wrythings

Miguel Guhlin of Texas offered his reaction to my recent post on the Path towards Excellence.

First let’s highlight the quote he’s reacting to:

Digital is a word that often gets in the way: Strive first and always for human excellence and towards our higher individual and collective purposes. Excellence is a matter of character.

Miguel responds:

I fundamentally disagree with this approach. We need to strive towards digitally-enhanced human excellence from the beginning, not strive first and always for human excellence THEN consider something else. Although sometimes it’s helpful to start with traditional tools–like Emily’s approach to bookmarking in the video below, moving us from traditional bookmarks to “social bookmarking” online–when designing things from scratch, you have to start with technology first. Otherwise, it never happens.

My inner pragmatist senses that there is a confusion as to what constitutes excellence, and the nature of the hierarchy between technology and human purposes. I am confident that an extended dialogue on these questions would be instructive and I invite Miguel (and others) to explore the matter with me.

There appears to be a temporal division in Miguel’s interpretation of my view… as a sequential ordering he objects to striving first and always for human excellence then considering something else (in this case technology). he argues that we have to start with technology or it never happens… the “it” being “digitally-enhanced human excellence” I take it.

At the surface, it looks like we’re in disagreement. I’d like to dig deeper.

I’ve written extensively on digital excellence, but from a moral point of view, we must always put technology in service to human purposes - individual and collective. This is a moral and conceptual ordering. In planning and undertaking our journey towards excellence it is a matter of intention and commitment to higher purpose. We embody excellence in the striving for excellence, and that is the only way to get there (which is an unending journey, anyway).

Starting certainly implies a sequence will follow, but we always have to start where we are, and it’s good to gain clarity on what that means. From that view, starting has many aspects: intention, situation, vision.

Miguel asserts that “when designing things from scratch, you have to start with technology first.” However, design implies an intention, a purpose. We have to get clarity on our purpose. I argue elsewhere (on numerous occasions) for dropping the digital. Digital stands in for new technology generally. I’m not anti-technology by any means. But in standing in for technology, it largely implies “new and better” … and obscures critical reflection on the term it sets out to modify. Whether the second term is “divide” or “literacy” or “inclusion” or “excellence” (or any other term) we would do well to pay more attention to the second term. When speaking of the digital divide, it’s merely the latest iteration and manifestation of longstanding social inequalities. We speak of digital literacy, we cannot ignore the higher faculties of reasoning implied in literacy. When we speak of digital inclusion - do we make as strenuous an effort as require to promote a generally inclusive society? Shall we address digital excellence any differently?

(The same argument applies to novel formulations of “e” (and i) …. eGovernment, eChicago.)

Don’t get me wrong. I am not anti-technology. (Nor am I an uncritical booster of technology for it’s own sake.) I am not against deep technological design and deliberation or potentially substantial investments in technology when it makes sense. But what guides a technical decision if not purpose?

The character of our pursuit is essential to excellence. The distinction between human excellence and digitally-enhanced human excellence is lost on me. It’s not a matter of first the one, and then (maybe) the other. It’s not a hierarchy of needs. It’s a hierarchy of purpose and values. If our aims determine technical means we will not delay. We havent delayed. We’re embedded already in the technosphere. Our society and identity is infused with technology and has been since time immemorial. The digital epoch merely takes it to new levels or extremes. The sense of an extreme is a sign of the tension of our adjustment, but the question is how we (continually) humanize our institutions and our technological capacities. We won’t ignore technology, we’ll affirm our proper relation to technology. Technology is but a means. We must take care in choice of means, surely, but we must be more deliberate in determining our purposes.

Are we still in fundamental disagreement?

Today (Thursday) the Knight Center of Digital Excellence was launched in Akron, Ohio. I am deeply invested in the vision and language of Digital Excellence, and I hope the Center lives up to it’s name. Some words of wisdom for those undertaking this mission:

The path towards excellence starts with purpose, and not with technology. Be clear in your purpose, be strong in resolve, be prepared to fall and rise again. Digital is a word that often gets in the way: Strive first and always for human excellence and towards our higher individual and collective purposes. Excellence is a matter of character.

