Tag: Richard Florida

Top Books for 2007 (that I actually read)

Here is a sundry list of things I read that made a particular impression on me this year. They were not all published this year. They are not necessarily my favorites, and they include fiction, non-fiction, previously read, etc. In no particular order…

Books:

  1. Falling Man, Don DeLillo.
  2. Harrison Bergeron, Curt Vonnegut
  3. Central Themes in Biblical Theology, ed. Hafemann & House
  4. Seeing Through Cynicism, Dick Keyes
  5. Total Church, Chester & Timmis
  6. Paul: A Fresh Perspective, N. T. Wright
  7. n + 1. a twice-yearly print journal of politics, literature, and culture.
  8. How Children Raise Parents, Dan Allender.
  9. The Moral Vision of the New Testament, Richard Hays
  10. Disciples of All Nations, Lamin Sanneh

Articles:

  1. Converts or Proselytes?: The Crisis Over Conversion in the Early Church,” Andrew Walls IBMR 28
  2. “Anaesthetic Ideology,” Mark Greif n+1 vol. 5
  3. Things I Wish I Had Known When I Planted My Church,” Next Wave

Academic or Journalistic Blogging?

Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum disagrees with Tyler Cowen’s plea for “intellectual anthropology.”

Actually, this kind of amateur anthropology goes on all the time, and it obviously has its uses. But it also has its drawbacks: the conventions of social interaction allow people to obfuscate, prevaricate, evade, and just generally lay on the charm in ways that frequently blur distinctions instead of sharpening them. And human beings being the social primates that we are, we often give views that we hear in person more weight than they deserve simply because we heard them in person.

So I disagree: When it comes to important issues of public policy this kind of personal interaction should be secondary. For the most part, we shouldn’t judge people by what they say in private or how they act around their kids. We shouldn’t judge presidential candidates by how sociable they are on the press plane or whether they’d make a good drinking buddy. That’s how we ended up with George Bush. We should judge them mostly by their public record: their speeches, their actions, their roll call votes, and their funding priorities. Anthropological research, aka hanging out and having a few beers, is fun and interesting, but it’s not necessarily a superior guide to what someone really thinks or what they’ll really do when the crunch comes.

After reading this, I immediately asked myself: Is this the difference between academic and journalistic styles and norms? In my experience, academics are much tougher critics of ideas than journalists, but they tend to be more civil. That is, they want to take down an idea, not a person. So, they tend to restrict their criticisms to the realm of ideas and don’t get into personal motivations and attacks. They are colleagues with many of the people they debate. Journalists are less concerned with ideas and principles. Their focus is on personal motivations. They see themselves as a check on the system and don’t give a hoot if they hurt someone’s feelings. It’s just part of their job. For some, the goal is a personal take down; and in this day and age, that can get pretty nasty. (HT: Florida)

I take this as a personal challenge—to be academically rigourous and anthropologically sensitive. Perhaps i should blog less and research more. Though blogging is admittedly an informal journalistic type of medium, it can be much more. This has got me thinking…what about you?

Supercaptialism and the Soul of the City

Richard Florida recently pointed to Judy Judt’s review of Robert Reicht’s new book Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life. In this review she warns of the overconfidence that has historically accompanied successful capitalist societies. With surges of economic growth and national peace, cities can become complacent about social needs. She points out that: “The wealth gap in the US is now at its widest since 1929: in 2005, 21.2 percent of US national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners.”

Is Judt overstating the case in her review of Supercapitalism? If not, given this general urban complacency, how should we respond? What is the future of the soul of our cities?