FINALLY!
I get to read about nukes & shit this semester.
This is for the "Secrecy" portion of my science & tech studies class.
#PhDLifepic.twitter.com/tvlm8vtlp7
-
HOORAY! I am doubly excuted to read it then! First, Simmel.
I'm a historian so of course I think historians do this better but really they do it better. Simmel and Weber and pretty much anyone who
-
-
Simmel is on the list as a "history of how this has been studied." Other than your dissertation, any other strong reccomendations?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
is a 19th century theorist of it, who doesn't look into specific historical conditions, ends up being kind of useless in my view.
-
The anthropologists (!!!) do a good job of this when they root it in specific institutions (Masco, Gusterson, etc.) and their histories.
-
But my first rule of "thinking smaaaht about secrecy" is seeing it as historically contextualized practice. And Dennis does so good at that.
-
(My second rule is throw the secrecy/openness dichotomy out the window. It doesn't clarify anything, it just produces empty talking points.)
-
I remember you writing or being quoted saying such year+ ago re: dichotomy & WWII roots of contemp US secrecy practices, stuck with me!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.