hannaharendt   66

« earlier    

Media Literacy Is About Where To Spend Your Trust. But You Have To Spend It Somewhere. | Hapgood
"A lot of approaches to online media literacy highlight “debunking” and present a large a portion of cases where students debunk tree octopuses and verifiably false things. And show students how they are manipulated, etc.

And this is good in the right amounts. There’s a place for it. It should comprise much of your curriculum.

But the core of media literacy for me is this question of “where you spend your trust.” And everything has to be evaluated in that framework.

There’s not an option to not trust anyone, at least not an option that is socially viable. And societies without trust come to bad ends. Students are various, of course, but what I find with many students is they are trust misers — they don’t want to spend their trust anywhere, and they think many things are equally untrustworthy. And somehow they have been trained to think this makes them smarter than the average bear.

A couple stories will illustrate the problem. I was once working with a bunch of students and comparing Natural News (a health supplements site which specializes in junk science claims) and the Mayo Clinic, one of the most respected outfits out there. OK, I say, so what’s the problem with taking advice from Natural News?

Well, says a student, they make their money selling supplements, and so they have an incentive to talk down traditional medicine.

I beam like a proud papa. Good analysis!

“And,” the student continues, “the Mayo Clinic is the same way. They make money off of patients so they want to portray regular hospitals as working.”

Houston, we have a problem.

I was in an upper division class another time and we were looking at an expert in a newspaper cited for his background in the ethnobiology of issues around the study of birds. I did what I encourage students to do in such cases: as a sanity check, make sure that the person being quoted as an academic expert has a publication record in the relevant area, preferably with a cite or two. (There are other varieties of expertise, of course, but in this case the claimed expertise was academic).

The record comes up. This guy’s top article on birds, biologists, and indigenous knowledge has something like 34 citations in Google Scholar. “So what do you think?” I ask them.

“Eh,” they say. “Not great.”

This was, mind you, not a room full of published ethnobiologists. And the ethnobiologist quoted in the article was not claiming to overturn the fundamental insights of ethnobiology, or anything requiring extraordinary evidence.

So 34 other experts had considered this person’s niche work worth talking about but hey, we’re still not sure this guy’s worth listening to on a subject we know nothing about and in which he is making rather moderate claims…


Another class, looking at Canadian paper the National Post, noted that while it was a “real” paper with a real staff, the Wikipedia page on it noted a controversy about some wrong information they published in 2006, where the editor had to actually pen an apology. “So kind of half-and-half, right?”

I’ve referred to this before as trust compression, the tendency for students to view vastly different levels of credibility of sources all as moderately or severely compromised. Breitbart is funded by the Mercers, who are using it directly to influence political debate, but the Washington Post is also owned by Jeff Bezos who donated to Democrats. So it’s a wash. And yes, we have the word of an expert in a subject where she has multiple cites against the word of a lobbying group but neither one is perfect really. Everyone’s got an agenda, nobody knows everything, and there’s not 100% agreement on anything anyway.

You see this in areas outside of expertise as well, incidentally. With quotes I often ask students (and faculty!) to source the quote and then say if the quote was taken out of context. The answer? You’ll always get a range from “completely taken out of context” to “somewhat taken out of context”. That upper register of “Nope, that quote was used correctly” is something you really have to coax the students into.

I don’t quite know how to square this with the gullibility often on display, except to say that very often that gullibility is about not being able (or willing) to distinguish gradations of credibility.

This should scare you, and it has to be at the core of what we teach — to teach students they need to decompress their trust, get out of that mushy middle, and make real distinctions. And ultimately, put their trust somewhere. Otherwise we end up with what Hannah Arendt so accurately described as the breeding ground of totalitarianism:
In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, that everything was possible and that nothing was true… Mass Propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow…

I do believe this insight — that trust has to be spent somewhere and that our problem is not gullibility, but rather the gullibility of cynics — has to be at the core of what we teach and how we teach it. You have some trust, and you have to be willing to spend it somewhere. So enough of the “this isn’t great either”, enough of the “eh”. What’s your best option for spending that trust? Why?

