Humans vs technology?

Is technology ruining our lives or are we doing this ourselves? Nowadays, more and more people are becoming aware of the ugly toll technology may be taking on us. We do not know yet how huge is the impact of spending 24/7 connected to our devices on our social life and relationships. There are even “digital detox” resorts where you can completely unplug: by disconnecting from your devices, you can reconnect with yourself and the world around you. But if you think about it, who creates technology? We, humans. If we create it, then we should take responsibility for the changes it provokes in everyday life and reflect upon the negative use we give to technology. All this without forgetting technology has also a positive side to consider. Technology itself cannot be regarded as an evil entity which aims at controlling our minds. Remember the blockbuster “I, Robot” with Will Smith? Our devices are far from having the power and independence to destroy us like those deadly robots try to do in the film: we are still able to choose when to switch off our laptop or when to disconnect from WiFi (even if some people do not consider it an option) Behind every technological development, there is a creator and then a user. Both of them are obviously humans: that is why humans are responsible for the technology we consume. Nonetheless, not only does technology not have the power to attack us, but it has solved our problems several times. Thanks to recent technological investigations, humanity has achieved amazing advances in the medical area. For example, a middle-aged woman who has spent most of her life unable to hear, now can get a micro-implant that would allow her to hear for the first time in decades. At the same time. many people get a second opportunity in life through robotically assisted heart surgeries. On the positive side of technology, once should also mention global communication: families and friends across great distances are able to communicate face to face at any time of the day just by opening a video chat, or an individual from South America can connect electronically with people from several different cultures living in the other extreme of the planet. It is safe to say the world has never been more interconnected. This information proves that humans do benefit a lot from technology when they give it a positive use. Having all these ideas in mind, the real problem with technology could be the wrong use we give to it. Some people use the internet to let off their steam and negative energy. They take advantage of the anonymity the web gives us and post the most vitriolic, hurtful, and malicious comments imaginable. These persons feel social apps are the place to express all the things they would never dare to say in person. The explanation may be that by doing this, they cannot see the emotional reaction of the receiver of the aggression. Therefore, haters do not have to deal with any consequences for their actions and become “emotional invisible”. Even if you do not have a hurtful intention behind your actions, you may use technology to avoid confrontation or taking responsibility in certain situations you do not feel comfortable with: it is much easier (but also cowardly) to ignore an email we do not want to answer than to ignore somebody who is making us a question in real life. To sum up, technology has many positive effects on human life that allow us to connect globally, live better and even longer. What may be “destroying” our lives is the negative use we give to technology that with time, is making us more aggressive and less and less empathic with others. Nevertheless, humans create technology so the responsibility for the consequences it has on our lives is only ours. It is easier to blame technology for everything and pity ourselves but it is not helpful at all. Maybe developers should stop and ask themselves “How could this change humanity?” before launching new products or devices. Ordinary users may also need to start taking responsibility and employ their good judgement when it comes to the use given to technology. After all, we are the “causers” of these new technological problems. So, don’t we have the power to solve them?

