petition, beseeching the British king for a peaceful resolution of the American colonies’ grievances. A day later, that same Congress resolved the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms.”
King George III refused to read the peace petition and assembled his armies. On July 2, 1776, Richard Henry Lee’s proposal for a formal declaration of separation passed, and the document was ordered printed on July 4. The war-weary among us today might ask, was independence

really necessary? …
To pose the question at the outset of the Revolutionary War was to answer it. Representatives of the colonial Americans realized that, in voicing this query, they already possessed proof that they, not the King of England, were legitimate instruments of self-government for their countrymen. How could circumstances be otherwise when the king offered no remedy for his subjects’ complaints, no guarantee their rights would be respected, and no means for them to govern themselves in their new lands?
The founders knew, however, that power could not be its own justification. They recognized that only an appeal to overarching laws, binding the king as much as his subjects, was legitimate. And abuse of authority demonstrated disqualification of any governor, whether a monarch or a purported representative. We would do well to apply this insight to the political debates of today.

Indeed.

While we continue to celebrate pretty much the way we did when our nation was young, with less emphasis on public parades in some parts of America, and more personal celebration with a family day that ends with fireworks at dusk, either personal fireworks or the spectacular displays instituted by the local community governments – the “Spirit of America” is waning.

And while the war against terrorist extremists continues, Americans (and other citizens of the world) are beginning to what caused it – the attacks of September 11^th, 2001. The founders of our nation tried several approaches to the situation with Saddam Hussein and his ruthless Baath Party regime. After the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, there wasn’t any surrender or peace treaty signed with the Iraq government – it was a ceasefire, much like what happened at the end of the Korean War of the 1950s. For 12 years, the United Nations and the American government put up with a broken ceasefire agreement and resolutions. Traditionally, America has gone to war reluctantly, and experiencing its own civil war, knows that unity is important, as well as intelligence. If President GW Bush was accused of wrong intelligence or whatever, the information did not just come from the American intelligence community. The point here, without getting into any detail is that political entities have made themselves more important than national security, the Constitution and the American people for whom they are supposed to be serving.

For a nation only exists because of the people, not the government and the Founders knew this full well.

Today, a revolution is being considered again, only this one will be in the form of reformation. And just as in 1776, when the United States after several attempts to address issues with King George, decided enough is enough, so we too must arm ourselves with the laws of our Constitution and the voting power (while we still may have it over the mainstream media’s swaying power) instead of firearms and ammunition. Indeed, the liberty and right to keep and bear arms when necessary have been in danger of being terminated. And once the Second Amendment disappears, so will the other portions of the Bill of Rights. We have already pretty much lost our personal property rights when government, under the rule of domain and the private environmentalist groups are taking away private property rights because of an endangered creature or the greed of a local developer who has more influence upon local government than the people. This was not what was intended nor was our government to have the powers to invade our private lives.

Yet, despite the fact that politicians today think nothing of increasing the bureaucracy, the status quo and continuing an unfair, intrusive tax system – the American majority, often called the “silent majority” is waiting when they should be acting. Too many Americans don’t even know who their federal government representatives and senators are, if even the name and background of their own city, town or village mayor. And since all of the power has been given to bureaucrats, in the name of the false security it promises – a system developing where government handles affairs of its citizens from cradle to grave – we, the American voting citizen, are initially to blame. I know, I was once one of them. And, I realize that, for the most part, it is not because we don’t care, but we become busy with our personal lives and put television or other things ahead of moments set aside to keep track of those who have such power over our lives.

Maybe this Independence Day, like a New Year’s resolution, we can endeavor to promise ourselves that we will join with other citizens and once again make America the democratic republic it was intended to be.

Have a great 4^th of July – be safe.

KAL

Μία από τις σημαντικότερες μεταβάσεις αυτού του τύπου έγινε με τη μορφή των “κοινωνικών δικτύων” (Social Networks). Τα social networks είναι δικτυακές υπηρεσίες που επιτρέπουν στους χρήστες να διατηρούν μια προσωπική σελίδα και να έρχονται σε επαφή με άλλους χρήστες βλέποντας τις προσωπικές τους σελίδες και να επικοινωνούν μεταξύ τους, ανταλλάσσοντας σχόλια, εικόνες, video, links, να παίζουν μαζί παιχνίδια ή να κανονίζουν εξόδους. Τα social networks προσπαθούν να αντικαταστήσουν ένα μεγάλο κομμάτι της καθημερινής επικοινωνίας μεταξύ φίλων και γνωστών καθώς και ένα αρκετά σημαντικό μέρος των κοινών δραστηριοτήτων.