If everything is compromised, then everything can be ignored, and filtering is simply a matter of choosing what you want to hear. And students will economize that lesson in a heartbeat. In fact, I’m worried they already have, and it’s up to us to change that."
medialiteracy  mikecaulfield  internet  web  media  authority  trust  hannaharendt  trustworthiness  online  journalism  bias  expertise  gullibility  propaganda  2018 
21 days ago by robertogreco
Superfluous People, the Ideology of Silicon Valley, and The Origins of Totalitarianism | L.M. Sacasas
“First, I should make clear that I do not expect to see death camps anytime soon. That said, it seems that there are a number of developments which together tend toward rendering people superfluous. For example: the operant conditioning to which we submit on social media, the pursuit of ever more sophisticated forms of automation, and the drive to outsource more and more aspects of our humanity to digital tools.” … “Here again I would argue that we are witnessing a Huxleyan variant of this earlier Orwellian dynamic. Consider once more the cumulative effect of the many manifestations of the networks of surveillance, monitoring, operant conditioning, automation, routinization, and programmed predictability in which we are enmeshed. Their effect is not enhanced freedom, individuality, spontaneity, thoughtfulness, or joy. Their effect is, in fact, to stabilize us into routine and predictable patterns of behavior and consumption. Humanity is stabilized so that the law of Technology can run its course.”
LMSacasas  Technology  Ideology  SiliconValley  Totalitarianism  HannahArendt  MustRead 
7 weeks ago by cbearden
Hannah Arendt – Die linke Konservative – tell
komische idee von "linke grundsätze"??
>> gemeint ist das post-1968 "Alles ist politisch", wärend A. immer neu auf einer kategorialen trennung besteht. [zu recht, aber macht sie das "konservativ"??]

Weder im Bereich des Privaten noch im Bereich des Gesellschaftlichen darf man Antidiskriminierung gesetzlich erzwingen. Gleichheit gibt es allein im Bereich des Politischen, dort allerdings ist sie zentral. Um diesen Aspekt, den Hannah Arendt vor allem in ihrem Aufsatz „Little Rock“ erläutert, macht die heutige Arendt-Rezeption einen großen Bogen. Arendt gesteht Rassisten und Antisemiten das Recht auf ihre private Meinung anstandslos zu, das liest man heute mit Befremden. Aber sie gesteht es ihnen eben nur als private Meinung zu.

„Die Macht kommt aus den Gewehrläufen.“
Die Gewalt kommt aus den Gewehrläufen, aber nicht die Macht. Macht und Gewalt sind kategorial getrennt. Macht setze eine Gegenseitigkeit voraus, also Kommunikation, Gewalt werde einseitig ausgeübt. Macht beruht auf Zustimmung, und diese Zustimmung „ist niemals bedingungslos“ (MG).

„Gesellschaft ist der Grundbegriff, an dem sich alle politische Aktion auszurichten hat. Es geht um kritische Gesellschaftsanalyse und um Gesellschaftsveränderung!“