The downfall of Macbeth

The play Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare during the reign of James I. In his shortest and bloodiest tragedy, the author tells the story of a brave Scottish general, Macbeth, who receives a prophecy from a trio of witches. The witches state that one day he will become King of Scotland. Consumed by dark thoughts and spurred to action by his wife, Macbeth murders King Duncan and seizes the throne for himself. He begins his reign racked with guilt and fear and soon becomes a tyrannical ruler, as he is forced to commit more and more murders to protect himself from enmity and suspicion. The bloodbath swiftly propels Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to arrogance, madness, and death. The tragic figure of this text displays one of the most terrible downfalls of literature, transforming himself into a despicable human being. According to the traditional analysis of Macbeth, the central topic and the reason behind Macbeth’s fatal ending is his ambition. In the Thrift Study Edition of Macbeth (2012:135), it is pointed out that ‘Macbeth’s road to ruin is twisted and branching. He is offered chances to reverse his course and save himself, but he sticks to the path of personal ambition. Each murderous act leads to another, more horrific than the last.’ But there is another possible interpretation. From a postructuralist and deconstructive analysis, there is a theme subtly introduce by Shakespeare in the play that can be moved from a marginal to a more central position. That theme is the incapacity of conceiving a son. This essay argues how the downfall of Macbeth is actually provoked by his concern with infertility and his obsession with producing a male heir to continue his lineage. It is not far-fetched to think Macbeth’s mind was tortured with the idea of being barren if one takes into account what S. Chamberlain explains in Fantasizing Infanticide:Lady Macbeth and the Murdering Mother in Early Modern England (2005:84). She says that ‘patriarchal identity in the early modern period was conditioned upon the perpetuation of the patrilineal line. Without an heir to continue the family name, lineal identity would be lost.’ In Act one, Scene three, the Scottish Warriors have succeeded in their battle against Norwegian invaders. Macbeth and Banquo are on their way back home from battle when they meet three witches. This trio known as the Weird Sisters gives the two men a prophecy: they say Macbeth would become Thane of Cawdor and then King of Scotland, but they also say Banquo will father kings. Macbeth instantly realizes that this prediction means he will not have any heirs to continue the family name. Apparently, when the witches disappear, he forgets about the incident and goes on with his life. In reality, Macbeth’s biggest fear and anxiety was brought to life by the Weird Sisters and from that moment it will stay in his mind forever. Everything he does revolves around the topic. Finally, Macbeth is named Thane of Cawdor by King Duncan, but he proclaims his son, Malcom, Prince of Cumberland, which makes the young man one step closer to kingship and at the same time an obstacle for Macbeth’s fantasy of becoming King. The royal family visits the Macbeth’s castle in scene seven. But that time, Lady Macbeth knows everything about the witches and has made clear she desires to be queen. The tragic hero certainly gives some thought to the idea of killing the king in order to achieve his goals but he ends dismissing it. King Duncan was a good king, who always trusted Macbeth and he never did anything to deserve death, that is what Macbeth tells his wife when he expresses ‘we will proceed no further in this business’ I.vii.31. The lady is able to manipulate Macbeth and change his mind recurring to his weakness. She tells him: What beast was´t then That made you break this enterprise to me? When you durst do it, then you were a man; And to be more than what you were, you would Be so much more the man.Nor time, nor place, Did then adhere, and yet you would make both; I. vii. 48-52 In this passage, she points out Macbeth’s lack of manliness and that connects him to his obsession with infertility. As B. Weaver puts it in Offending and Desistance: The Importance of Social Relations (2015:116) ‘Becoming a father represents another way of realizing masculinity or brings a new dimension to one’s sense of masculinity (…)’ This means that Macbeth decides to kill King Duncan in a desperate effort to reinforce his masculinity, which is threaten all the time by his incapacity of conceiving. This murder is the first of many to come and opens the way for Macbeth’s downfall. The second event that marks the downfall of Macbeth is the murder of his friend Banquo. On Act Three, Scene One, Macbeth is holding a formal banquet to celebrate his coronation. Banquo is about to go for a ride with his son Fleance. Suddenly, Macbeth encounters them and starts inquiring Banquo about his route. The king hires professional murderers to kill Banquo and Fleance but before meeting the criminals he delivers a reveling soliloquy (...) When first they put the name of king upon me, And bade them speak to him. Then, prophet - like, They hailed him father to a line of kings. Upon my head they placed a fruitless crown, And put a barren sceptre in my gripe, Thence to be wrenched with an unlineal hand, No son of mine succeeding. If't be so, For Banquo's issue have I filed my mind (..) To make them kings, the seed of Banquo kings! III.i.56-68 Here Macbeth expresses how tormented he is with the idea of Banquo's issue in contrast with his unfertile future. He feels as if he has a "fruitless crown" on his head, a constant reminder of his incapacity of producing an heir. He is not a complete man, but Banquo is secured as one. B. J. Paris explains in Bargains with Fate: Psychological Crises and Conflicts in Shakespeare and His Plays (2013:169) that ‘One of his reasons for killing Banquo is to alleviate his self- contempt and sense of inferiority by removing the person who triggers these feelings (...) One of Macbeth's strongest reasons for wanting to kill Banquo (and Fleance) is his anguish at the thought of Banquo's line succeeding to the throne.’ At the end of this event, the three murderers ambush the victims and attack them in the darkness of the night. They only fail to kill the little boy who manages to scape. Even though he is dead, Banquo and what he represents will never leave Macbeth's mind. In Act Three, Scene Four, the king is holding a banquet for his thanes when he is told Fleance is alive and then the ghost of Banquo appears to make the tragic hero lose his senses. Moving further into Act Four, Scene One, Macbeth arrives at the witches lair to ask them about his future. The weird sisters spirit up a series of visions. The first one is an armed head that tells Macbeth to be aware of Macduff, the second one explains that ‘for none of woman born / Shall harm Macbeth.’ IV.i.79-80 and the third vision says that the king should be safe until Great Birman wood comes to Dunsinane. But the worst vision is the one that takes place when Macbeth presses the witches to show him more. The ruler is clearly horrified when he describes his sight: Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo; down! Thy crown does sear mine eyeballs. And thy hair, Thou other gold-bound brow, is like the first. - A third is like the former. Filthy hags! Why do you show me this? A fourth? Start, eyes! (...) Another yet? A seventh? I'll see no more; And yet the eight appears, who bears a glass which shows me many more (...) IV.i.112-121 This vision shows Macbeth that Banquo will have a long line of heirs, when he will not have even one descendant. In Act Four, there is another terrible crime. Macbeth knows Macduff is a threat to him so he resolves to kill him. The problem is that Macduff has gone to England to prepare an invasion against Macbeth. The king decides the following course of action in Scene Two: ‘The castle of Macduff I will surprise, / Seize upon Fife, give to th’ edge o’ the sword / His wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls / That trace him in his line’ IV.ii.150-152. These murders are not motivated purely by ambition or fear that Macduff will kill Macbeth. As B. J. Dobski puts it in Souls with Longing: Representations of Honor and Love in Shakespeare (2011: 199) ‘It makes no sense from the standpoint of Macbeth’s own interest in securing his rule to destroy the family if he cannot also destroy Macduff at the same time.’ Macbeth kills the innocent family because they represent what he can´t get, they remind him of his obsession with lineage. It it interesting to consider the point of view of S.Zimmerman and G. Sullivan in Shakespeare Studies (2012:60). They say that ‘Macbeth is bent not on producing heirs, but on killing them – whether or not they’re his own (…) He is in this sense not fatalistically inferring his own barrennes but rather actively embracing it.’ It seems like since he won’t have any sons, Macbeth wants to make sure none of his rivals have heirs neither. When Macduff is told by the messenger Ross what happened at his castle, he wants revenge. Because ‘He (Macbeth) has no children’ IV.iii.215, he decides to kill the king. Macbeth’s death has been planned. So far, it has been proven how the king tries to kill the sons of his enemies, but Macbeth’s own private sphere should be analyzed, too. Because he is so obsessed with the lineage of other men, he “murders” his own possibility of conceiving an heir with his wife, Lady Macbeth. In Act One, Scene Five, there is her famous soliloquy: (…) Come,you spirits That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, And fill me, from crown to toe, top-full Of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood, Stop up th’ access and passage to remorse, That no compunctious visitings of nature Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between The effect and it (…) I.v.39-46 The lady asks the evil spirits to help her get rid of the emotions and restraints of being a woman. If she adopts the cruelty, courage and strength of a man she would be able to do what is necessary. If she is “unsex”, then she will never be capable of giving birth. As S. Chamberlain clearly explains in Fantasizing Infanticide: Lady Macbeth and the Murdering Mother in Early Modern England (2005: 82) ‘She would readily kill Macbeth’s progeny to secure her husband’s succession, but in killing the progeny she must likewise destroy his patrilineage, rendering his short- lived reign a barren one.’ Because the Thane of Cawdor can’t do the deed himself, she sacrifices her fertility to evil spirits. In any case, Macbeth never attempts to have a child, he is just too concentrated on the succesors of Duncan, Banquo and Macduff. In the last act of the play, Lady Macbeth dies off stage in a solitary and sad room with almost no support from her husband. It this essay it has been shown how Macbeth has such a strong obsession with continuing his patrilineage that he is capable of committing the most cruel crimes towards the ones who personificate this obsession. He engages in horrible situations that actually prevent him from focusing on conceiving and lead to his death in the hands of Macduff. He deeply desires to have a long line of progenitors but at the same time he embraces his barrenes. Only Shakespeare knows if the Macbeths are biologically infertile for real, but that the perpetuation of patrilineal line was necessary for a man to feel manly enough and that the topic provoked many anxieties on society, cannot be denied. Bibliography: Pope, R. (1998). The English Studies Book. Oxford: Routledge Shakespeare, W. (2012). Macbeth Thrift Study Edition. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. Chamberlain, S. (2005). Fantasizing Infanticide: Lady Macbeth and the Murdering Mother in Early Modern England. College Literature 32(3), 72-91. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved December 6, 2016, from Project MUSE database. Shakespeare, W. (2014). Macbeth. Oxford University Press. Weaver, B. (2015). Offending and Desistance: The Importance of Social Relations. London and New York: Routledge. Paris, B.J. (2013). Bargains with Fate: Psychological Crises and Conflicts in Shakespeare and His Plays. University of Florida: Insight Books Dobski, B. J (2011). Souls with Longing: Representations of Honor and Love in Shakespeare. Lexington Books Zimmerman, S. and Sullivan, G. (2012). Shakespeare Studies. Madison – Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press

