I breathe in deeply and the scent of bonfire fills my nostrils triggering my lips to curl up just slightly. A tear of memories rolls down my face and the chords of “Both Hands” pulse through my body.

After realizing midday yesterday that i was mentally exhausted, i decided to join friends up north at this place called Slide Ranch. After a beautiful drive on Rt 1, i landed at this magical place and it was like flashing back in time to the days of Watermyn. Music in the air, communal veggie food, very hippie style (in that good way). After dinner, folks sat around a bonfire which had a big metal tub on top of it – the hot tub. The ocean lapped up on the shore within sight. I laid on a hammock looking up at the stars and watching the planes approach SFO. With guitars out and collective vocals strong, Ani’s voice emerged and i thought back to the days when Erin would play Ani for me on the piano when i came home.

There was something so calming about that world – a kind of peace that i had forgotten in my city rat lifestyle. Organic farming, permaculture, live music, natural fibers… things i believe in from the depths of my soul but have gotten lost in my material culture that is so heavily mediated. What does it mean that those roots are fading? ::sigh::

A few years back, i got utterly irate with a friend when he came back from a cult-esque finding yourself seminar. He was convinced he understood the root of all his problems – he had acquired true insight in this program. “Oh really?” i asked, “tell me what you learned.” He then proceeded to tell me things that i had been telling him for years. I wanted to stomp up and down screaming. He hadn’t listened to a damn word i’d said for years but when he paid money to listen to some experts, he suddenly got it. This was the same story with all of my friends and their shrinks – they’d listen to the shrinks tell them exactly what their friends have been saying for years. Only they paid their shrinks (or their insurance did).

Now, a few years later, i have more appreciation for how he got it. Yes, it was about being in a situation where he could hear it, being open to being vulnerable. It was about having “experts” guide him through. But, still, i’ve never gotten over the fact that it took paying a self-help expert to finally hear things that he’d known and his friends had known for years. Why on earth is that revolutionary?

Lately, i’ve been watching this happen again, only in the work sphere. People come back from this obscenely expensive conferences with revelations. My eyebrows get all furrowed and i’m like, yes, i’ve been telling you this for a while now. And i’ve even been writing it down. Publicly. Still, there’s nothing like going to an event where you’re expected to learn and learning, simply by being open. But why on earth can’t people be more open to all forms of knowledge that come to them, not just the ones that they pay dearly for to hear the “experts”?

Part of why this bugs me is that i think that the “experts” (self-included) are overrated. Even when i take on that foolish role, i’m usually exaggerating to make a point, to be heard. And how does one get declared an expert anyhow? I know plenty of people more knowledgeable about a lot of topics than the purported or wheeled around experts. Ah, social networks.

My mentors are always telling me that i need to charge a ridiculous dayrate to be seen as an expert, to be listened to. As much as i would like to make more than student wages, i find this absolutely absurd. I used to make $4.85 an hour and i lived on that – the idea of making $100 an hour seems absurd, yet my friends tell me this is far too low to charge. I almost choked when i found out that one of my mentors charges $10K a day. What on earth can we say that’s worth $10K??

But i think that my frustration is the answer… it’s worth $10K because that’s enough to make the business people wake up and listen, to make them actually pay attention. And that’s why certain conferences cost $5K – people take them seriously at that rate – they actually want to make something out of it. (What does that say about conferences that i go to where people throw a hissy fit when the cost raises from $60 to $75? Ah, academics, how i do love thee.)

Still, as much as i can recognize that this is how the system works, it feels so ludicrous. Sometimes, i’m convinced that i truly do lack the balls to play this game. How on earth do i overcome that if i want to be heard? How do i actually transmit knowledge without having to be an expert ::cough:: pundit? Or is this a system that i really want to support and encourage? What does it mean to walk away from it?