Nein!, so Arendt. Natürlich bestreitet sie den massiven Einfluss nicht, den die Gesellschaft, gerade die Massengesellschaft, auf den Einzelnen ausübt. Die überbordende Macht der diffusen „Gesellschaftlichkeit“ deutet sie in der Tat sogar als wesentliches Moment der Moderne, in der alle traditionellen Zusammenhänge zerrissen sind. Gesellschaftliche Strömungen jedoch 1:1 als Kompass zu verwenden, heiße, dem Konformismus – „ein typisches Merkmal jeder Gesellschaft“ (VA) – Tür und Tor zu öffnen. Dies habe 1933 zu jener Gleichschaltung geführt, die ja überwiegend eine Selbstgleichschaltung gewesen sei: „Diese Gleichschaltung war keine von der Angst genährte Heuchelei, sondern der sehr früh an den Tag gelegte Eifer, ja nicht den Zug der Geschichte zu verpassen.“ (PV) Menschliche Freiheit, hier steht Arendt gegen alle progressiven Gesellschaftstheorien des 20. Jahrhunderts, vollziehe sich nicht im gesellschaftlichen Raum, sondern allein in der Sphäre der Politik. Im Politischen, und nur dort, fänden sich Menschen als Gleiche zusammen, um etwas Neues zu beginnen.
hannaharendt  konservativ 
10 weeks ago by MicrowebOrg
Hannah Arendt, white supremacist - Opinion - Jerusalem Post
In Origins she described “Race” as a political principle.

“Race was the [South African] Boers’ answer to the overwhelming monstrosity of Africa – a whole continent populated and overpopulated by savages.”

She writes of the “dark continent,” a “world of native savages was a perfect setting for men who had escaped the reality of civilization...human beings who, living without the future of a purpose and the past of an accomplishment, were as incomprehensible as the inmates of a madhouse.”

Arendt praised colonialism, calling it a “form of achievement” carried out in “exotic countries.” Exterminating native peoples was fine because it was “quite in keeping with the traditions of these tribes themselves. Extermination of hostile tribes had been the rule in all African native wars.”

“As most people of European origin,” she claimed not to understand America’s oddities, but “as a Jew” she said, she had “sympathy” for the “cause of the Negroes.” However the essay itself suggests the opposite.

She speaks of the “unsolved problems connected with Negroes living in our midst.” What “problem”? Isn’t the problem the white racism, rather than black people? She urged “caution” in government intervention to enforce de-segregation and pointed out that a poll in Virginia showed 92 percent opposed school integration.

92% of whites? She compared enforcing de-segregation to forcing mixed marriages. She supported segregation based on the logic that “vacation resorts in this country are frequently ‘restricted’ according to ethnic origin.”

Instead of objecting to white-only resorts, she supported them.

SCHOLARS WHO like Arendt don’t like this essay, and a 2007 event at Princeton even asked if scholars should “disregard” it in presentations of Arendt’s political thinking. Not all scholars seek to ignore it, though; Kathryn Gines wrote a book on Arendt’s “Negro question” in 2014.

Soon after her pro-segregation screed, Arendt was in Jerusalem covering the Adolf Eichmann trial. In 1961 she wrote to her former adviser, Karl Jaspers, another German academic, who had stayed in Germany during the war and with whom Arendt enjoyed close relations.

Describing Israel, Arendt noted that the country had at its top German judges of whom she approved as the “best of German Jewry.” Below them were prosecuting attorneys, one of whom, a Galician Jew, was “still European,” she noted. “Everything is organized by the Israeli police force which gives me the creeps. It speaks only Hebrew and looks Arabic. Some downright brutes among them. They obey any order. Outside the courthouse doors the oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country.”

People who looked Arab were seen as disgusting by Arendt. “Orientals” were part of a “mob,” similar to the “savages” she had described in her previous writing.
kolonialismus  rassismus  hannaharendt 
august 2017 by MicrowebOrg
Many people believe that great crimes come from terrible ideas: Marxism, racism and Islamic fundamentalism gave us the Gulag, Auschwitz and 9/11. It was the singular achievement of *Eichmann in Jerusalem*, however, to remind us that the worst atrocities often arise from the simplest of vices. And few vices, in Arendt’s mind, were more vicious than careerism. [...]

Most modern theorists, from Montesquieu to the American Framers to Hayek, have considered ambition and careerism to be checks against, rather than conduits of, oppression and tyranny. [...]