Back to Black - Cover

Derechos de autor: ¿una especie en peligro de extinción?

A medida que la tecnología avanza también lo hacen aquellos cuestionamientos que nos plantea. ¿Debemos modificar nuestra rigurosa postura legal frente a la autoría de un texto o es preferible aferrarnos con uñas y dientes a nuestras políticas aun vigentes?

- por Maria Antonella Di Sario-

   En la era digital en que vivimos, todo es atravesado por la tecnología: surgen adelantos fascinantes pero también nuevos problemas que generan polémica y batallas ideológicas. Por ejemplo, ¿qué sucede con los derechos de autor ahora que muchas obras literarias son compartidas en la Web? Numerosos fanáticos de la literatura sostienen que abolir las leyes que protegen la producción de un escritor sería un crimen que atentaría contra su creación artística. Por otro lado, expertos están convencidos de que permitir que se comparta gratuitamente textos es un paso hacia la democratización intelectual acercando a más personas a una mayor variedad de lecturas.

   Encontrar una postura frente a esta discusión no es sencillo. Creo que no es legítimo abolir los derechos de propiedad literaria en nombre de una supuesta democratización porque la escritura es un arte: implica un proceso de creación, un viaje sin redes de protección, un arduo esfuerzo y también la resignación del autor a un trozo de su alma que inmortaliza en su obra. Por lo tanto, si no hubiera regulaciones que protejan al artista dejaríamos de valorarlo y reconocer su trabajo.  Cuando un escritor no cobra por su trabajo no puede vivir del mismo. Esto no es un problema para un personaje reconocido como J.K.Rowling, pero si, para un joven que recién comienza su carrera. Más allá de estos pensamientos, considero ampliamente destacable que Internet brinda una inmensa oportunidad de expandir la lectura y la escritura a todos los sectores de la población. Resultaría ingenuo no reconocer lo positivo de producir textos y compartirlos colectivamente.

