Beach Haven

Bibliography
Steinbeck, John. 1937. Of Mice and Men. New York: Penguin Books.
​
Review by Michael Beach
 
The copy I have of this novella is modern, as in it’s a fresh copy. I’m not sure if novella is the correct term, but it’s bigger than a short story and smaller than a novel. I had heard the title in the past, but without knowing the nature of the story. It is set during the great depression. Two migrant ranch workers leave one town after having had ‘trouble’ there. George Milton and Lennie Small travel together to a new ranch in a new town for work. George is the 'smart’ one, Lennie is mentally challenged and physically large. Lennie is attracted to weak things such as mice and rabbits, but inevitably kills them by petting them to death. He apparently had some similar issues with a human girl in the last town they worked in, not killing her, but doing something inappropriate that got them ousted.

Now on the new ranch they run into issues with an overbearing coworker, Curley, who is the boss’ son, and his wife who flirts with all the workers. Lennie is given a puppy which, as with other small creatures, he eventually kills through being too rough with it. Curley and Lennie eventually get into a fight and Curley is hurt badly. Nothing really comes of it as he started the whole thing, but from that point on he looks for every chance to get George and Lennie into some kind of trouble. Eventually, Curley’s wife approaches Lennie when he is alone in the barn. When she learns of the death of Lennie's puppy, she flirts and invites him to stroke her hair. When she realizes how strong and rough Lennie is she starts to scream. He tries to quiet her but ends up killing her in the process. George and Lennie have to escape the mob bent on lynching Lennie. George attempts to distract the hunting of Lennie by participating in the search party. He knows where to find Lennie as they had preplanned a meeting place. George shoots and kills Lennie to spare him the torment of the mob.

There are all sorts of undertones to the story. One of the workers is black and there are tensions between him and the other workers. There is tension between the owner, the boss, his son, and the son’s wife when it comes to their interactions with each other, but in particular with the workers. Steinbeck captures the despair many felt during the depression, as well as the rough language used among the ranch hands. Readers should be prepared for that. His masterful writing style makes the way character inner-stresses display themselves in character interaction very believable. He captures what must have been a common fate among many who suffered the ills of the great depression.

​Bibliography
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Review by Michael Beach

As the subtitle suggests, Bruno Latour explains the main discussion points in this specific framework. In the discipline of Science, Technology, and Society (STS), Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) is widely adopted in terms of how to view interactions of people, organizations, and artifacts in making policy and technology choices. Unlike some of the other social frameworks, Latour argues that the adoption and stability of a given scientific fact or technological artifact is a function of the strength of the networks that support them. For Latour, fact or artifact selection results if more actors (people) or actants (objects) interact on a consistent basis than competing facts or artifacts. If the strength of a network begins to wain in relation to different facts or artifacts, then a theory or technology is supplanted. Context for Latour is less important. Context may influence parts of a network, but contexts differ among network nodes (actors or actants), and they also change over time. He puts less weight to social factors that may seem stable in some ways. Instead it is how much actors and actants tend to support a given policy, technology, or scientific finding that will determine how stable it tends to be.

Latour argues “sociology has confused science with politics” (253). When discussing what influences a network, he further states, “it makes no difference if it’s ‘natural’ or ‘social’” (Ibid.). One way to think about it, when actants are involved, there is no ‘social’ effect on such. Natural resources are an example. Efficiency is more a question in terms of human use of non-renewable resources, yet renewables can be overtaxed as well. The resources themselves impact network choices but are not influenced directly by social forces.

ANT has been shown to have weaknesses that even Latour admits. For example, ANT does not consider non-users. When the cost of a specific technology excludes people living in poverty, there are perspectives excluded that might offer improvement. Lower costs and fewer options might add user count, especially if many of the options are not really used by purchasers of the more expensive versions of technology. How many channels of TV do people actually view of the hundreds they pay for through some service? Today we might think the song lyrics “57 channels and nothin’ on” rather quaint. Who has a service with only 57 channels? One could also argue that if ANT is less interested in 'context', wouldn't a network itself constitute a form of context?

Bruno Latour’s ANT lens can be applied to many aspects of life. Essentially he argues that facts and artifacts most supported by a network of people and things will win, even if they cost more, are less efficient, and not universally available. 