The main reason for the contemporary evasion of Arendt’s critique of careerism, however, is that addressing it would force a confrontation with the dominant ethos of our time. In an era when capitalism is assumed to be not only efficient but also a source of freedom, the careerist seems like the agent of an easy-going tolerance and pluralism. Unlike the ideologue, whose great sin is to think too much and want too much from politics, the careerist is a genial caretaker of himself. He prefers the marketplace to the corridors of state power. He is realistic and pragmatic, not utopian or fanatic. That careerism may be as lethal as idealism, that ambition is an adjunct of barbarism, that some of the worst crimes are the result of ordinary vices rather than extraordinary ideas: these are the implications of Eichmann in Jerusalem that neo-cons and neoliberals alike find too troubling to acknowledge.
hannaharendt  fascism  capitalism 
june 2017 by isaacsmith
Rebecca Solnit: The Loneliness of Donald Trump | Literary Hub
"This year Hannah Arendt is alarmingly relevant, and her books are selling well, particularly On the Origins of Totalitarianism. She’s been the subject an extraordinary essay in the Los Angeles Review of Books and a conversation between scholar Lyndsey Stonebridge and Krista Tippet on the radio show “On Being.” Stonebridge notes that Arendt advocated for the importance of an inner dialogue with oneself, for a critical splitting in which you interrogate yourself—for a real conversation between the fisherman and his wife you could say: “People who can do that can actually then move on to having conversations with other people and then judging with other people. And what she called ‘the banality of evil’ was the inability to hear another voice, the inability to have a dialogue either with oneself or the imagination to have a dialogue with the world, the moral world.”

Some use their power to silence that and live in the void of their own increasingly deteriorating, off-course sense of self and meaning. It’s like going mad on a desert island, only with sycophants and room service. It’s like having a compliant compass that agrees north is whatever you want it to be. The tyrant of a family, the tyrant of a little business or a huge enterprise, the tyrant of a nation. Power corrupts, and absolute power often corrupts the awareness of those who possess it. Or reduces it: narcissists, sociopaths, and egomaniacs are people for whom others don’t exist.

We gain awareness of ourselves and others from setbacks and difficulties; we get used to a world that is not always about us; and those who do not have to cope with that are brittle, weak, unable to endure contradiction, convinced of the necessity of always having one’s own way. The rich kids I met in college were flailing as though they wanted to find walls around them, leapt as though they wanted there to be gravity and to hit ground, even bottom, but parents and privilege kept throwing out safety nets and buffers, kept padding the walls and picking up the pieces, so that all their acts were meaningless, literally inconsequential. They floated like astronauts in outer space.

Equality keeps us honest. Our peers tell us who we are and how we are doing, providing that service in personal life that a free press does in a functioning society. Inequality creates liars and delusion. The powerless need to dissemble—that’s how slaves, servants, and women got the reputation of being liars—and the powerful grow stupid on the lies they require from their subordinates and on the lack of need to know about others who are nobody, who don’t count, who’ve been silenced or trained to please. This is why I always pair privilege with obliviousness; obliviousness is privilege’s form of deprivation. When you don’t hear others, you don’t imagine them, they become unreal, and you are left in the wasteland of a world with only yourself in it, and that surely makes you starving, though you know not for what, if you have ceased to imagine others exist in any true deep way that matters. This is about a need for which we hardly have language or at least not a familiar conversation."
politics  donaldtrump  rebeccasolnit  2017  equality  inequality  delusion  power  corruption  kistatippet  lyndseystonebridge  hannaharendt  occupywallstreet  ows  fscottfitzgerald  tyrants  loneliness  resistance  russia  parables  privilege  vldimirputin  pushkin  greed  overreach  democracy  society  collectivism  evil  morality 
june 2017 by robertogreco
Petite citation de qui illustre bien des événements récents...
HannahArendt  from twitter_favs
may 2017 by ljegou
Happy to have driven by this during a 24-hour dash in .
Berlin  HannahArendt  from twitter_favs
march 2017 by javierruiz
Happy to have driven by this during a 24-hour dash in .
Berlin  HannahArendt  from twitter_favs
march 2017 by friedelitis
Ed-Tech in a Time of Trump
"The thing is, I’d still be giving the much the same talk, just with a different title. “A Time of Trump” could be “A Time of Neoliberalism” or “A Time of Libertarianism” or “A Time of Algorithmic Discrimination” or “A Time of Economic Precarity.” All of this is – from President Trump to the so-called “new economy” – has been fueled to some extent by digital technologies; and that fuel, despite what I think many who work in and around education technology have long believed – have long hoped – is not necessarily (heck, even remotely) progressive."

