Catégories
Penser

La prolétarisation d’Hollywood

La formule Marvel? La dernière étape du capitalisme dans le cinéma, avec répétition automatique d’une standardisation évitant toute critique.

Si l’on considère l’année écoulée, le constat est bien triste (euphémisme quand tu nous tiens) en ce qui concerne les adaptations des comics. Manque d’idées ? Essoufflement d’un genre ? Mauvaise pioche ? La réponse pourrait bien avoir des racines qui s’enfoncent bien plus loin, et les films de super-héros ne seraient alors que le parfait exemple de la dérive de notre système appliqué à l’industrie cinématographique. Prenons donc un peu de hauteur et considérons ce genre du 7ème Art (s’il est encore question d’Art, nous y reviendrons) dans son rapport aux dérives du système capitaliste.

Le capitalisme est un système cannibale dans le sens où il s’immisce toujours plus loin dans toutes les strates de notre société, de plus en plus vite (nous vous renvoyons à nos réflexions sur l’accélérationnisme) et en détruisant pour mieux se réinventer. C’est ce que l’économiste Joseph Schumpeter appelait la « destruction créatrice », obligé par nature de toujours innover, le capitalisme fait table rase de ce qu’il y avait avant pour mieux proposer du neuf. Pour augmenter sa productivité, mais aussi pour alimenter sans cesse le consumérisme qui est son moteur. Un moteur qui a calé faute d’essence, ou de pétrole plus précisément. Car c’est lors de la crise des années 70 que le modèle keynesien a périclité.

Ce dernier s’appuyant sur l’Etat-Providence qui fournissait tout ce dont ses ouailles avaient besoin dans le but de s’assurer qu’ils puissent consommer en toute quiétude. Sauf qu’une fois celui-ci disparu (étranglé par la poigne de fer de Margaret Thatcher), le capitalisme s’est réinventé en écartant les nations de l’équation (elles semblent avoir depuis un rôle de régulateur). Est alors apparu le modèle d’un nouveau système qui a séparé capitalisme financier et capitalisme industriel. Le rapport avec notre sujet ? Nous y arrivons justement. Puisque après tout, les grands studios hollywoodiens sont de fiers représentants de ces corporations qui ont pris leur essor depuis cette période, et en ont appliqué les stratégies.

Catégories
Penser

A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared – NYTimes.com

Un patron américain augmente (méchamment) le salaire minimum dans son entreprise : les États-Unis se demandent comment cela fonctionne, son frère co-fondateur l’attaque en justice, les employés les mieux payés quittent l’entreprise… Mais ça marche.

Gravity team

 

Three months ago, Mr. Price, 31, announced he was setting a new minimum salary of $70,000 at his Seattle credit card processing firm, Gravity Payments, and slashing his own million-dollar pay package to do it. He wasn’t thinking about the current political clamor over low wages or the growing gap between rich and poor, he said. He was just thinking of the 120 people who worked for him and, let’s be honest, a bit of free publicity. The idea struck him when a friend shared her worries about paying both her rent and student loans on a $40,000 salary. He realized a lot of his own employees earned that or less.

Yet almost overnight, a decision by one small-business man in the northwestern corner of the country became a swashbuckling blow against income inequality.

The move drew attention from around the world — including from some outspoken skeptics and conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, who smelled a socialist agenda — but most were enthusiastic. Talk show hosts lined up to interview Mr. Price. Job seekers by the thousands sent in résumés. He was called a “thought leader.” Harvard business professors flew out to conduct a case study. Third graders wrote him thank-you notes. Single women wanted to date him.

Lo vi en A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared – NYTimes.com http://ift.tt/1McECl3

Catégories
Culture générale Penser

The Web We Have to Save

Hossein Derakhshan est une star de l’internet iranien. Ou plutôt était. « Père » de la blogosphère iranienne, son statut lui a coûté 6 ans de prison. A sa sortie, le visage d’Internet est profondément changé : les blogs ont laissé la place aux réseaux sociaux, la lecture aux likes, la diversité aux flux algorythmés.
Un portrait amer.

The Web We Have to Save — Matter — Medium

Today the Stream is digital media’s dominant form of organizing information. It’s in every social network and mobile application. Since I gained my freedom, everywhere I turn I see the Stream. I guess it won’t be too long before we see news websites organize their entire content based on the same principles. The prominence of the Stream today doesn’t just make vast chunks of the Internet biased against quality — it also means a deep betrayal to the diversity that the world wide web had originally envisioned.