​Bibliography
Fairhead, James. 2015. The Captain and "The Cannibal": An Epic Story of Exploration, Kidnapping, and the Broadway Stage. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Review by Michael Beach

This is a true story. It is one of self-interested exploitation and failure. Captain Benjamin Morrell was contracted by a number of financial backers to conduct profitable sea travels to the South Pacific. He failed at each, and where he did manage to bring back cargo of any value, he absconded with it for himself. The only ‘prize’ he seemed to have any success with were two natives who were captured from separate islands in skirmishes with local people. Though neither were actually cannibals. They both spoke different languages from each other. He eventually brought them back to the United States and took them on tour in costumes that had nothing to do with their native apparel. They played as dangerous headhunters.

One named Dako learned English and became more like extended family, though never free to leave on his own. Morrell eventually returned him to his own people on a later voyage which also didn’t yield profit. The other native died while on the stage tour, and he never showed any ability with English and little is documented about him. On the other hand, Fairhead is able to share a great deal about the life and thoughts of Dako. The stories floated by Captain Morrell at the time drew a lot of attention, including that of the author Herman Melville. Dako become Melville’s inspiration for Queequeg in his novel Moby Dick.

James Fairhead captures interlacing narratives of sea adventure, scoundrel character, and the clash of western colonialism with indigenous people. Settings of a professional sailing vessel, the South Pacific, London, New York and New England offer varied cultures and social norms that clash in every way possible. The work is well documented and makes for a read that pulls one in. This is one of those case where truth is stranger than fiction.
​

Bibliography
​Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Translated by Mark Ritter. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Washington DC: Sage.

Review by Michael Beach

In this book, Ulrich Beck weighs in on ‘modernity’. There are camps that say we have not become ‘modern’ yet. Others are proponents of modernism. Still others argue in favor of Western civilization in terms of post-modernism. Beck states his intent. “This book is an attempt to track down the word ‘post’, alternately called ‘late’ or ‘trans’” (Beck 1992, 9). He makes it clear his point of reference is modernism and modernist perspectives on risk.

In this work, Beck tackles risk as it relates to wealth distribution, politics, class, the family, institution, and various kinds of standards to name a few. He finishes up with an important section on what he calls 'reflexive modernization'. For those who espouse this framework, rather than defining crumbling tradition as post-modern, they argue the rise of new traditions and institutions establishing a new modernism. For example, national level definitions are giving way to ideas such as globalization. New modernity advocates support more independence as divorce rates rise. They advocate for less dependence on religion and other traditional forms of social construct. Ulrich Beck is looking at how views on risk are shifting along with these social changes.  

In the end, Beck looks at science. In a chapter titled Science beyond Truth and Enlightenment he makes the case that risk views depend on “scientific and social construction” (Beck 1992, 155). He claims “science is one of the causes, the medium of definition and the source of solutions to risks” (Ibid.). He then offers four theses on scientization. Sociologists studying science have argued over definitions of scientization. To what degree of faith does one put into science as compared to other forms of knowledge creation? Lesser dependence on social factors in determining ‘reality’ increases dependence on science. Like many sociologist, I question total dependence on science. So does Beck, but he is less concerned about the degree of dependence on science, and more concerned with how the degree of scientization influences views on risk.

Beck’s comparisons between classic and reflexive views of modernism contribute to shifting views on risk. Views of both modernism and risk are not monolith. In the world of Venn charts, both views exist together, and individuals may accept both depending on their participation in different communities. For example, in the world of project management or engineering, risk is often associated with negative impacts to desired outcomes. There are actuarial spreadsheet approaches to calculate probability and impact of any given potential risk. These same practitioners may view social risk in their non-work lives more reflexively, accepting subjective meanings over numerical ones. Beck explores many such issues, but always within the framework of varying definitions of modernity.

Bibliography
​Guston, David H., and Kenneth Keniston, . 1994. The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach

This book includes multiple authors. Guston and Keniston are the editors. Each chapter examines some aspect of the relationship between scientific research and government funding sources. The classic challenge for academics is determining research targets. They can range from general so-called ‘basic’ science topics to very specific ways of employing science and technology. Although the generalized idea of scientists desire for unfettered research agenda and the narrow outcomes preferred by funders can be true, it is a very simplistic description. Many researchers are motivated by the financial and prestige benefits of patented discoveries. Also, there are funders more interested in general science than in marketable inventions. Another consideration is the widespread establishment of academic institutes associated with universities that act as both research facilities and business incubators.

Among the considerations some of the authors approach includes the idea of trust. Value-based words such as trust, integrity, and accountability are common in the articles. Actors most generally defined are researchers of various sorts, government and business representatives, and differing descriptions of ‘the public’. What motivates the funders? What motivates the researcher? What role do members of the public play?