In the techno-centric, meritocratic culture that i live in, i’m often faced with logic processes that make sense given a set of accepted axioms, but fundamentally fail due to the lack of an entire picture. One of my favorites is affirmative action. It still bugs me to a core that i’m at a University that eliminated affirmative action from its admissions process and i’m really frustrated that the flawed logic that undermined affirmative action in this State is getting perpetuated more broadly.

The anti-affirmative action logic is simple because it’s based on a meritocratic principle – the best people should be admitted regardless of race, class, gender, etc.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few missing components, many of which were brought up in the debates. Most obviously, there is a question of whether or not people have an equal and fair chance of acquiring the skills necessary to achieve. This logic asks us to look at the potential of an individual, removed from the context in which they were born and raised. Herein lies a deeper problem – can we remove people from that context? There’s an amazing book called Prejudicial Appearances: The Logic of American Anti-discrimination Law that covers this beautifully.

What is missing in all of the debate, as far as i can tell, is a clear analysis of what things like universities do. When i was in high school, i was often advised to attend the local or state school because i would get just as good of an education there as at any hoity toity private school. The fact of the matter is that’s really bad advice. What those “elite” colleges offer has nothing to do with curriculum or formal education – it has to do with social networks. First, by being far away from family and the local networks, students are faced with a myriad of fresh faces from very different parts of the world. One’s social network expands tremendously in such settings. Plus, in those private institutions, many of your fellow students are heavily connected (through their parents) to all sorts of powerful business people, politicians, etc. Going to such an institution allowed me to jump socioeconomic class in a way that never would’ve been possible otherwise.

College may appear to be about education, but it is primarily about creating the social network that will help you begin your adult life. For this reason, leaving out any group of people continues to marginalize them, limiting their ability for socio-cultural shifts. Let’s be honest – the jocks didn’t get in for their brains – they got in because they play an important social role in the coherence of the university. And alumni’s kids? They too play a critical role in maintaining the social network. Yet, institutions cannot be all about one group of people – this would further homogenize the social network. It needs to be as diverse as possible to alter the networks of all involved, particularly at the most formative years. This is how you achieve shifts in social culture – one generation at a time.

Sure, you don’t want to bring in a population to participate for social networks only to not prepare them such that they fail. But there are other ways to help alleviate the discrepancies, often through programming and making certain that the system is prepared to deal with diversity and help people find ways to connect on common ground. (This was what prompted me to help run a program back at Brown for pre-frosh who were from the city and had non access to computers.)

Now, it’s important to note that this doesn’t just apply to university. In the tech world, people often moan at Liz and i when we make snarky comments about how few women are at conferences. What do you think conferences are? Meritocratic events? Bullshit. They’re social networking events first and foremost. The more women and other minorities you include, the more they get integrated into the network and the more the network diversifies. Folks in the tech world seem to be fascinated by how social networks work, but at the same time, the application of it to the culture at hand is atrocious. Yes, it’s forced and painful at first. And we’re not idiots – i know i get invited to things for the diversity quotient. And guess what? I tend to bring other women along… funny how that happens. Diversification doesn’t happen magically – it has to start as a conscientious effort. And we all need to move beyond our utopian fantasy of a meritocratic society that will transcend all realities about how race, class and gender are operationalized and institutionalized. Or more accurately, we have to actually make that happen, not by trying to be blind to these issues, but to be very conscious of how they exist in our society. And by being honest with ourselves about what we’re doing to actually diversify instead of homogenize. ‘Cuz damnit, the meritocratic attitude of the tech industry has not proven effective at all.

Culturally enforced etiquette has never been my thing. Fuck Miss Manners. Fuck anyone who tells me how to be a good girl. Ah yes, resistant to a core – i’ve always been the punkass with a middle finger to the world, finding my identity in proving everyone wrong. And i’m in a contentious mood so it’s only a wee bit magnified right now.