Today the Stream is digital media’s dominant form of organizing information. It’s in every social network and mobile application. Since I gained my freedom, everywhere I turn I see the Stream. I guess it won’t be too long before we see news websites organize their entire content based on the same principles. The prominence of the Stream today doesn’t just make vast chunks of the Internet biased against quality — it also means a deep betrayal to the diversity that the world wide web had originally envisioned.

viaThe Web We Have to Save — Matter — Medium.

Catégories
Penser

« dismantle patriarchy, one rainbow kitten at a time »

tumblr_nnjs5yxhFb1urwngso1_500

In the great tradition of Tumblr mash-up memes, Feminist Lisa Frank juxtaposes neon animals and quotes by Gloria Steinem, Shonda Rhimes, and more. Read the rest

via Boing Boing http://ift.tt/1EBNYxC

Catégories
Euh… Penser

Evolution et religion dans les classes du Kentucky

I was originally reluctant to take my job at the university when offered it 20 years ago. It required teaching three sections of nonmajors biology classes, with 300 students per section, and as many as 1,800 students each year. I wasn’t particularly keen on lecturing to an auditorium of students whose interest in biology was questionable given that the class was a freshman requirement.

Then I heard an interview with the renowned evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson in which he addressed why, as a senior professor—and one of the most famous biologists in the world—he continued to teach nonmajors biology at Harvard. Wilson explained that nonmajors biology is the most important science class that one could teach. He felt many of the future leaders of this nation would take the class and that this was the last chance to convey to them an appreciation for biology and science. Moved by Wilson’s words, and with the knowledge that Funkhouser once held the job I was now contemplating, I accepted the position. The need to do well was unnerving, however, considering that if I failed as a teacher, a future Scopes might leave my class uninspired.

I realized early on that many instructors teach introductory biology classes incorrectly. Too often evolution is the last section to be taught, an autonomous unit at the end of the semester. I quickly came to the conclusion that, since evolution is the foundation upon which all biology rests, it should be taught at the beginning of a course, and as a recurring theme throughout the semester. My basic biology for nonmajors became evolution for nonmajors. It didn’t take long before I started to hear from a vocal minority of students who strongly objected: “I am very offended by your lectures on evolution! Those who believe in creation are not ignorant of science! You had no right to try and force evolution on us. Your job was to teach it as a theory and not as a fact that all smart people believe in!!” And: “Evolution is not a proven fact. It should not be taught as if it is. It cannot be observed in any quantitative form and, therefore, isn’t really science.”

Via en kottke.org http://ift.tt/1CtGkIV – source : slate

Catégories
Penser Technologie

Voyage dans le temps et technologie

Plutôt qu’une comparaison stérile entre le 2015 de Retour vers le futur et la réalité, Tim Carmody analyse comment la technologie influe sur la pensée (et inversement) avec une analogie étonnante entre la cassette audio et le voyage dans le temps.

Back to the Future, Time Travel, and the Secret History of the 1980s — The Message — Medium

Il conclue aussi sur une note un peu nostalgique sur le côté fermé, physiquement et juridiquement, de la technologie actuelle.
(putain de smartphone)

I sometimes call this “the cassette era,” and sure enough, cassettes are everywhere. Marty has a Walkman, a camcorder, and an audition tape for his band; the Pinheads have recorded a demo even though they’ve never played in front of an audience.

As a material support for a medium, the cassette has certain advantages and disadvantages. It’s more portable and sturdy than reels or records, and it requires less user interaction or expertise. It requires very fine interactions of miniaturized technology, both mechanical and electronic, in the form of transistors, reading heads, and so forth. Magnetic tape can actually record information as digital or analog, so it’s curiously agnostic in that respect.

Cassettes can also be easily rewound or fast forward. It’s easy to synchronize and dub the contents of one cassette onto another. And users can easily erase or rerecord information over the same tape.

This has clear implications for how we think — and especially, how our predecessors thirty years ago thought—about time travel. It is no accident that many important time travel films, including the Terminator franchise, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, and yes, the Back to the Future movies, appear at this time. In all three cases, time travel is accomplished with a technological mechanism that allows its users precise control of where they arrive in the timestream. (In earlier time travel stories, travellers slide down a river or awake from a dream, but in the 1980s, the H.G. Wells/Doctor Who conception of time travel through a technological device pretty definitively wins out.) And in all three cases, the goal of time travel is to save and/or rewrite events within a specific person’s lifetime, without which a future timeline will cease to exist.