   Hay una teoría que plantea que abandonar las políticas de derecho autor nos acerca a las costas de la democracia, pero ¿qué tal si fuera en realidad una anarquía camuflada? Utilizando las palabras de Christian Vandendorpe, si nos embarcamos en la marea de la Web surfeando desde un contenido flotante a otro se “(…) presentan también peligros y sorpresas: uno puede perderse, llegar a tierras nuevas, encallarse en un arrecife (…)”  El derecho de autor se define como la protección que le otorga el Estado al creador de las obras literarias o artísticas desde el momento de su creación y por un tiempo determinado, por eso, si fueran eliminados resultaría en un caos de información; muchos autores conseguirían el respaldo de legitimidad de una editorial, mas otros quedaran a la deriva. Para ellos no seria algo extraño que su libro fuera copiado, reproducido sin consentimiento o compartido estando alterado. El lector no queda fuera de peligro: el también podrá ser engañado por los “piratas” de la literatura.

   A pesar de este argumento, es cierto que en la actualidad la economía es un factor clave en nuestra sociedad y pagar un libro puede ser muy costoso. Para muchos la solución es descargar el material gratis violando reglamentaciones. No caeré en culpar a los consumidores (yo misma he sido una de ellos alguna vez) pero creo que aquí el problema es financiero. Si se generaran mejores oportunidades de compra, precios más alcanzables o se ofrecieran beneficios extra al adquirir productos originales, bajaría el número de descargas ilegales. Quien lee un PDF online lo hace porque desea disfrutar el ejemplar y a su autor, solo que no puede costear el monto oficial.

   En conclusión, es difícil tener una posición firme. Ambas voces alrededor de este conflicto tienen una alta cuota de verdad. De todas maneras, la respuesta no es eliminar el concepto de propiedad literaria, sino buscar alternativas que expandan la llegada de los autores que admiramos y de tantos que aun no conocemos. Existen ya casos de bibliotecas virtuales legales o paquetes especiales disponibles al comprar un libro en algún portal online. Debemos adaptarnos a la era digital pero tampoco dejar de lado las cosas buenas y valiosas de otras épocas.

   

Palomas Mensajeras

No hay un solo día en que no me haya encontrado con una paloma vagando por las calles porteñas. Las veo comiendo en multitud y me gusta esquivarlas para no molestar. En cambio, para los apurados transeúntes, resulta más fácil interrumpir su festín de sobras, igual que un gigante que destruye todo con sus enormes pisadas. Estas aves simpáticas y regordetas se desplazan de un lado a otro de la ciudad, tanto en un caluroso 14 de Febrero atestado de empalagosas parejas en alguna plaza, como en una helada noche de Julio.

Allá por la época de los griegos, hubo palomas que supieron encontrar una profesión digna. Su increíble poder de orientación las consagró como “mensajeras.” ¿Recuerdan esas historias fantasiosas, increíbles, pero ciertas de recontra espionaje durante las Guerras Mundiales? Valientes soldados cruzaron cielo y océano con mensajes protegidos en sus garras. Sí, eran las palomas. Cuando las veo revolotear o amontonarse para beber un poquito de agua de alcantarilla, cual moribundo en el Sahara, pienso: ¿Y si son mensajeras aún, pero no de secretos de estado? ¿Y si son enviadas estratégicas para llamarnos la atención y  mirar lo que no queremos ver? ¿Para recordarnos valores que hemos archivado en un viejo cajón?

Las palomas representan el bienestar común, muchas veces agresivo en la metrópolis. A simple vista, parecen todas iguales y llevan adelante una vida en comunidad, donde casi todo se comparte. Nos alientan a despojarnos de aquellos prejuicios arraigados a nuestro ser, como pulga a perro callejero. Ellas no le hacen asco a nadie: no tienen problema en mendigar una miga de pan duro al empresario ocupado que habla por celular o al niño que sin un techo se entrega a las calles de Buenos Aires. Estos bichos se animan a recorrer las calles más sucias y olvidadas con el mismo descaro con el que se posan sobre el busto de un prócer patrio.