The Chicago Digital Access Alliance put this vision before our City, a vision of great ambition. We echo the historic Chicago mantra: Make no small plans. Has Chicago missed an opportunity? No. We have not. Not if we yet take up the challenge and establish what has been called for: A Digital Excellence Trust.

The wind left our sails when the Chicago wireless plans were put on hold. It was fortuitous that the vendor-driven segmented-technology model fell through, but the call for Digital Excellence didn’t have to stop there. We’re the windy city and our model was never tied to wireless technology. We have Olympic aspirations and Greenest-city-in-the-world goals. We know that these are deeply tied to a vision of excellence.

Excellence is our noble human calling. We’re not one of the Knight communities. How will we rise here and now to the challenge of digital excellence? Will we stir the soul of the city? Will we stir the soul of the nation?

What is historical consciousness? When does history touch our lives? How does the historical life of the nation become tangible for any one of us? These questions are difficult to answer in the abstract.

When Michelle Obama expressed her newly emergent pride in the country many were offended. But, the backlash of those who took offense is perniciously wrongheaded. We need to move beyond bombastic pride and unqualified emotionalism. It’s ridiculous to parse the language of another person’s inner experience of national identity while we willfully ignore the contradictions in our own relation or expression thereof. We have no standing to make such judgment.

It’s a matter of mote and timber in the historical mind’s eye, for no institution, no social relation can be accorded unconditional approbation. That is what our national identity suggests to me. Patriotism is a willingness to challenge the country when it does wrong, out of love. Glossing over inconvenient facts obstructs growth, leaving us in shadow. There is much to question in our present and in our past. We should embrace those with the will to question, raise dialogue and foster civic deliberation on matters afflicting the human condition.

Today I read a piece recounting many points in American history for which the only point of pride may be in the widespread hope or desire that we have since overcome those attitudes and behavior. It’s not clear to me that we have. There are many signs to the contrary.

Where does hope live? Hope is an active relation to the dream. The American project continues to unfold. Our best days are not behind us. Our living up to the civic principles we espouse requires questioning our selves and challenging false pride (as well as self-loathing).

Generations after Dr. King’s brutal murder we still aspire to a post-racial society, and we endeavor to live the dream he eloquently expressed. This is grounded in the wisdom that there is but one race. Some will say that the post-racial element of the dream is a denial of reality. I understand the point they are trying to make, even if I reject the categorical language of race in favor of a more nuanced dynamic of ethnic processes and social constructions of identity.

If I restated the case, our hopes would be realized in a post-racist society … a subtle difference, perhaps. We’re not calling for a denial of the past, or of present difference, but rather for a new relation to both.

This is not about homogeneity, it is about a deeper respect for histories and differences. We (as nation and as species) are the repository of a multitude of histories and we must be willing to face the darkness in our history, in a narrative whereby we collectively and continually rise above ignorance and prejudice. Attaining a degree of historical consciousness we no longer have an excuse to deny our past, nor to deny that which we are party to in the present. It is incumbent upon us to continue to grow, and to bring up those generations who follow in this attitude, that they may likewise live in active relation to humanity’s higher nature.

Once we begin to take maturity seriously, we will get down to the business of maturation.

We’ll not impugn others for their faith or for their doubts in the nation or in humanity, we’ll give them reason to be hopeful. Take pride in working towards the dream with others, don’t take excessive pride in the past.

How are we going to establish the post-racial society MLK foresaw when political opportunists can’t figure out when to stop digging when they have dug themselves into a hole? Any positive memories I might have had regarding Geraldine Ferraro have been dispelled. I’m embarrassed to share any heritage with her. I’m also embarrassed for NY, my state of origin. We’ll leave Spitzer aside… come to think of it, there is a lot to be embarrassed about in New York State this week - the most meaningful one being the censorship at RPI and in the city of Troy, not the stupidity and scandal of these unfortunate political persons. If only the media would pay attention to things that matter to the health of the polity.

But I do take Ferraro’s attitude as obnoxious and racist… or at least playing to racist sentiments. (Really - both, I think … her attempts to spin herself out of this is pathetic and makes her look much worse in the long run.)

I’m not ‘enamored of Barack’s blackness’ … It’s incidental. Clearly identity politics is at play - motivating supporters for both campaigns, but Barack has a consistent message that fits the post-racial ideals many of us hold. And Geraldine - I’m not black …. am I being racist in calling you on your racism?