Thus, i couldn’t help but want to spit at The unofficial geek guide to getting over yourself at SxSW Interactive 2005. I consider myself a pretty friendly, approachable person (although this definitely subsides when i’m a walking stressball and i admit a little bit of chaos right now). But i don’t want to be told that i’m not approachable because i’m attached to my laptop. I may not be doing heart surgery but i have a stack of students taking a midterm on Tuesday morning and i’ve chosen to come to SXSW anyhow. Why? Because i do believe in co-presence. But, that said, i can only do it because i will be constantly wired, because i will be sitting in the hallway keying IMs back in my reality between conversations. No, i’m not going to be 100% present at SXSW but if that’s what’s required to go, than i can’t go. I figure it’s better to be 60% there than not at all. I’ll still be goofing around in the hallways, meeting new people and rekindling relationships with old friends who i wouldn’t see otherwise. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Or maybe i’m just the kind of bitch that’s undesirable at touchy feel-y events – too much New Yorker in me.

But seriously, i’m shelling out my own bucks and time to fly my arse to Austin – why should i accept someone else’s prescription about how to make the most of my experience there? I have a sneaking suspicion that i’ll get what i want out of the experience and hopefully help make others’ experiences a bit more fun. Why do i have to follow rules to be a contribution? Maybe that means i won’t get a little orange sticker or be the purrfect attendee but why do i have to be perfect?

i am not a pretty girl

that is not what i do

i ain’t no damsel in distress

and i don’t need to be rescued

so put me down punk

— Ani Difranco

Have i mentioned how much i hate lawyers?

Why is social contract changing to guiding principles?

Lawyers didn’t like “contract” in the name “social contract” because it does not have the structure of a contract. The principles are the same, though. Six Apart doesn’t want to kill LiveJournal. Don’t worry — I thoroughly screened them to make sure they weren’t evil.

– from Brad’s announcement

The term ‘social contract’ does not come from legalese – it’s an ancient political theory with a rich history. In short, a social contract is a set of culturally agreed upon norms that help maintain social solidarity. In most cases, the elements of the social contract are never explicated or concretely agreed upon – they just become norms. In almost all cases, people give up freedoms because it is good for the society as a whole. Thus, elements of the social contract are usually articulated as “that’s just wrong” or “you just don’t do that.” Lying, stealing, cheating, killing… these are all things that fit into the social contract. Of course, many elements of a society’s social contract are written into stone through law but the social contract came first.

Guiding principles are not the same as a social contract. A guiding principle is what those in power, those building the system, those who are actually doing the structural guiding are seeking to achieve. A social contract is something that is culturally accepted by all parties. For example, as a guiding principle, spam avoidance means that the creators will do everything in their power to make LJ a spam-free service. As a social contract, everyone involved will do their damnedest to rid the service of spam.

I know that the intentions are the same and that the goal is to just be careful of legalese, but one of the things that makes LJ so special is that there is a social contract between the participants. This needs to be maintained for LJ’s culture to survive, even if the term is being removed from its legal cannon.

Liz revisited my Walmart/Starbucks Nation piece. In doing so, she reminded me that this piece failed to make its point. So i thought that i’d retry.

1. Both rural areas and cities have brands that they ascribe to; these are very different brands. There is a bi-directional disdain for the brands of the other group. Certainly, the brands bleed into both regions, but those brands tend to resemble certain class/regional expectations. Yes, i can get to a Walmart somewhere in the Bay Area, but i see a Starbucks on every corner. I’m always humored when my city friends go home to their parents and bitch because they can’t find a Starbucks. These are the same people (self included) who groan at the ever-present obviousness of Walmart.

2. Consistency of brands allows for easy mobility between regions. At this point, suburbia in most regions resembles the suburbia in other regions, provided that we’re talking about the same socio-economic level. Cities start to bleed together (and god knows airports do). What keeps most of this consistent has to do with brands. No matter where you go, you can find the Walmart/Starbucks of your choice. This provides for security in the shifting.

3. The tendency of city people is to critique the brands in the rural areas AND vice versa. There is a great article in my reader from a Kansas paper bitching about those Starbucks people. What i was trying to do was expose my own bias while realizing that there are branding wars on both sides. I have immediate disdain over Walmart, thinking that i have choice, but realizing that i live in a culture that moves from Starbucks to Safeway.