Το πιο επιτυχημένο από αυτά τα δίκτυα είναι το facebook. Το Facebook ξεκίνησε σαν μικρή εφαρμογή επικοινωνίας μεταξύ συμφοιτητών στο Χάρβαρντ το 2004¹ και μέσα σε λίγα χρόνια γιγαντώθηκε, έχοντας σήμερα περισσότερους από 80 εκατομμύρια χρήστες και τιμή εξαγοράς που εκτιμάται στα 15 δισεκατομμύρια δολάρια².

H δομή του facebook είναι απλή. Ο κάθε χρήστης δημιουργεί και επεξεργάζεται ένα “προφίλ”. Το προφίλ αυτό περιλαμβάνει μια πληθώρα πληροφοριών για το άτομό του, από φωτογραφίες διακοπών μέχρι αγαπημένα βιβλία ή πολιτικές και θρησκευτικές πεποιθήσεις. Το επόμενο βασικό συστατικό είναι το να βρει κάποιους “φίλους” στο facebook. Οι φίλοι μπορεί να είναι παλιοί συμμαθητές (το σημείο εκκίνησης λειτουργίας του facebook), συνεργάτες, τωρινοί ή παλιοί φίλοι ή εραστές κλπ. Μιας και το προφίλ είναι δημόσιο και οι πληροφορίες του αναζητήσιμες, ο καθένας μπορεί να βρει οποιονδήποτε και ο οποιοδήποτε μπορεί να βρει τον καθένα.

Το προφίλ ενός χρήστη του facebook είναι σε διαρκή επιτήρηση από όλους. Ταυτόχρονα ο χρήστης μπορεί να επιτηρεί τα προφίλ όλων των άλλων χρηστών. Η ανάλυση του Michel Foucault για το Panopticon του Jeremy Bentham ως πρότυπο μοντέλο συστήματος ελέγχου πλησιάζει αρκετά τη δομή του facebook. Ο Bentham γράφει:

“Το σύστημα τούτο είναι σημαντικό, διότι επιτρέπει την αυτοματοποίηση και την απο-ατομίκευση της εξουσίας. Η εξουσία βασίζεται τώρα πολύ λιγότερο σε ένα άτομο και πολύ περισσότερο σε μια προσχεδιασμένη κατανομή των σωμάτων, των επιφανειών, των φωτών, των βλεμμάτων· σ' ένα σύνολο από εσωτερικούς μηχανισμούς που παράγουν οι ίδιοι τη σχέση όπου παγιδεύονται τα άτομα”[Foucault,1976]³

Το facebook πάει ένα βήμα παραπέρα. Οι χρήστες του facebook έχουν δύο σημαντικές διαφορές από τους έγκλειστους του panopticon: α) έχουν επιλέξει να βρίσκονται μέσα στο σύστημα ελέγχου και β) μπορούν να μπούν ανά πάσα στιγμή στη θέση του επιτηρητή. Η δεύτερη διαφορά είναι αυτή που προκαλεί την πρώτη. Η αίσθηση της ασφάλειας που δίνει η “ισότητα” απέναντι στην εποπτεία είναι αυτή που κάνει τους χρήστες να εμπιστεύονται στο προφίλ τους άκρως προσωπικά δεδομένα που θα ήταν ακατανόητο να τα μοιράζονται στην καθημερινή τους ζωή με τον οποιοδήποτε. Ή όπως προπαγάνδιζαν και οι αφίσες στους τοίχους του υπουργείου ανάκτησης πληροφοριών του Brazil: “Happiness, We are all in this together”ⁱ.

Η διαδικασία της επιτήρησης ξεπερνά το επίπεδο της πληροφορίας που κάποιος έχει αποθηκευμένη στο προφίλ του. Η “αθώα” περιέργεια της ανάγνωσης ενός προφίλ, γίνεται διαρκής παρακολούθηση μέσα από το μηχανισμό των “stories”(ειδήσεις). Κάθε κίνηση που κάνει κάποιος μέσα στο facebook, όπως το να σχολιάσει μια φωτογραφία, να αλλάξει κάτι στο προφίλ του, να μπει σε κάποιο γκρουπ κλπ ανακοινώνεται αυτόματα στα προφίλ όλων του των φίλων. Η παρακολούθηση αυτοματοποιείται και τελειοποιείται αφού έχει την άμεση συγκατάθεση του παρακολουθούμενου. Αυτό λειτουργεί ακριβώς όπως ο μηχανισμός αυτοπροσαρμογής των εγκλείστων του panopticon.

