Inspired by Roland Barthes’s practice of "semioclasm" in Mythologies, this book offers a "technoclasm"; a cultural critique of US narratives, discourses, images, and objects that have transformed the politics of automation into statements of fact about the "rise of the robots". Treating automation as an ensemble of technologies and science fictions, this book foregrounds automation’s ideologies, exaggerations, failures, and mystifications of the social value of human labor in order to question accepted and prolific automation mythologies. Jesse Ramirez offers a study of automation that recognizes automation as a technosocial project, that uses the tools of cultural studies and history to investigate the narratives and ideologies that often implicitly frame the automation debate, and that concretely and soberly assesses the technologies that have made the headlines. The case studies featured include some of the most widely cited and celebrated automatic technologies, such as the Baxter industrial robot, the self-driving car, and the Watson AI system. An ideal resource for anyone interested in or studying emerging technology and society, automation, Marxist cultural theory, cultural studies, science fiction studies, and the cultural history of technology.
Widely regarded by critics and fans as one of the best games ever produced for the Sony Playstation, The Last of Us is remarkable for offering players a narratively rich experience within the parameters of cultural and gaming genres that often prioritize frenetic violence by straight white male heroes. The Last of Us is also a milestone among mainstream, big-budget (AAA) games because its development team self-consciously intervened in videogames’ historical exclusion of women and girls by creating complex and agentive female characters. The game’s co-protagonist, Ellie, is a teenage girl who is revealed to be queer in The Last of Us: Left Behind (DLC, 2014) and The Last of Us II (2020). Yet The Last of Us also centers Joel, Ellie’s fatherly protector. How is patriarchy, the rule of the father, encoded in rule-based systems like videogames? How does patriarchal rule become an algorithmic rule and vice-versa? These questions are at the heart of this book, the first comprehensive scholarly analysis of the zombie apocalypse/ action-adventure/ third-person shooter videogame The Last of Us (2013). On the one hand, the book is a close, extended study of The Last of Us and its themes, genres, procedures, and gameplay. On the other hand, the book is a post-GamerGate reflection on the political and ethical possibilities of progressive play in algorithmic mass culture, of which videogames are now the dominant form.
Critics of public organizations have charged them with rigidity, insensitivity to public needs, inefficiency, and other faults. The charges are not new, but the surge of urban political activism during the 1960s gave a sense of urgency to demands for organizational change. Marcus Foster and the Oakland Public Schools examines an urban political executive’s efforts to meet those demands. In an attempt to reform education bureaucracy, Marcus Foster—former superintendent of schools in Oakland, California—introduced a three-part program of community participation, decentralization, and budgeting. Each component responded to a specific criticism of bureaucracies, and each was strongly supported by students of organizations. The most successful changes were those for which the superintendent controlled the requisite resources, enabling Foster to initiate community involvement and determine its procedures. But where change required existing bureaucratic units to relinquish some of their resources, Foster’s success was more limited. It was not, however, the control of resources by others but the unbridgeable gap between theory and application that burdened efforts to reform budgeting. Jesse J. McCorry shows how the common notion that organizational change is thwarted by bureaucratic recalcitrance and inertia is oversimplified. Broadening analytic perspectives reveals that some bureaucratic reforms, along with their objectives, are beyond the limits of what even the most effective leadership can achieve. This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1978.
The Army announced in the 2006 Army Posture Statement that it had to operationalize the Army National Guard. The decision to operationalize the National Guard was necessary because the Army did not have enough active units to meet requirements for the War on Terrorism. Operationalization of the Army National Guard was a departure from the Cold War force structure. It was not, however, a revolutionary change for the nation's National Guard forces. The research initially focused on determining what was meant by the term “strategic reserve.” That research revealed that numerous military commanders, both active and reserve, have used the term in reference to U.S. Army force structure. However, military policy documents and statutes do not define that term. The search for a clear definition of strategic reserve and its meaning for U.S. National Guard structure led to the discovery that the National Guard had only recently been constituted as a strategic reserve. The National Guard did not begin as a strategic reserve. The Guard also has experience as an operational force. The view that the National Guard was only a strategic reserve developed during the Cold War. After the end of the draft, the Department of Defense implemented the “Total Force Policy”. That policy started the National Guard's movement back toward operational capability. The research explores the history of the National Guard as the nation's constitutional defense force and its subsequent development into a Federal Reserve. The history reveals that operationalization of the National Guard is not a radical venture for state controlled units. Rather, the Army's use of the National Guard as an operational force is a return to the tradition of state militias participating in the nation's defense. The National Guard serving in an operational role is not unique in the nation's history. The Cold War practice of maintaining separate strategic and operational reserve forces does not meet today's force demands. Security planners have yet to refine post Cold War force and mission definitions. Until the missions are redefined, it was only natural for the Army to use its reserves to reduce stress on active component forces. It is also a mistake to assume the Army suddenly made the reserves operational or that the National Guard has never served in an operational manner. While at times the Army resisted using the Guard, the Guard has a history of serving in an operational role. The Constitution specified that state based militias would serve as part of the country's main defense force. Operationalization of the National Guard is an extension of the policies Congress started under the National Militia Act of 1903. The Army is only continuing these practices with its 2006 Army Posture Statement announcement. Finally, the United States has historically been unprepared for major long-term conflicts. The nation also tends to decrease active component strength following hostilities. These precedents foretell the same once significant combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan end. As such, equipping and training the National Guard for operational force capability potentially enhances its ability to perform both strategic and operational force functions in the future.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.