In the third chapter of Joe Harris’s “Rewriting”, he hits on the concept of countering another writer’s text. In countering another writer’s words, your aim is not to prove how intelligent you are or attack the writer’s weaknesses but instead to suggest a different way of thinking or “move the conversation in new directions.”(P.56). This is not merely defending your viewpoint or attacking the opposite one in a debate; this is opening up a new dimension to the debate. One method Harris suggests in doing this is arguing the other side or “attaching a positive value to something another writer denigrates or a negative value to what another writer applauds.” (P.60). The best way to explain this is with the example Harris provides us in the book with how John Berger interprets Kenneth Clark’s work on the difference between nakedness and nudity. The values both writers associate with these terms are opposite of each other. Yet Berger doesn’t say Clark is wrong but counters it by saying that although nudity may sometimes be good for art, it is not always good for living. Berger doesn’t shut down Clark in anyway but adds another way to think about bodies portrayed in art.
In our latest reading in “The Consequences of Modernity”, Giddens develops his next key idea on Abstract systems and the transformation of Intimacy. He argues abstract systems have provided us a large scale of security on a daily basis that wasn’t present in pre- modern days. For example a person can board a plane today and fly half way around the world within hours knowing fairly well they will get their safe and even what their time of arrival will be. No knowledge of planes or how they operate or the path of the flight is required to access this daily resource. On the contrary an explorer going on a journey in pre modern days has little knowledge of where he is going or when he will be arriving and has a very high risk of a tragedy or death occurring. Although malfunctions and breakdowns can easily happen, Giddens goes on to say that, “most of the time the taken-for-granted way in which everyday actions are geared into abstract systems bears witness to the effectiveness with which they operate.”(P.113). So more often than not our abstract systems we lay our trust in gives us the results we want with little risk of tragedy.
I agree with Giddens that we do invest a great amount of trust into abstract systems while knowing very little about how the expert systems work or the foundation behind it. People access an ATM everyday to withdrawal money without knowing who is behind the screen and who could possibly be stealing their identity. Yet I think the security we expect from these expert systems lies less on having the knowledge on how they operate but instead having an awareness of the corrupt forces that try to manipulate these systems like terrorists. After 9/11, one of the worst tragedies in American history, people were instilled with fear constantly having the thought of being attacked. However after this terrible act of terror, people were forced to resume their daily lives and travel by planes. The average person boarding a plane after that date had the haunting thought of possibly being taken over again rather than a malfunction in the plane itself occurring. So expert systems are now being used against us and creating a fear even bigger than having something break down within the system itself.
Globalization & Modernity (77) 
I was very interested in your post, due to the example you used about September 11th. You brought up the extremely valid point that after 9/11 “people were instilled with fear constantly having the thought of being attacked.” This statement is absolutely correct. That being said, my question to you would be: Do you think that people questioned simple abstract systems, or only ones related to the 9/11 tragedy?
Giddens is correct in saying that abstract systems are often “taken for granted” (Giddens 113). To this point, I believe that tragedies, such as 9/11, did not affect the trust that American citizens put into everyday abstract systems.
For example, due to the security breach by the terrorists, it is plausible to see how one would think twice before giving out their information in any way. However, I do not believe it to have been a typical fear by American citizens to question everyday activities such as purchasing items online. In this case, I disagree with your statement that, “the security we expect from these expert systems lies less on having the knowledge on how they operate but instead having an awareness of the corrupt forces that try to manipulate these systems.” I do, however, see where you are coming from, just from a different viewpoint.
It is very interesting to see how different people interpret different ideas. Thank you for your insightful and intelligent comment, along with real world examples!
Morgan
LikeLike
I agree with your agreement with Giddens that “we do invest a great amount of trust into abstract systems”. There are very many cases of this, not just on the major scale of the 9/11 situation which you mentioned, but also in the smaller scale of our daily lives and relationships. Relating this to the most recent reading in Rewriting, “the mode of a writer is not always evident in the conclusions she reaches or the ideas she advances”. In conversations read over the internet or text, it is not always clear as to what the other person speaking is saying. It is easy to mistakenly add a sarcastic tone to what is read or try to look for an nonexistent hidden meaning, thus creating an imaginary argument and straining relationships due to reliance in technology.
Jordan
LikeLike
You wrote that “I think the security we expect from these expert systems lies less on having the knowledge on how they operate but instead having an awareness of the corrupt forces that try to manipulate these systems like terrorists.” While this could be true in extreme cases, like the one you mention, there are also more mundane expert systems, such as an elevator, that could not have a “corrupt force” trying to manipulate it, but could still lead to serious harm if it malfunctions. I think the idea of things like planes being used in unintended ways by those who we do not trust is interesting, and what happens when an expert system is used in a wrong way is worth thinking about, but I do not think that overall expert systems are being “used against us.”
AM
LikeLike
I share your agreement with Giddens when he says “we do invest a great amount of trust into abstract systems.” I really liked when you said “For example a person can board a plane today and fly half way around the world within hours knowing fairly well they will get their safe and even what their time of arrival will be.” This example gave me a better understanding of what Giddens was talking about when he spoke about abstract systems. However, it also had me questioning, at what point do we put too much of our trust in to abstract systems? Additionally, are there ways to make abstract systems like ATM’s safer and less prone to identity theft?
LikeLike
Kenneth Clark seemed to take the idea of being naked/nude and turned it into some sort of conspiracy. He developed an imaginary battle between the two words which essentially mean the same thing. However, the actuality and symbolic meanings of these two words are up for interpretation. This reminds me of Gidden’s abstract system that he introduces in this weeks chapter. To think abstractly is to think beyond the word and meaning. Clark does so when he attaches such depth to two words that essentially have the same meaning/value.
LikeLike
Blake,
You’re right that “The average person boarding a plane after that date had the haunting thought of possibly being taken over again rather than a malfunction in the plane itself occurring.” Or, realistically, maybe now they were equally scared of both. I wonder, though, how Giddens’s discussion in the second-to-last chapter–of human error–fits in here?
~DM
LikeLike