“Το άτομο που καθυποβάλλεται σε ενα πεδίο ορατότητας, και που το ξέρει, επωμίζεται το ίδιο τους καταναγκασμούς της εξουσίας· τους προσαρμόζει αυθόρμητα στον εαυτό του δέχεται μέσα του τη σχέση εξουσίας όπου παίζει ταυτόχρονα και τους δύο ρόλους· γίνεται η βάση της ίδιας της καθυπόταξης.”[Foucault,1976]⁴

Ο χρήστης έχοντας γνώση πως παρακολουθείται διαρκώς σε κάθε του κίνηση, αυτοελέγχεται. Στρογγυλεύει τα σχόλιά του, αποφεύγει επαφές με άτομα που μπορεί να μην συμπαθούν οι φίλοι του και προσέχει τι είδους μουσική ή βιβλία θα παραθέσει σαν ενδεικτικά του γούστου του. Η συμπεριφορά αυτή εντείνεται από το γεγονός ότι η πλειοψηφία των δικτυακών του επαφών είναι άνθρωποι που συναναστρέφεται μαζί τους καθημερινά και θα είναι σε θέση να τον κρίνουν και στην πραγματική του ζωή. Μάλιστα εντείνεται ακόμα περισσότερο όταν το προφίλ του facebook χρησιμοποιείται από ένα πιθανό εργοδότη, ή το πανεπιστήμιο που έκανε αίτηση για να τον δεχθούν.

Χαρακτηριστικό παράδειγμα αυτοελέγχου είναι οι φωτογραφίες στα προφίλ. Οι περισσότερες φωτογραφίες δείχνουν τον ή την χρήστη σε ιδανικές πόζες. Σχεδόν όλοι προσπαθούν οι εικόνες τους να τους απεικονίζουν με όσο το δυνατόν μικρότερη απόκλιση από τα στερεότυπα του δυτικού κόσμου. Αν δεν τα καταφέρνουν, είτε γιατί είναι τόσο μακρυά από τα πρότυπα ομορφιάς που δεν γίνεται να τα προσεγγίσουν χωρίς τη βοήθεια επαγγελματία φωτογράφου είτε γιατί απλά βαριούνται να βγάλουν μια καλοστημένη φωτογραφία, καταφεύγουν σε τεχνάσματα όπως να βάζουν φωτογραφίες από ήρωες comics, να φορούν επίτηδες πολύ παλαβά ρούχα ή αξεσουάρ που αποκρύπτουν τα χαρακτηριστικά τους, κλπ. Ομολογουμένως υπάρχει μια μερίδα χρηστών που δεν υποκύπτει σε τέτοιες συμπεριφορές αλλά δεδομένου ότι το πλέον χρήσιμο στοιχείο για τη δημιουργία εντυπώσεων μέσα σε ένα προφίλ είναι η φωτογραφία. [Evans,2008]⁵

Υπάρχει και ένα δεύτερος μηχανισμός αυτολογοκρισίας. Σε αντίθεση με τις καθημερινές σχέσεις στον πραγματικό κόσμο, στο facebook και στα περισσότερα δικτυακά μέσα επικοινωνίας μεσολαβεί ένα στάδιο επεξεργασίας της συμπεριφοράς λόγω του ασύγχρονου τρόπου επικοινωνίας που έχει το μέσο. Το να απαντήσει κάποιος σε ένα σχόλιο στο προφίλ του είναι πολύ διαφορετικό ως διαδικασία από την άμεση απάντηση σε μια ερώτηση που γίνεται σε μια κουβέντα ή από την αντίδραση σε ένα πείραγμα που θα κάνει κάποιος στην παρέα. Η επικοινωνία μεταξύ φίλων γίνεται ανταλλαγή επεξεργασμένων συναισθημάτων που προσπαθούν να χωρέσουν στις 3 γραμμές ενός σχολίου ή στο ready-made emoticon, ή mini-app.

Κατ' επέκταση οι κοινωνικές δράσεις περιορίζονται στην συμμετοχή σε κάποιο γκρουπ ή στην ανάρτηση κάποιου banner. Η άνοδος της ψηφιακής εποχής έβγαλε άλλο ένα ευμεγέθες λιθαράκι από το οικοδόμημα του δημόσιου χώρου. Του δημόσιου χώρου που από χώρος συναναστροφής, συνδημιουργίας και κοινωνικών αγώνων ήδη είχε αρχίσει να εκφυλίζεται σε χώρο μετακίνησης και πεδίο άσκησης του δικαιώματος στην κατανάλωση. Στα προφίλ του facebook μπορείς να βρείς από τα πολύ trendy γκρουπ για την καταπολέμηση του φαινομένου του θερμοκηπίου μέχρι γκρουπ για την εκστρατεία προστασίας των Σκανδιναβών γυναικείων μοντέλων εσωρούχων (με το αντίστοιχο banner). Αρκετές φορές μάλιστα συμβαίνει κάποιος χρήστης να είναι μέλος και στα δύο. Μπορεί αυτό να γίνεται καθαρά σε όρους “πλάκας” αλλά είναι ενδεικτικό της επιφανειακότητας που προωθεί αυτό το νέο είδος κοινωνικοποίησης.