Back to the Future, Time Travel, and the Secret History of the 1980s — The Message — Medium.

Catégories
Penser

Dieu, Darwin et la biologie.

Peut on enseigner la biologie sans parler d’évolution?

Hmmmmmmmmm non.

It’s irresponsible to teach biology without evolution, and yet many students worry about reconciling their beliefs with evolutionary science. Just as many Americans don’t grasp the fact that evolution is not merely a « theory, » but the underpinning of all biological science, a substantial minority of my students are troubled to discover that their beliefs conflict with the course material.

Until recently, I had pretty much ignored such discomfort, assuming that it was their problem, not mine. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without molecules, or physics without mass and energy. But instead of students’ growing more comfortable with the tension between evolution and religion over time, the opposite seems to have happened. Thus, The Talk.

Ce qui me rappelle le biais de demander ou enseigner quel est le rôle d’une espèce ou d’un animal dans son milieu.
Il n’en a aucun.
Il a une place. Pas un rôle.
La nature n’est pas une pièce de théâtre avec des acteurs suivant les directions d’un metteur en scène.
Elle est. C’est tout.

The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator.

Lo vi en kottke.org http://ift.tt/1E0Nowy

IMG_9593.JPG

Catégories
Jeux vidéo Penser

‘Gamers’ are over.

Merci à Intel de s’être chié dessus en retirant des budgets pub de gamasutra car des abrutis se sont plaint d’articles trop féministes pour un site de jeu vidéo.
Il n’existe pas de communauté du jeu vidéo. De la même façon qu’il n’existe pas de communauté des spectateurs de film et des écouteurs de musique.
Il existe juste des gens qui apprécient de jouer à des jeux et ils se trouve qu’un joueur sur deux est une femme (étonnant non?).
Et continuer de ne s’adresser qu’aux ados et post ados blanc hétéro, véhiculer l’idée que la place de la femme est à la cuisine, qu’elle ne peut pas être une joueuse ou même une développeuse est une erreur de dinosaure voué à disparaître.
Dire que l’on est juste un annonceur et que l’on ne souhaite pas prendre position, c’est déjà en prendre une, et c’est la mauvaise.

I often say I’m a video game culture writer, but lately I don’t know exactly what that means. ‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing — it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet.

It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there.

‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.

Lately, I often find myself wondering what I’m even doing here. And I know I’m not alone.

All of us should be better than this. You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this and this and this are the prominent public face your business presents to the rest of the world.

« When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. »

This is what the rest of the world knows about your industry — this, and headlines about billion-dollar war simulators or those junkies with the touchscreen candies. That’s it. You should absolutely be better than this.

You don’t want to ‘be divisive?’ Who’s being divided, except for people who are okay with an infantilized cultural desert of shitty behavior and people who aren’t? What is there to ‘debate’?

Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.

Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ — but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.

When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.

That’s not super surprising, actually. While video games themselves were discovered by strange, bright outcast pioneers — they thought arcades would make pub games more fun, or that MUDs would make for amazing cross-cultural meeting spaces — the commercial arm of the form sprung up from marketing high-end tech products to ‘early adopters’. You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff.

Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time. Suddenly they started wearing shiny blouses and pinning bikini babes onto everything they made, started making games that sold the promise of high-octane masculinity to kids just like them.

By the turn of the millennium those were games’ only main cultural signposts: Have money. Have women. Get a gun and then a bigger gun. Be an outcast. Celebrate that. Defeat anyone who threatens you. You don’t need cultural references. You don’t need anything but gaming. Public conversation was led by a games press whose role was primarily to tell people what to buy, to score products competitively against one another, to gleefully fuel the “team sports” atmosphere around creators and companies.

It makes a strange sort of sense that video games of that time would become scapegoats for moral panic, for atrocities committed by young white teen boys in hypercapitalist America — not that the games themselves had anything to do with tragedies, but they had an anxiety in common, an amorphous cultural shape that was dark and loud on the outside, hollow on the inside.

« Traditional ‘gaming’ is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug. »

Yet in 2014, the industry has changed. We still think angry young men are the primary demographic for commercial video games — yet average software revenues from the commercial space have contracted massively year on year, with only a few sterling brands enjoying predictable success.

It’s clear that most of the people who drove those revenues in the past have grown up — either out of games, or into more fertile spaces, where small and diverse titles can flourish, where communities can quickly spring up around creativity, self-expression and mutual support, rather than consumerism. There are new audiences and new creators alike there. Traditional “gaming” is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug.