3. Historically, the image of the rural area was precisely what Liz is getting at – beautiful houses, streets with sidewalks, community. For most of the country, i don’t think this is as true as it was 20 years ago, mostly because of the consumption culture that is present. It certainly isn’t true where i grew up. When you don’t go to the corner store, you don’t talk to everyone in that small geographic region. When you go to the Safeways, you do your shopping without a community (unless we’re talking the Castro Safeway). Big corporate shopping institutions become very de-personalized, very anti-community in all regions. There’s often talk about how people in cities don’t know their neighbors; it saddens me that this is spreading.

4. My concern over consumption culture is connected to my concern over this election. There is a divide in this country and it falls along city/rural lines (with the suburbs trapped in the middle). When i’m visiting Walmart Nation, i’m visiting predominantly red nation. When i’m in Starbucks Nation, i’m visiting predominantly blue nation. It’s unbelievable because it is both a class and regional division that has resulted in entirely different lifestyles. It’s even more painful because historically the rural areas were as Democratic as it gets; today they side with the wealthiest Americans under the pretense that they have the same values.

More than anything though, the moral division in this country is branded on all sides. We have companies that cater to each of our values. They’ve figured out how to identify with us so that we’ll identify with them. Rural America used to pride itself on mom & pop everything, but that’s no longer the case.

My post was not supposed to be a judgment against rural/suburban culture. It was intended as an exposure of my own biases as i evened the playing field in conversation. I life in a “lifestyle consumption” culture which is just as despicable as a “bargain shopping” culture – they both play into the desires of corporate consumptions by playing on the moral views of two different groups.

Anyhow, i hope that clarifies what i was getting at.

In checking my email this morning, i was really disturbed by a message on a mailing list that i lurk. The question was simple:

Is anyone worried about the del.icio.us community being diluted with non-geeky type people?

My first reaction was one of insult. There’s nothing like digital xenophobia to get my goat early in the morning.

First, this is the problem of all online communities. What draws people to them is homophily – birds of a feather stick together. Folks are ecstatic when they walk into a community where everyone’s like them.

In theory, people want to espouse the liberal value of tolerance and love of diversity. In reality, most people are anything but that. Ask the anti-Brazilians on Orkut. We have the language to criticize the neo-Nazis on Friendster, but how different are the anti-nongeeks? We really only know how to talk about racism, sexism and homophobia. You can’t really say “we don’t want any girls here” and get away with it now (although you may think it). [Of course, one contemporary approach is to allow a handful of token women in, but maintain the male dominance…]

Unlike the more politicized phobias, xenophobia and classism often go unchecked. It is even more culturally acceptable to want to maintain a community of others like the original community and to reminisce about when the community was closer, had more in common and when there were less problems.

Of course there are more problems in a heterogeneous community. People don’t speak the same (actual/conceptual) language. Diversity brings divergent opinions, values, ideas. Diversity requires us to broader our perspective, appreciate things where we are not superior and realize that not everyone comes about an issue from our perspective.

With community tools popping up daily, everyone’s talking about how this tool can be used by everyone in the world – won’t it be great? Yet, as soon as multiple communities use the tool in different ways, everyone flips. No one actually knows how to manage diverse communities with different values. Why? It’s a really hard SOCIAL problem that doesn’t have a simple technological solution.

[I’ve got lots more to say on this topic, but until next time…]

Loic has a great entry on understanding your identity by engaging in behavior that helps you construct it, offering a socially connected mirror to help you understand. This is absolutely fantastic reflexivity through circular logic… and i love it!

I am notoriously bad at receiving (and giving) explicit verbal compliments. After two days of awkward compliment situations, i started thinking about the structure of compliments in the worlds in which i run.

This first obvious parallel is to Mauss’s “The Gift.” When a gift is given, it is socially impolite, if not offensive, to fail to receive it. Furthermore, to continue the relationship, the receiver is expected to reciprocate. The gifting pattern is affected by a variety of other things, including temporal rhythms and expected magnitude of gift.