Το facebook έχει επανειλημμένα βρεθεί στη θέση του κατηγορούμενου από άτομα ή οργανισμούς που ασχολούνται με ζητήματα προστασίας των προσωπικών δεδομένων. Ενώ θεωρητικά υπάρχουν πολλές δικλείδες που ρωτούν το χρήστη αν επιθυμεί την αποκάλυψη ή την προστασία διαφορετικών δεδομένων του προφίλ του, για να μπορεί κάποιος να συμμετέχει πλήρως στην "εμπειρία" που προσφέρει η υπηρεσία πρέπει να επιτρέψει την αποκάλυψη των περισσότερων από αυτά.

Ο ρόλος της εταιρείας που διαχειρίζεται το facebook είναι αντίστοιχος με αυτόν του νομοθέτη που καθορίζει τους όρους διαβίωσης μέσα στο ίδρυμα. Η βασική διαφορά εδώ είναι ότι ο νομοθέτης του facebook βγάζει και μερικά εκατομμύρια κατά τη διαδικασία. Σε αντίθεση με το νομοθέτη βέβαια, η εταιρεία δεν είναι εκλεγμένη από το “λαό” της αλλά λαμβάνει αυτόματα το δικαίωμα άσκησης εξουσίας όταν ο χρήστης αποδέχεται τους όρους χρήσης της υπηρεσίας.

Η θέση του διαμεσολαβητή που έχει η εταιρεία είναι αυτός του διευθυντή της φυλακής. Ο Foucault αναφέρει πως ο διευθυντής μιας φυλακής μπορεί να παράγει κέρδος υποβάλλοντας τους κρατούμενους σε πειράματα για να μετατρέποντας το ίδρυμα σε χώρο πειραμάτων στην ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά, με τη χρήση της απομόνωσης των εγκλείστων μεταξύ τους και της έκθεσής τους σε διαφορετικές “εργαστηριακές” συνθήκες, ή με την επιβολή καταναγκαστικής εργασίας.

Αυτό είναι αδύνατο στην περίπτωση του facebook γιατί σε αντίθεση με το ιδεατό κατασκεύασμα του panopticon, δεν μπορεί λόγω της άυλης φύσης του να τους αναγκάσει να σπάνε πέτρες ή να γυρίζουν τροχούς. Αντιθέτως θέλει να έχουν όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο ελεύθερο χρόνο για να μπορούν να ασχολούνται με το προφίλ τους. Ο διευθύνων σύμβουλος της Sun, Jonathan Schwartz, εξηγώντας σε μια ομιλία του την λογική με την οποία αντιμετωπίζει η εταιρεία του τα δίκτυα κοινωνικών σχέσεων στο διαδίκτυο, είχε πει πως το περιεχόμενο που παράγουν οι χρήστες μιας διαδικτυακής “δημόσιας υπηρεσίας”(φωτογραφίες, video, σχόλια κλπ) είναι αυτό που δίνει αξία στην υπηρεσία αυτή. Με απλά λόγια όσο πιο πολλά video ανεβάζουμε στο youtube, τόσο πιο πολύ ανεβαίνει η αξία του δικτύου και κατ' επέκταση η αξία της μετοχής της εταιρείαςⁱⁱ. Το κομμάτι της καταναγκαστικής εργασίας λοιπόν αντικαθιστάται με την εθελοντική, ή καλύτερα εθελούσια ενασχόληση με το site.

Η άλλη όμως δυνατότητα του panopticon να μπορεί να χρησιμοποιείται σαν ζωντανό εργαστήριο έρευνας πάνω στην ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά δεν μπορεί να πραγματοποιηθεί στο facebook γιατι δεν απομονώνει τους χρήστες του ούτε έχει δυνατότητα επιβολής διαφορετικών συνθηκών στον καθένα ξεχωριστά. Αντίθετα κάνει ότι είναι προγραμματιστικά δυνατό για να βρίσκονται σε διαρκή επαφή και να αλληλοεπηρρεάζονται. Το πείραμα λοιπόν θα πρέπει να πάρει άλλη μορφή για να γίνει αποτελεσματικο, δηλαδή κερδοφόρο. Αυτό επιχειρήθηκε με εισαγωγή μιας νέας “δυνατότητας” που επέτρεπε σε τρίτες εταιρείες να προσθέτουν υπό την μορφή “stories” αγορές και άλλες καταναλωτικές κινήσεις ή συνήθειες ενός χρήστη που θα επισκεπτόταν το site τους. Επί της ουσίας το facebook πούλαγε ή μάλλον καλύτερα νοίκιαζε τους χρήστες του σε τρίτους για την προώθηση των προϊόντων τους. Το αντίστοιχο στην πραγματική ζωή θα ήταν η άμεση ενημέρωση όλων των φίλων και γνω