耀
a
r
o
6
e
d
g
2
l
p
a
n

a
r
o
n
h
s
i
a
o
w
a
s
h
e
r
e

 

 

A Slashdot post on one of the recent logos for an NRO mission led me into several hours of reading on past missions, then capabilities, then intelligence agencies in general, and finally the Snowden leaks.

I have to admit that in the abstract, this is like seeing a good horror movie. There’s something dreadful about all of it, but also something thrilling. Should I be feeling this way? I think it’s the same thing that little boys feel when they see an SR-71 blackbird or when they watch Star Wars and see the Death Star filling the screen.

These are great and terrible things. The “terrible” is the part that modern, enlightened, politically-left-of-center people tend to focus on, and certainly it is that part and the implicitly negative perspectives on it of which discussions are culturally sanctioned in such company. But the “great” in the previous phrase bears mentioning as well, because it is the source of much temptation (and, I suspect, much trouble in the world).

The little boy in me is fascinated by these things because they are immensely powerful. Powerful agencies. Powerful technologies. Powerful social structures. If, as some have argued, the essence of masculinity is efficacy, then it is easy to see why young boys gravitate so frequently toward power. Anyone that’s been a little boy, or that’s had one, can sense this before the capacity for speech even develops.

Big things. Loud things. Carniverous dinosaurs. Efficient predators. Electrical tools. Train engines. Trucks with large wheels and growling exhausts. Jet planes and race cars. Swords and guns. Power. The power to get things done. Just what things—is too often beside the point.

— § —

As a young pre- and early-teen at my parents house, I built (simply because I could) a monster computing system starting in the late ’80s and evolving into the early ’90s. Symmetric multiprocessing, dozens of megabytes of memory (huge at the time), large multi-mechanism SCSI RAID arrays, two 4-bit raster heads and three RS-232 VT-100 heads, all tied into a UUCP feed. It didn’t run MS-DOS, Windows, AppleDOS, etc., or indeed any of the common applications of the day. It ran an obscure Unix variant (the only one that I could afford to license) better suited to particular infrastructural needs in enterprise computing.

What did I do with it? Keep a diary. Play with code. Most of the storage space went unused. Four of the five heads were constantly running “screen savers” (think of it—getting a bunch of VT-100s and connecting them up via RS-232 just to log in, run a text-based screen saver over serial, and then ignore them).

Why? Power. The system and its integrations was/were powerful. No, I didn’t use most of its capacities or capabilities in the least. I used the UUCP feed to send personal email and pull a few humor newsgroups off of Usenet. I didn’t have many uses for it at all, in the end. But somehow the fact that I could do all kinds of computationally and socially intensive things with it, that it had the capacity to be a powerful instrument and system made me love it, fetishize it. Somewhere there is a photo of me holed up there with five heads and several large towers in my bedroom as a young teenager. It was taken by a friend. No doubt many of the other teens that stumbled into my bedroom thought I was doing all kinds of wild computational and networking stuff, rather than just playing around with dynamic Huffman encoding every now and then and optimizing algorithms that I didn’t really use all that much, or have any use for in fact, and all for for no particular reason.

I just wanted power. Not to use it. I had no use for it. Just to have it. Just to see it sitting there in front of me, being powerful.

— § —

The “great” in the “great and terrible” programs of the NRO, NSA, CIA and the like—and in “great and terrible” states—is too often overlooked or denied. The greatness is a matter of great scale and great efficacy. These are seductive things still, to the little boy in me.

They lead me to read about these programs, technologies, states, and so on with overt disgust and aversion while covertly repressing both a thrill at their capacity and a regret that they are not under my control, or no longer exist, or some other caveat that carries them beyond my reach, that leaves me unable to experience their power directly. Because somehow, even if they had and have been used for evil, the capacity that they represent, the raw power, lies beyond good and evil, in the realm of massive potentialities for action and effect.

The seductiveness is dangerous, I think, and it surprises me and at times makes me ashamed that I feel it. But I do. I’ve never stopped. I see it in my son, too, in his constant quest to identify bigger, badder dinosaurs, and faster, stronger vehicles. Not because he can imagine any use for them, but because they are powerful.

— § —

Another thing that I used to do on my massive system (and have still been known to to from time to time on my current, far less extravagant in contemporary terms white-box Core i7 system) is run benchmarks that basically make a big show of using every last drop of processing ability and throughput that a system offers—all in the interest of showing a cute dial or calculating an abstract number that ostensibly represents the “capability” of the system but that in fact, underneath it all for most users, shows that you have put the system to its maximum use.