Compliments are much the same way. My failure to receive compliments creates an awkward social situation because it sounds rude. Thus, my blushing and being squeamish to indicate my inability to properly receive said compliment lets me get away with a lot.

From here, it’s important to consider two different structures of compliments. First, if the complimenter has power over the recipient, the compliment is meant to empower the receiver and not necessarily be reciprocated. It’s a status compliment that makes the complimenter feel really good giving and often makes the receiver glow. My undergrad advisor had an amazing ability to do this. He’d say something simple like “good job” and i’d float for days.

Then there are the compliments amongst equals. Quite often, reciprocation is necessary, but it’s not appropriate to mimic the recently given compliment. [Think “i love you” “ditto.” Eventually, the “i love you” gets annoyed at the “ditto” and doesn’t take hir seriously.] Immediate reciprocation is not appropriate in this kind of relationship, but what is the appropriate temporal element? This is particularly tricky because often compliments are put forward to be reassured. For example, the “i love you” really wants to hear the same in return. Of course, s/he wants to be reassured now while simultaneously suggesting that the other person should initiate that same set of compliments later.

Hmm… perhaps another angle because this makes me think about what we compliment people on. When we, as an expert, compliment a novice on their movement towards our expertise, this is a really uplifting compliment (i.e. my old advisor). Yet, in the “i love you” example, we’re complimenting based on purported shared emotions. Perhaps that’s a bad example. Consider its cousin “you’re beautiful.” How often do people say “you’re beautiful” to hear the same in return? I think back to the middle school world where the less fashionable girls say to the cool ones “wow, you’re beautiful.” Of course, the cool girls might say “Thanks” or “I know.” But what would it do to the situation if the cool girl returned the compliment?

How often do we compliment others based on what we need to hear ourselves? Did this magnify the awkwardness of the reciprocation process? There’s a certain level of falseness if the cool girl reciprocates and tells the less fashionable one that she’s beautiful. Given the structure of how the compliment occurred, it seems false, not genuine to reciprocate.

Furthermore, i think it’s weird that we compliment primarily on our weaknesses in equal relationships given that there is a certain obvious awkwardness. Say the cool girl is far less confident about her intelligence than her looks. Assuming not a complete separation of status, if the less fashionable girl complimented the cool one on her question in class, this is far more likely to make everyone feel better. And reciprocation is not really necessary if that’s the giver’s strong suit. Of course, does complimenting via our strengths end up creating a different level of insult amidst equals?

I was at a party last night, telling a friend that i was going up to Tahoe to work for the weekend. As our conversation progressed, i asked him why he doesn’t use AIM. He told me that it is equivalent to putting crack in front of an addict so he refuses to install it. This is how i feel about broadband and cable in general.

In theory, i could turn off broadband. But i never do. And even when i’m in a remote location, avoiding the Internet, the first thing that i do is see if i can get connection. There’s something nice when it says “no” in return. I feel this odd sense of relief, mixed in with the normal anxiety about being offline.

I miss having to log in to the Internet. There was something ceremonious about it, something that made it feel like a connection instead of an addiction. By default, i was offline. I could CHOOSE to go online. Now, it’s an addiction and i have to avoid it.

Frankly, i miss the time when there was a cost to logging in. I felt the clock ticking, felt the cents running away as i paid per minute. This motivated me to engage with the Internet with a purpose, not to lag. Get the answers to my questions and move on. Now, there’s no hurry; i pay per month.

I would pay someone to charge me per minute for my broadband, someone to force me to self-regulate, to gain control. Of course, it’s always the institutions that shouldn’t encourage me to avoid that do this most successfully. Take BART. I often fail to take BART because i haven’t pre-paid for it.. i might as well drive. But if i had a monthly pass, i would never drive. Why is it that public transit knows how to motivate me to not participate while the Internet just calls me in. Ah, economics and the twisted way in which our society encourages us to be commercial.