This is hard for people who’ve drank the kool aid about how their identity depends on the aging cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex medium. It’s hard for them to hear they don’t own anything, anymore, that they aren’t the world’s most special-est consumer demographic, that they have to share.

We also have to scrutinize, closely, the baffling, stubborn silence of many content creators amid these scandals, or the fact lots of stubborn, myopic internet comments happen on business and industry sites. This is hard for old-school developers who are being made redundant, both culturally and literally, in their unwillingness to address new audiences or reference points outside of blockbuster movies and comic books as their traditional domain falls into the sea around them. Of course it’s hard. It’s probably intense, painful stuff for some young kids, some older men.

But it’s unstoppable. A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of “gamer pride” and special interest groups led by a product-guide approach to conversation with a single presumed demographic.

This means that over just the last few years, writing on games focuses on personal experiences and independent creators, not approval-hungry obeisance to the demands of powerful corporations. It’s not about ‘being a reviewer’ anymore. It’s not about telling people what to buy, it’s about providing spaces for people to discuss what (and whom) they support.

« ‘Gamer’ isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad. »

These straw man ‘game journalism ethics’ conversations people have been having are largely the domain of a prior age, when all we did was negotiate ad deals and review scores and scraped to be called ‘reporters’, because we had the same powerlessness complex as our audience had. Now part of a writer’s job in a creative, human medium is to help curate a creative community and an inclusive culture — and a lack of commitment to that just looks out-of-step, like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion.

Developers and writers alike want games about more things, and games by more people. We want — and we are getting, and will keep getting — tragicomedy, vignette, musicals, dream worlds, family tales, ethnographies, abstract art. We will get this, because we’re creating culture now. We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating.

“Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.

Lo vi en Gamasutra – ‘Gamers’ don’t have to be your audience. ‘Gamers’ are over. http://ift.tt/XVTm1h

Catégories
Jeux vidéo Penser

Les trous du cul du jeu vidéo

Quand des connards se présentent comme des justiciers sociaux en défendant l’idée que les femmes sont bien représentées dans le jeux vidéo et les féministes trop présentes dans les médias.

You also get the creeping suspicion that even winning won’t be enough. When will they have they won? What are their demands? As far as can be seen, there are none – the campaign exists solely to constantly harrass and abuse people until they disappear. That’s the endgame – the destruction of individuals whose only crime is making comments about sexism – or worse, being sexually active. From the smirking tone adopted by Lizard Squad and more, it is hard to avoid paraphrasing what must also be a favourite movie amongst the attackers: some men just want to watch women burn.

The only way the ecosystem can improve is through the involvement of more women, more LGBT people, more of anyone who doesn’t conform to the white gamer-bro stereotype. That is exactly what the Twitter terrorists seek to prevent, and awesomely, is exactly what’s happening. Female gamers are rapidly on the rise – 48% of gamers are female, and adult females now double the number of the once-central under-18 boy demographic – and the collected assholes of the world can’t do anything about it. Women play games. If you can’t deal with that, maybe there’s something fundamental to your worldview you need to examine.

Video Games, Misogyny, And Terrorism: A Guide To Assholes | Badass Digest.

Le tout en réaction aux excellentes vidéo d’Anita Sarkeesian sur les réprésentations de la femme dans le jeu vidéo.

Catégories
Penser Technologie Web

Algorithme et bonheur

IMG_0349-0.JPG
Une avis assez intéressant sur l’expérience de 2012 de Facebook qui a manipulé les murs de ses utilisateurs afin de modifier leur émotions.

A noter que l’auteur fait parti de Microsoft research New-England ce qui peux relativiser certains propos.

Cette approche plus psychologique que commerciale est intéressante car elle met en avant une autre facette sur le pourquoi de cette étude : Facebook nous préfère heureux car nous reviendrons alors sur Facebook.
Mettre en avant des contenus plus légers afin de fidéliser ses utilisateurs.

Facebook retouche activement le contenu que nous voyons. La majorité d’entre nous se concentre sur l’aspect commercial lié à cette pratique, mais la tâche principale des algorithmes est surtout de mettre en avant les contenus qu’ils pensent que nous avons envie de voir. Facebook détermine ainsi, par l’algorithmie, quelles publications d’amis vous verrez, non à des fins seulement commerciales, mais parce qu’ils veulent que vous reveniez sur le site jour après jour, que vous vous y sentiez bien, que vous n’y soyez jamais accablé. Leurs algorithmes servent quotidiennement à manipuler vos émotions. Quels critères participent à cette démarche ? Nous n’en savons rien.