The best way I can think of to share the flavor of perspectives is to list the chapter titles. They include - The Social Contract for Science; Universities, the Public, and the Government: The State of the Partnership; On Doing One’s Damnedest: The Evolution of Trust in Scientific Findings; Integrity and Accountability in Research; The Public Face of Science: What Can We Learn from Disputes?; How Large an R&D Enterprise?; Views from the Benches: Funding Biomedical Research and the Physical Sciences; Financing Science after the Cold War; Indirect Costs and the Government-University Partnership; Research in U.S. Universities in a Technologically Competitive World; Constructive Responses to the Changing Social Context of University-Government Relations.

As you can see, there are plenty of meaty topics here. In addition to the language of social values and scientific research, many authors cover aspects of sustainable business to help justify funding and research decisions. 
​

​​Bibliography
Gindick, Jon. 1984. Country & Blues Harmonica for the Musically Hopeless. Palo Alto: Klutz Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach

My mother’s father, Lester Miller, played harmonica in a band with my dad, uncle, and a few others. A recurring experience I had as a kid was to listen to them practice in our home, or the home of my grandparents, and occasionally see them play at some venue. Pap Miller also played the mandolin. Every once in a while, when I was still in elementary school, my dad would have me play drums, filling in for my uncle, or he would have me play base guitar, filling in for him.  Eventually I had my own drum set. Then at one point I took an interest in harmonica. Pap gave me a few tips, and my parents bought me my own harmonica. I was never any good at it, mostly because I didn’t practice much. If I did have an interest, it was primarily in blues music, particularly by Johnny Rivers.

As I grew, my practice was spotty. Eventually, Pap Miller passed away. Among the things he left behind was a toolbox sized container with all sorts of harmonicas in it. Since I was the only person in the extended family with any interest in harmonica, Grammy Miller gave the box to me. The harmonicas ranged in keys and size. Having the box inspired me to practice more. The result is although I’m still not good, I’m at least not horrible at making music on occasion. This book was in box of harmonicas Pap left behind. I found in it some good tips and plenty of practice songs. I wouldn’t claim any real ability, but I will say the book helped me get a little better. Now I just have to keep making time to practice. 
​

Bibliography
​Tallbear, Kim. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach

Kim Tallbear is one of my favorite authors related to my studies in science, technology, and society (STS). The title of this work is self-explanatory, but the topics she covered are varied, and certainly explores ideas new to me.

One of overarching themes relates to how human test material such as blood samples have been used in the past in ways not agreed to by the subjects. Often banks of samples and data are sold to companies that develop treatments or further databases that yield not only medical findings, but revenues that come with them.

Tallbear also looks at the accuracy of DNA testing to find one’s ancestry. Such services have become popular in the private sector. There are many reasons to hold such findings suspect, and Tallbear reviews some of the technical issues. In terms of Native Americans, many of the issues are more social than technical. For example, there are specific government benefits for people who can document a native ancestry. Likewise, there is risk to those who claim native heritage when DNA tests don’t support their claim. Another difficulty the author has with native DNA testing is how many people claim specific tribal affiliation based on results. In reality, tribes intermingled so much through economic and warfare activity that it is difficult at best to narrow DNA categories in this way.

The problematic aspects Tallbear raises about DNA testing can be more generalized in two area as she does. The first happens when science and business are tied to each other. She points to the example of the genographic project (mapping the human gene structure) and ‘the business of research and representation’. Others have broached how science represents ‘facts’. Ian Hacking looks at the same issues from a philosophical perspective. He refers to the issues as ‘representing and intervening’. Likewise, Sheila Jasanoff created an entire framework that includes the idea of ‘controlling narratives’.

Tallbear finishes with a look at governance. Who can decide what’s appropriate use and language? Once collected, who owns human genetic tissue? She shares other complicating questions that are still unanswered. Even with modernized legal documents about what sort of rights research subjects cede when they sign a specific document, court cases continue. For example, if a company purchases data or samples from an academic study, then creates large revenues from that resource, are donors entitled to some of it? What part does race play in subject selection? How do scientists define a specific narrow population? How much isolation is required, or intermixing is acceptable, to make the samples be representative of a specific population? As the reader might imagine, such questions can continue. These are ethical concerns for scientists, and often cause ‘native’ people to be unwilling to trust them.
​

Bibliography
​Sperry, Armstrong. 1947. Danger to Windward. New York, Chicago, San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Reviewed by Michael Beach

This was a fun tale of intrigue and seafaring adventure. A girl from Nantucket married someone who was not from there. This resulted in estrangement from her family, in particular her father who was a whaling captain. Years pass. The couple have a son, but never return to Nantucket. Toward the end of his life, her father has a change of heart and leaves all he has to his daughter, but a corrupt half brother has a lawyer draw up a fake years earlier leaving all to him. Before finding any of this out, the father, daughter, and son in law all pass away under differing circumstances, leaving their son as sole. The son is our protagonist, Hugh Dewar. There are two antagonists, his uncle Samwel Macy assisted by a crooked lawyer, and Hugh's cousin Davy Macy who took over as captain of the ship once owned by Hugh’s grandfather.