"As Donna Haraway argues in her famous “Cyborg Manifesto,” “Feminist cyborg stories have the task of recoding communication and intelligence to subvert command and control.” I want those of us working in and with education technologies to ask if that is the task we’ve actually undertaken. Are our technologies or our stories about technologies feminist? If so, when? If so, how? Do our technologies or our stories work in the interest of justice and equity? Or, rather, have we adopted technologies for teaching and learning that are much more aligned with that military mission of command and control? The mission of the military. The mission of the church. The mission of the university.

I do think that some might hear Haraway’s framing – a call to “recode communication and intelligence” – and insist that that’s exactly what education technologies do and they do so in a progressive reshaping of traditional education institutions and practices. Education technologies facilitate communication, expanding learning networks beyond the classroom. And they boost intelligence – namely, how knowledge is created and shared.
Perhaps they do.

But do our ed-tech practices ever actually recode or subvert command and control? Do (or how do) our digital communication practices differ from those designed by the military? And most importantly, I’d say, does (or how does) our notion of intelligence?"

"This is a punch card, a paper-based method of proto-programming, one of the earliest ways in which machines could be automated. It’s a relic, a piece of “old tech,” if you will, but it’s also a political symbol. Think draft cards. Think the slogan “Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.” Think Mario Savio on the steps of Sproul Hall at UC Berkeley in 1964, insisting angrily that students not be viewed as raw materials in the university machine."

"We need to identify and we need to confront the ideas and the practices that are the lingering legacies of Nazism and fascism. We need to identify and we need to confront them in our technologies. Yes, in our education technologies. Remember: our technologies are ideas; they are practices. Now is the time for an ed-tech antifa, and I cannot believe I have to say that out loud to you.

And so you hear a lot of folks in recent months say “read Hannah Arendt.” And I don’t disagree. Read Arendt. Read The Origins of Totalitarianism. Read her reporting from the Nuremberg Trials.
But also read James Baldwin. Also realize that this politics and practice of surveillance and genocide isn’t just something we can pin on Nazi Germany. It’s actually deeply embedded in the American experience. It is part of this country as a technology."

"Who are the “undesirables” of ed-tech software and education institutions? Those students who are identified as “cheats,” perhaps. When we turn the cameras on, for example with proctoring software, those students whose faces and gestures are viewed – visually, biometrically, algorithmically – as “suspicious.” Those students who are identified as “out of place.” Not in the right major. Not in the right class. Not in the right school. Not in the right country. Those students who are identified – through surveillance and through algorithms – as “at risk.” At risk of failure. At risk of dropping out. At risk of not repaying their student loans. At risk of becoming “radicalized.” At risk of radicalizing others. What about those educators at risk of radicalizing others. Let’s be honest with ourselves, ed-tech in a time of Trump will undermine educators as well as students; it will undermine academic freedom. It’s already happening. Trump’s tweets this morning about Berkeley.

What do schools do with the capabilities of ed-tech as surveillance technology now in the time of a Trump? The proctoring software and learning analytics software and “student success” platforms all market themselves to schools claiming that they can truly “see” what students are up to, that they can predict what students will become. (“How will this student affect our averages?”) These technologies claim they can identify a “problem” student, and the implication, I think, is that then someone at the institution “fixes” her or him. Helps the student graduate. Convinces the student to leave.