Why? Why burn all of this electricity to engage in pointless calculation, only to discard it?

Because once you have power, you feel compelled to make use of it from time to time, just to revel in its raw capability. To see the power exercised, even if toward no particular end. So when I’m not busy doing a big render or processing video for my day job, I nonetheless find myself tempted now and then to crank the thing anyway. Because.

This is the place where I say that power corrupts.

— § —

I see this tendency in myself and in my three-year-old son, but I don’t see it in the same way in my wife or in my five-year-old daughter.

I stand in a kind of solidarity with my son, understanding what he feels, but I’m also well-aware as a (however inadequate) student of the world of the ways in which this fascination can come to no good—of the seductiveness of power and efficacy, the compulsion to pursue them for their own sake, and then, once they’re in hand, the compulsion to put them to use, just to see power exercised, not as good and not as evil, but merely as power itself (yet with good and evil epiphenomena that the adult in me realizes are its real importances and legacies).

Hopefully as he ages, this impulse in him will also be sublimated into the kind of bibliophilia that leaves him reading books and articles about various kinds of power, about the NROs, NSAs, CIAs, and superstates of his time—overtly to worry about it all, and covertly to get a thus (I tell myself) harmless fix.

Hopefully.

After my earlier post on adjuncting, I thought I’d better qualify things by saying that I’m not bitter about academic life or the academic experience.

I know that some are, but I’m not.

I enjoyed my years of teaching immensely, as I did my years as a Ph.D. student and then candidate. And it’s these experiences that enable me to do the job that I do today, in which I’m often described as unflappable, productive, creative, and authoritative.

It was enrollment in campus life that led me to write and publish the books that I wrote over many years, and that nurtured in me the temperament that later enabled my appearance and participation in big media and as a public figure. Life in academic circles forms a large part of what has fueled this blog for seventeen years, even if the actual daily content of academic life is mostly absent from its pages.

In many very real ways, academic life ultimately beat both the “stupid” and the “young” right out of me, often for better in the end.

Had I not followed the academic path that I followed, I’d be a very different person from the person that I am today. And I am mostly glad to be the person that I am today.

So it bears repeating that I’m satisfied with, and embrace, the path I took, even if there are particular parts of the experience that I either regret or wish had been otherwise.

— § —

If I could earn a living at it, I’d spend the rest of my life on campus(es).

There’s something natural and right about an environment in which the young are trained by the older and more experienced and in which research and inquiry are married to production and an ethos of rigor and the pursuit of high standards.

Sadly, this arrangement—which recalls in many ways the guilds and apprenticeships of prior epochs, albeit with an emphasis on thought-work and knowledge-work rather than craftsmanship—is married to capitalist production and embedded in today’s larger neoliberal economic context.

The result is that to participate in it, whether as a student or as an instructor or mentor, requires that one suffer exploitation.

The very real benefits do justify this exploitation for a time. But there is a significant difference between, on the one hand, finding the cost-benefit calculation to make sense from the perspective of personal and career development, and on the other, trying to turn this particular mode and environment of exploitation into a career and method of economically sustaining oneself.

— § —

So:

Would I take it back, undo it all if I could? Absolutely not.

Am I grateful for the opportunity? Definitely.

Do I think that I also made the right choice in stopping, at least for the present, once I finished my Ph.D.? Without a doubt.

Do I rule out any thought of academic work in the future? Not at all, but the calculation involved in deciding whether or not to take it up again would be a significantly different one from the calculation that led me to pursue it as a student.

Am I happy to have the chance now to own, once again, who I am as a person, without worrying that it will affect my expenses, employment, or my future income potential? Yes.

— § —

Let me expand a bit on the way that I think about academic careers these days, at least amongst the faculties.

I think that such a career is best imagined as a kind of honor or award, not as a path to be actively pursued.

Professionals ought to follow their interests, do their work, and develop their careers without any particular regard for the academy. Be productive. Think. Write. If those are the things that you do.

If, after naturally doing what you do, the academy pursues you, and you are in a position to be receptive to these overtures, then you are the right person for the job. Otherwise, you’re better off just doing what you do, being interested in what you’re interested in, helping and/or mentoring those that you will, without expecting a university to pay you for these things.

Archives »

April 2026
March 2026
February 2026
January 2026
December 2025
July 2025
May 2025
April 2025
February 2025
January 2025
December 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
September 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
June 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999