Las palomas nos traen el grito desesperado de un pasado que se rehúsa al entierro. Un pasado en el que los ancianos tenían salud para pasar una tarde en el parque con los nietos, que no tenían tablets o grupos de Whatsapp. Uno de mis más bellos recuerdos de la infancia es ir a la calesita de Tatìn con mi abuelo Cacho. Perdíamos la noción del tiempo gastando monedas (que seguro al viejo no le sobraban) en maíz para alimentar a las glotonas aves.

Cuando pseudos-expertos argumentan que las palomas son una plaga y debemos combatirlas me pregunto si esto no lo pensarán por que les recuerdan a ellos mismos y no pueden soportarlo. Quizás nos llevan a darnos cuenta de que somos los humanos la plaga que va consumiendo como ácido al planeta Tierra.

No sé que será de esta especie en 100 años, pero sí sé que por algo Pablo Neruda dijo que en su poesía las palomas son un símbolo de la vida. Si son capaces de peinar las nubes de la ciudad, si pueden oír ruidos como el soplo del viento porteño o el chismoseo de barrio, si tienen una ubicación privilegiada en las alturas para observar la puesta del sol y el amanecer, ¿quién no envidia a las palomas mensajeras de Buenos Aires?

To have another language is to possess a second soul

“To have another language is to possess a second soul”

Hace ya unos cinco años, me llego una solicitud de amistad en Facebook de una tal “Savanaah Peeples.” Al principio, creí que era uno de esos extraños que te sugiere la red por tener un amigo de un amigo de un amigo de un ex compañero de jardín en común, pero cuando le conté a mi familia supe que era una prima que tenía en Estados Unidos y nunca había conocido. La acepte y empezamos a chatear enseguida pese a que ella no sabía ni una palabra de castellano.

En mi familia yo era la única que hablaba inglés y por eso era la encargada de pasar los mensajes de Argentina a Norteamérica ida y vuelta. Era como si me hubieran nombrado la “Mediadora Familiar Oficial” o la “Delivery de saludos para las fiestas”. En mi cabeza pesaba la responsabilidad de ser el puente entre dos partes de la familia que habían perdido contacto: YO tejía el hilo que los iba a unir gracias a haber estudiado un segundo idioma y por eso tenía que esforzarme por expresar cada mensaje al pie de la letra. Tampoco podía olvidarme de tantos años invertidos en el instituto, mostrar el mejor ingles que pudiera era mi deber.

Cada vez que charlaba con Savanaah me aseguraba de mandarle una oración perfecta,  digna de enorgullecer a mi teacher de la infancia.  Cuando no estaba segura, abría una pestaña en la compu y chequeaba que todo estuviera correcto. Si me llegaba a dar cuenta de un error, le enviaba en un nano segundo la versión mejorada junto con un avergonzado “sorry.” En una ocasión ella también noto mi perfeccionismo y  me pregunto “Is everything ok? U sound like, too formal, maybe a bit distant”.Su forma de escribir en su idioma nativo era otra: usaba abreviaciones, mezclaba tiempos verbales y una de cada tres palabras era LOL; comparándolo conmigo que siempre seguía las reglas gramaticales y signos de puntuación, mi prima creyó que yo no tenía ganas de charlar o que era demasiado seria para mi edad. Ese fue el momento en que me di cuenta que tenía que relajarme cuando le escribía porque era una charla amistosa, cotidiana y muy distinta a los diálogos que enseñaban en los libros de la escuela.

Gracias a ese mal entendido aprendí ,sin darme cuenta en ese momento, que el valor verdadero de cualquier idioma no pasa por la escritura impecable ni la pronunciación exacta , sino por el poder de comunicarse , de contarle a otro lo que nos sucede, de transmitir mensajes y sentimientos, de conectarnos con mundos quizás muy opuestos a los propios,  y simplemente ir mas allá de nuestra realidad , porque como dice una frase de Carlomagno que descubrí casi sin querer: “Saber otro idioma es como poseer una segunda alma.”

Limerick

There was an English man,

Who took a walk around some lake.    

Golden, dancing Daffodils

He saw over the hills.

Then he became a poetic superman.