Nous sommes manipulés. Nous le savons mais ce que nous trouvons désagréable, c’est que l’on nous le dise. C’est encore plus effrayant ainsi.

Pour le meilleur ou pour le pire, les gens s’imaginent que Facebook leur est offert par un dictateur bienveillant, que le site est là pour leur permettre de mieux communiquer avec les autres. Dans un certain sens, c’est vrai. Mais Facebook est aussi une entreprise. Et une entreprise publique, en l’espèce. Elle doit trouver le moyen de devenir plus rentable à chaque trimestre. Cela signifie qu’elle conçoit ses algorithmes non seulement pour vous adresser des publicités ciblées, mais aussi pour vous convaincre de revenir encore et encore. Les gens ont une idée abstraite de la façon dont cela fonctionne, mais ils ne le savent pas exactement, et ne veulent pas vraiment savoir. Ils veulent juste que le hot-dog soit bon. Que ce soit sous le sceau de la recherche ou des opérations, les gens ne veulent pas penser qu’ils sont manipulés. Alors, quand ils découvrent ce quoi est fait ce Soleil vert, ils sont outrés. Cette étude n’est donc pas vraiment ce qui est en jeu : ce qui est en jeu, c’est la dynamique sous-jacente de la façon dont Facebook gère ses activités, exploite son réseau, et prend des décisions qui n’ont rien à voir avec la façon dont ses utilisateurs veulent que Facebook fonctionne. Il ne s’agit pas de recherche : c’est une question de pouvoir.

Via www.rslnmag.fr

L’original en anglais sur http://socialmediacollective.org/

Catégories
Penser Technologie

Le devin

Comme Astérix dans le tome de ses aventures du même nom, l’avait en son temps compris, il suffit de tout prédire pour que cela se réalise.
La version moderne est un peu plus complexe mais très simple.

Un complot horrible entache la dernière coupe du monde de foot : un « hacktiviste » avait publié 6 mois auparavant les vainqueurs des matchs de la coupe du monde sur twitter. Complot, match truqué.

Non il a juste publié toutes les variantes puis supprimé ses tweets inexacts au fur et à mesure du déroulement de la coupe.

A la fin le résultat est bluffant : des résultats justes parfaitement anti datés.
Lo vi en Medium http://ift.tt/1oEMn2y

Catégories
Penser

Sexisme sci fi

Voilà une forme étrange et pointue de sexisme : la notion de vaisseau mère que l’on doit détruire pour vaincre.
Presque toujours féminin, toujours méchante. Toujours détruite par Tom Cruise.

Image: Edge of Tomorrow promotional image.

Spoiler alert. Spoiler alert for the new Tom Cruise flick Edge of Tomorrow, spoiler alert for the slightly older Tom Cruise flick Oblivion, and spoiler alert—for good measure, while we’re at it—for a lot of Tom Cruise flicks, plus a healthy percentage of science fiction movies from the last fifty years. Spoiler alert for a trope so insidious, so completely folded into the habitual narratives of our blockbusters, that it has become all but invisible.  

This is the spoiler: at the end of the movie, if he is going to save the world, our hero has to find the mothership, and he has to blow it up. He has to go inside the mothership—penetrate it—through a small aperture. Once there, he won’t have much time to plant his weapon, and it’s likely he’ll barely make it out before a bomb explodes deep within the mothership, collapsing it from within, shooting our hero back into the world on the shockwave of a single, orgasmic shudder of fire and light. 

This meta-spoiler should conjure a montage of cinematic climaxes, from the offing of the Death Star to the menacing shadow of Independence Day’s mighty mothership, wide enough to block out the sun, because it is a storytelling ritual, an incantation performed ad nauseam in the dark collective multiplex of consciousness. 

Independence Day’s Mothership. Screenshot.

The expression “mothership” dates to pre-science fictional times. In the 19th-century whaling trade, a large ship would serve as the central hub from which a group of small, fast cutters, designed to chase and kill whales, would operate. This ship, the mother, was reserved for the processing and storage of whale meat. Such a ship is now called a “factory ship.”