On Hugh’s side was a good lawyer who helped him learn all the circumstances, and owners of the local Nantucket pub and inn. Hugh approaches his uncle to come to terms. He is beaten and taken aboard the whaler by his cousin, there to serve under him. He was kept alive because the ship was shorthanded, but understood that once the holds were full, his life would be under threat. Much of the book is of the sailing adventures that happen after his kidnapping. He is befriended by the ship’s ‘doctor’. The two of them at some point even wreck one of the harpooning boats and a few chapters are dedicated to their experiences among islanders, some friendly and some dangerous. They are eventually ‘rescued’ by their own ship and return to work on the ship while they search for the final will written by Hugh’s grandfather.

In the end, they find the will, Davy loses his life, Hugh wins the court battles and takes ownership of the lands and ship which are now completely his. The uncle and his lawyer flee in disgrace. The story line is similar to Robert Louis Stevenson's book Kidnapped with some variations. Wherever I look online, this book is described as a young person’s novel. I enjoyed it. I guess that goes to show where my mentality lays. 
​

Bibliography
Price, Don K. 1965. The Scientific Estate. London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Review by Michael Beach
​ 
For Don Price, there was a shift in America. The original philosophy characterized by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. He says there are two main ‘articles of faith’ concerning progress. The first concerns material benefits which “lead society to support the advancement of science and technology” (Price 1965, 1). The other basic belief asserts that advancement in science “would lead society toward desirable purposes, including political freedom” (Ibid.). Price goes on to speak of negative effects of science and technology such as the dust bowl, atomic bombs, and the great depression, all of which were at least influenced by technological and scientific decisions.

“So we are about to reach the point when both scientists and politicians begin to worry not merely about specific issues, but about the theoretical status of science in our political and constitutional system” (Price 1965, 4). Price refers to a government report by Vanevar Bush titled Science, the Endless Frontier. I’ve reviewed that document in the past along with several books critical of it. Price’s overarching theme is that science is intertwined with politics. Not only is there such a concept like political science, but also political issues have some sort of scientific perspective. If in no other way, sociology is a form of science that looks at how social issues and movements form and function. Noting such scientific fields such as physics and genetics, Price makes scientific revolution has more effect on political institutions than the industrial revolution. Here are three specific statements he makes that the rest of the book is based on.

• The scientific revolution is moving the public and private sectors closer together.
• The scientific revolution is bringing a new order of complexity into the administration of public affairs.
• The scientific revolution is upsetting our system of checks and balances.

Essentially, Don Price argues that economic and political power have become so close that he calls them ‘fused’. He also takes the position that both forms of power are inseparable with scientific change.
​

Bibliography
​Bloor, David. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Review by Michael Beach
 
This work by David Bloor repasses the strong program of sociology and the creation of knowledge. He was a proponent of a framework called the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). The strong program suggests that technological advancements are primarily a function of social factors. The alternative, the weak program, doesn’t go so far, but looks at failed technologies and asserts social factors leading to their demise. After making a number of SSK arguments, Bloor looks at mathematics as an example. From the wisdom of the crowds example of ox-weight estimation, to the arguments against crow-sourcing for understanding the world, Bloor shares chapters on ‘naturalistic’ math followed by asking if there can be ‘alternative’ math.

For Bloor, and other proponents of SSK, naturalistic views are partial and don’t go far enough. Over time, other philosophers of science have pointed to Bloor’s own argument vulnerabilities in more or less ignoring technological and scientific effects on society. He admits there is some influence, but describes the influence seemingly like a form of feedback, but not so much as a changing factor. SSK leans away from technological determinism as have many other philosophical frameworks. Perhaps David Bloor and the school of SSK takes that leaning away too far. One argument he makes relates to symmetry. In this specific definition, all ideas should be approach as having equal weight until proven different. He argues “Our everyday attitudes are practical and evaluative, and evaluations are by their nature asymmetrical” (Bloor 1991, 175). Bloor shares examples of other philosophers inducing other forms of symmetry. Bloor’s position of practicality and ‘common sense’ is part of his justification of asymmetry between social influence on technology as opposed to technological influence on society. 
​