I am sure there are many people out there who have said or thought the very things Ferraro has so bluntly stated. What is ridiculous to me is that they defend it as ‘fact’… their statement isn’t a fact. It’s just a sad sign of low character. More Americans need to study biology … there is one race: human.

And as for painting Barack as a Muslim… some people complain that Hillary didn’t take a stronger stance in regard to the fact that Barack is not of the Muslim faith. She said she takes him at his word. Yes. Do take people at their word and at their deeds when asked about their faith and character, but really, it’s the wrong answer to the wrong question. The right response is that although we know Barack to be a man of faith, with long-standing commitment to the same Church, if he were of the Muslim faith, that would NOT disqualify him for office. This reeks of the days when other religious bigots questioned Kennedy’s loyalty because of his Catholic heritage. Clearly, however, some of us in America are not done with anti-catholic bigotry either. Has Ferraro commented at all about Hagee and McCain?

The Democratic Party needs to transcend Identity politics. I’d support woman or man, a person of any ethnic heritage or religious faith, if they demonstrate themselves to be of high moral character, lead by example and inspire us to our higher calling as a people.

I’d also like to give people a little room to make some mistakes, and a chance to redeem themselves when they do. (But please, stop digging.)

Tonight we convened the first Chicago Net Tuesday at “The Point” at 600 W. Chicago… thanks Aaron! We had a great turnout by Meet-Up standards… (somewhere around 30 people) … we’re shooting for the second Tuesday of each month.

The metaphor of the mash-up is perfect for our vision. We want to bring together the talents and assets and interests and needs of Chicago — Chicago techies and community activists, NPOs and others ready to give back to the community and grow the network. Fundamentally, our perspective is that while NPOs are addressing deep needs in the communities they serve, our city and the neighborhoods and professions and trades are full of resources and talents that we have but to put together in new and exciting ways. This has been my credo for some time … this perspective informed the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance and our campaign for Digital Excellence (in the context of the Citywide Wireless Initiative that wound up stalling out).

We started off the evening with an invitation to everyone to step up and join us as co-convenors for this effort going forward… we all introduced ourselves to the group and then we sunk our teeth into our first big question about what Chicago Non-Profit’s really need.

That is an important question, to be sure, but I’ve reached the point where I want to start from our strengths and assets. We need to figure out how to share our skills and talents. We don’t have to start from a scarcity mindset.

More important than the answers to the question we started with, or any alternative positive framing I might offer, is the question of conversation and story, and widening the circle of participants. What questions do we have to ask? What are the big questions that will open some real conversation for Chicago? Who do we address the big questions to? Can we ask ourselves the really hard questions?

For myself - the issue of new social technologies leaves me rather ambivalent. We have to start from our purposes, and not from the faddish new tools. We have to get clear about what we want for our city. Let our technology choices and investments stem from that vision.

Philadelphia’s model has come undone. What lessons can we draw from this? The purveyors of Networks have lost all credibility. it’s time for communities, citizens, cities to build and own their own networks, grounded in open standards based technologies so we are not tied to any one vendor at any point in the process - and more than that - as I am sure Breitbart has stated much better than I - we need a much more open political planning process from the get go.

Chicago - let’s wire (and unwire) ourselves.

Let’s think for a moment. Have there been any moments in your life when you have felt shame or disappointment at your/our country, or in reaction to the history of our country? is blind pride in the nation something to be praised, or is it a fatal flaw?

Surely, in our history we as a people have committed grave errors, and errors and crimes have been committed in our name, even when without our consent (and sometimes without sufficient protest).

Our public servants, our brave citizen-soldiers pledge their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is not “my country right or wrong” - the Constitution, and the processes and balance of structures it defines (not enshrines) are founded in values. They are an expression of values - they contest with each other to guard against corruption and to establish firm foundation for the rule of law. Extension and upholding of the rule of law is the deeper question of our global civilization.

Dissent, it is said, is the mother of assent.

We must retain the freedom to criticize our government. These freedoms are enshrined in the founding documents of our nation. This is the deeper love I have for my nation, my people. This is what our soldiers defend, This is the love our people must share with the peoples of the Earth.