But the variant used almost exclusively today, in science fiction and in the popular imagination, has a very different lineage. It dates back to the first generation of UFO hysteria, which was marked by a spell of sightings in 1947 referred to as the “Great Flying Saucer Wave.” The saucers of said wave were described by those who saw them in manifold ways: as discs skipping across the sky like flat stones on a pond, as platters in birdlike formation, as flying pie-plates. But it was an anonymous woman in Palmdale, California, quoted in the press describing a "mother saucer (with a) bunch of little saucers playing around it" who inadvertently defined the idiom. Mothership. 

The “Mothership” has certainly mutated over the years. The contemporary usage—the trope that should be familiar to any viewers of celluloid SF—is light-years from the Palmdale woman’s vision of a mama surrounded by playful flying saucer babies. Instead, it’s drawn some meaning from the original whaling motherships, as well as imported structural cues from colonies of bees and ants. Now the Mothership is part queen bee, part battery pack. She controls all the power, meting out orders to the drones and fueling them with whatever mysterious alien lifeblood is the look du jour: telepathic commands, the master code, the central brain. Kill the mother, kill the hive. 

On the most elemental level, a Mothership is an easy out for filmmakers, a mechanism by which the scrappy human race can vanquish insurmountable spaceborne invaders using existing technology. David and Goliath stories always hinge on the giant’s central weakness; as he can be beaned in the forehead with a rock, so can an alien fleet be downed instantly with a straight shot to the core. When a mother is killed, in life as in science fiction, it destabilizes the system—robs it of a slow-moving port, mind, home, and family. It also prevents the enemy from reproducing itself, the strategic advantage of the female. 

Killing the mothership is standard operating procedure in alien invasion films: in Independence Day, the mothership must be hacked to deactivate the shields of all the defensive fighters. In Oblivion, Tom Cruise must enter and neutralize the Tet, an alien artificial intelligence with a soothing maternal voice that goes by the name of Sally.

In Edge of Tomorrow (again, spoilers) it’s more of the same: an “Omega,” the primary source of the alien power, characterized almost immediately as a “she,” must be entered and destroyed from within. 

Why not fatherships? In a largely patriarchal world, and in a genre traditionally dominated by male authors and consumers, why is the predominant image of alien power feminized? Well, obviously, aliens have always stood for the “Other.” They are placeholders for the inscrutable, for all those things about women (and for other races, nations, gender assignations, ideologies, too) which are frightening to the readership. Women are a secret power. It makes sense, then, that the summit of Otherness, its military-industrial peak, would be that symbolic apex of womanhood: the Mother. Killing her destroys the alien’s capacity to reproduce—the one thing men alone can’t do.

Science fiction was born from a generation of pulp publishing and popular mechanics magazines marketed to young men, filled with young men’s fantasies of hapless damsels and big steely rockets. Although the great feminist science fiction authors of the mid-1970s—Joanna Russ, Octavia Butler, Ursula K. LeGuin, James Tiptree, and the critic Donna Haraway, whose “Cyborg Manifesto” is a foundational document for yours truly—did much to rearrange this boy’s club, creating matriarchal laboratories in the cosmos, it remains largely subversive to worldbuild outside of the patriarchy.

Which is why we usually take the mothership for granted. What is alien is Other, and what is Other is certainly not male—these are transparent truths, as elemental to science fiction cinema as three-act structure, symptoms of the assumptions we make about ourselves. Again and again, Tom Cruise blows up a womb and saves the world. 

Some science fiction films employ a computational variant on the mothership idea. Instead of a massive craft, a cosmic aircraft carrier hanging in the void, the mothership is a central intelligence system: like the Tet, Elysium’s core computer, the Terminator franchise’s indomitable Skynet, or the “Brain Bug” from Starship Troopers, the most vaginal alien life-form in the entire universe. If it has a voice, like Siri or Cortana, it’s female. “I’m in!” pronounces the hacker who bests her.

In this context, the mothership is the central node of a network. The effect of downing her is like knocking the cloud offline: all the agents, every connected device or entity, is simultaneously robbed of its brain. A million dead drones fall from the sky, clunk-clunk. Which is to say, if we have a mothership among us today, it’s the Internet. 

Unlike the motherships and maternal networks of science fiction, being imploded at every turn by myriad Tom Cruises—those atavistic male heroes—we wouldn’t immediately die if it took a hit, but we’d certainly be weakened, sent wheeling out into the void with nothing left to conquer. Something to consider as we wade through the briar of net neutrality, as the powers that be try their hardest to infiltrate the mothership and plant bombs within her. No spoilers. 

Lo vi en Motherboard RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1lcjOfw