But these technologies do not see students. And sadly, we do not see students. This is cultural. This is institutional. We do not see who is struggling. And let’s ask why we think, as the New York Times argued today, we need big data to make sure students graduate. Universities have not developed or maintained practices of compassion. Practices are technologies; technologies are practices. We’ve chosen computers instead of care. (When I say “we” here I mean institutions not individuals within institutions. But I mean some individuals too.) Education has chosen “command, control, intelligence.” Education gathers data about students. It quantifies students. It has adopted a racialized and gendered surveillance system – one that committed to disciplining minds and bodies – through our education technologies, through our education practices.

All along the way, or perhaps somewhere along the way, we have confused surveillance for care.

And that’s my takeaway for folks here today: when you work for a company or an institution that collects or trades data, you’re making it easy to surveil people and the stakes are high. They’re always high for the most vulnerable. By collecting so much data, you’re making it easy to discipline people. You’re making it easy to control people. You’re putting people at risk. You’re putting students at risk.

You can delete the data. You can limit its collection. You can restrict who sees it. You can inform students. You can encourage students to resist. Students have always resisted school surveillance.

But I hope that you also think about the culture of school. What sort of institutions will we have in a time of Trump? Ones that value open inquiry and academic freedom? I swear to you this: more data will not protect you. Not in this world of “alternate facts,” to be sure. Our relationships to one another, however, just might. We must rebuild institutions that value humans’ minds and lives and integrity and safety. And that means, in its current incarnation at least, in this current climate, ed-tech has very very little to offer us."
education  technology  audreywatters  edtech  2017  donaldtrump  neoliberalism  libertarianism  algorithms  neweconomy  economics  precarity  inequality  discrimination  donnaharaway  control  command  ppwer  mariosavio  nazism  fascism  antifa  jamesbaldwin  racism  hannaharendt  totalitarianism  politics 
february 2017 by robertogreco
The Contemporary Condition: The Mo(u)rnings After*: On Behalf of Democratic Government, or Lessons from Arendt on the Dreyfus Affair
"The mob did not come into existence because of impersonal economic and political forces, but because an elite’s greed and decadence, and its use of political power to further that greed, created a class that felt superfluous, unnecessary, left behind. As Arendt puts it, the mob was “produced” by the “[h]igh society and politicians of the Third Republic,” in a “ series of scandals and public frauds” (107). Thus, when the Dreyfus case arose, the mob was available for hatred, and available to be soothed with slogans like “Death to the Jews!” and “France for the French!”"

"The similarities between Arendt’s account of the rise of the Anti-Dreyfusard “mob” and Trumpism is obvious. The 2008 bailout of Wall Street, along with the flaunting of politicians’ ties to business and finance (the revolving door between politics and finance and lobbying), and the various scandals surrounding especially Hillary Clinton’s ties to finance (such as the Goldman Sachs speeches) have made obvious to everybody that Clintonian (and Reagan-ian and Bush-ian) neoliberalism favors the wealthy and leaves the poor and working class behind. In this sense, it is also obvious – as it has been to many of us throughout the campaign – that Trump’s popularity is at least in part a byproduct of neoliberalism. It is because neoliberalism created a superfluous class, marked by anger and resentment, that they were available for Trumpism.

This does not mean that a Clinton presidency would have been the same thing as a Trump presidency will be. Far from it: many diverse groups would have been more valued and protected under a Clinton presidency, and racism, misogyny, and anti-immigrant sentiment would have been declaimed and likely fought against. Climate change would have been addressed – even if not aggressively enough. It is important, in other words, to make distinctions between Clinton and Trump. Yet it is also important to acknowledge that more Clinton-ism would likely not have meant an end to Trumpism, but probably more of an audience for it."

"In the wake of the Trump election, it is easy, on the one hand, to be consumed by a hatred of, resentment toward, or fear of Trump and his followers; or, on the other hand, to despair of democracy and government altogether. I am tempted to those paths myself. Yet to do so would be to cede the republic to neoliberal elites and the resentful class their excesses and greed have produced. Instead, we should be working right now to offer a Left democratic vision of freedom and equality that refuses the scapegoating logic of Trumpism, and the neoliberal moderation of Hillary Clinton, which happily produces classes of winners and losers, while trying to check its worst excesses. Such a Left democratic vision would affirm and pursue a government that will be an active, radical agent of freedom and equality and that refuses to leave anyone behind, including Trump supporters. What might this look like? The first things that come to mind: I see such a government as one that creates a new, clean energy economy, powered by a large tax on fossil fuel companies and corporations, and which creates jobs for its citizens in alternative energy and the building of a new infrastructure focused on mass transit. It is a government where, as Bernie Sanders demanded, all citizens are promised a free college education, and where everyone has affordable, excellent health care. It is a government that aggressively monitors, restructures, and de-militarizes the police. It is a government that treats refugees and immigrants as equals.

This incipient vision might seem ridiculous in the context of a Trump victory – pipe dreams. But now is not the time to narrow our vision into the confines of a defensive posture. It is exactly the time to dream big, to demand more, to call for what we really want: freedom and equality for everyone. Only such a vision, and the political action to match, can create a bulwark against the worst excesses of elite greed, the (white, male) resentment it spawns, and the misogyny, racism, ableism, and anti-immigrant sentiment that this resentment enables and feeds on."
zoevorsino  2016  elections  hannaharendt  hillaryclinton  donaldtrump  elitism  politics  policy  resentment  neoliberalism  liberalism  inequality 
november 2016 by robertogreco

« earlier    

related tags

2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2020  abjection  abraancliffe  absence  academia  accessibility  action  activism  advertising  agamben  alanturing  alberteinstein  alejandrozambra  algorithms  alnoorladha  americandream  anarchism  anationatrisk  anti  antifa  antoniolabriola  araucanía  arauco  architecture  arendt  aristotle  art  attention  audio  audio1  audioarchiv  audreywatters  authority  autonomy  aynrand  banality  banalityofevil  banking  baudelaire  behavior  behaviorism  berlin  bfskinner  bias  bigdata  billgates  bio  biopolitics  blackness  blackstudies  books  borges  brunolatour  buckminsterfuller  buenaventuradurruti  canon  capitalism  caring  carlamiranda  carlgoldberg  cedricrobinson  certainty  children  chile  chrishedges  christianmackauer  cities  citizenship  civics  civilization  class  coexistence  collectivism  colleges  command  commonplace  communication  community  competition  consciousness  consistency  conspiracy  content  control  corporatism  corruption  counterdeclarations  courage  criticalthinking  culture  cybersyn  césarleytonrobinson  danaschutz  danger  data  dataexhaust  datamining  debate  declarations  deleuze  delicious  delusion  democracy  derekscott  design  df  disagreement  discourse  discrimination  do  documentary  doing  doku  domingooñate  donaldtrump  donnaharaway  download2  dragons  economics  edhirsch  edtech  education  edwardsnowden  egalitarianism  eichmann  elections  eliascanetti  elitism  emmanuellevinas  empathy  emptiness  epidemic  equality  erikbrynjolfsson  escape  ethics  europe  evil  experientiallearning  expertise  exploitation  fakenews  fascism  feedom  film  forestry  forgiveness  formality  frankenstein  frankschirrmacher  frankwilderson  frantzfanon  frederickdouglass  fredmoten  freedom  fscottfitzgerald  future  genderroles  generalists  genocide  geography  german  germans  germany  gillesdeleuze  giorgioagamben  globalization  good  google  government  greed  guestblog  gullibility  hamesburnham  hannah  hannahblack  hansteerds  hansweil  heidegger  heinrichblücher  hermanrapaport  hierarchies  hierarchy  highered  highereducation  hillaryclinton  history  home  homeless  homelessness  hongkongcinema  horizontality  household  howwelearn  howweteach  human  humanism  ideology  iequality  imagination  independence  individualism  individualization  individuals  individuation  inequality  informality  information  inscape  interdependence  interest-basedlearning  interest-drivenlearning  interests  interior  interiors  internet  interview  invisibility  iran  isolation  israelpalestineconflict  italocalvino  iteration  iterative  jacobklein  jacquesderrida  jamesbaldwin  jazz  joaquinalmunia  johndewey  journalism  judithbutler  kant  karlmarx  kevinkelly  kevinrittberger  kierkegaard  kistatippet  kolonialismus  konservativ  kurtwolff  labor  ladybirdjohnson  lang:de  language  law  lcproject  learning  legal  leonbostein  leostrauss  lesekreis  liberalism  liberarianism  libertarianism  libraries  library  lies  listening  literature  lmsacasas  localism  loneliness  lordbyron  loughner  love  luddism  luddites  luisfernandomorenoclaros  lyndseystonebridge  malevolence  mapuche  mariamitchell  mariosavio  markets  martinheidegger  marxism  maryshelley  massproduction  meaning  media  medialiteracy  messiness  methodology  mexico  mexicocity  mexicodf  michaelbloomberg  mikecaulfield  mnourbesephilip  modernity  money  monsters  morality  music  mustread  n...  nancyspero  nazism  nclb  neoliberalism  neoluddism  neweconomy  newyorker  nietzsche  obedience  occupywallstreet  online  ontology  openstudioproject  opinion  opinions  oregon  overreach  ows  palestine  parables  participation  passage  pedagogy  personalization  personallibraries  perspective  phenomenology  philosophers  philosophy  philosophy_of_humor  plato  plurality  poetry  policy  politics  politischetheorie  portland  possibilities  possibility  poverty  power  ppwer  practice  praxis  precarity  presidenttrump  presonallibrarieslibrary  privacy  privateschools  privatization  privilege  process  progress  progressive  progressivism  projectpigeon  propaganda  psychology  public  publicgood  publicschools  publicspace  purpose  pushkin  race  racism  rassismus  rebeccasolnit  reflection  reform  refuge  relationships  relingos  research  resentment  resistance  responsibility  restoration  robertmaynardhutchins  robertobolaño  robertsmithson  robertwalser  rttt  rudolfphilippi  russia  saidiyahartman  schooliness  schooling  schools  science  sciencefiction  scientism  scifi  security  self-awareness  selfreflection  sfsh  shlomoavineri  silence  siliconvalley  skepticism  slate  slavadornono  slavery  small  smallness  social  socialnetworking  socialsciences  socialwork  society  socrates  soshanazuboff  space  spaces  specialization  sputnik  srg  standardization  standardizedtesting  standards  staugustine  stringfellowbarr  study  stuggle  surveillance  surveillancecapitalism  swarm  tcsnmy  teaching  teachingmachines  technocracy  technology  technosolutionism  temuco  testing  theory  thepublic  theshoppingmallhighschool  thinking  thomaspiketty  thomaspynchon  thought  thoughtleadership  thoughtlessness  tomássegovia  toread  totalitarianism  training  trump  trust  trustworthiness  truth  tseliot  tweecious  tyrants  uncertainty  understanding  unidadpopular  universities  urban  urbanism  us  valdivia  valerialuisellu  violence  visibility  vldimirputin  vygotsky  wadadaleosmith  walterbenjamin  wealth  web  wernerjaeger  whitewashing  wiki  wikipedia  williamcarloswilliams  williamjames  wissenschaft  wissenschaftler  women  womeninfilm  work  workplace  worldbank  writers  writing  wu-tangclan  yokoono  zionism  zoevorsino  zpd 

Copy this bookmark: