For no other reason that it hadn't really occurred to me, I had never read anything by Virginia Woolf until last month when I picked up a copy of a Room of One's Own. Ordered directly from Amazon, with copies of Three Guineas and Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More.
A Room of One's Own is an essay written from a series of lectures that Virginia Woolf gave, discussing the future of women in fiction.
Her directive is straight forward, and very much common sense (or so I thought):
Individual wealth and assets are critical for anyone individual to establish a public voice. Poor people don't regularly write books. Women, now and then, are/were less likely to have this kind of financial security. And if we want the hear women's voices, get them to the table creating and documenting their belief and histories, then the focus needs to be on wealth creation. Specifically, Woolf says a woman needs "A Room of her Own" -- not a room given to her from her neighbor, her government, or any other source. She needs to own it. It needs to be hers. This is tied into the premise of the book.
I think this is a pretty straight forward market-oriented philosophy. So you can imagine my surprise when I logged into Amazon to see my new recommendations, and based off my purchase of A Room of One's Own, Amazon is recommending:
My first thought is that Amazon is supporting one of the oldest stereotypes of all time. But of course, Amazon's recommendations are based off of collaborative filtering -- which means that of the 200+ people who bought the Communist Manifesto, also bought A Room of One's Own (or vice-versa). So based off this phenomena, Amazon thought their recommendation made sense.
Crazy stuff, huh?
Anyone think I missed Ms. Woolf's point? Is there a hidden agenda that my world view isn't open to receiving?
Or is this a case in which the wisdom of crowds doesn't actually produce the 'right' results?
8 comments:
Very interesting. I read "A Room of One's Own" as assigned reading during my undergraduate days. My dusty memory of the essay and class discussion was not nearly as free-market oriented as your reading. That may be partly a result of my professor's political bias and partly because I didn't have the benefit then of a few extra years of reading and learning. You've inspired me to go back and re-read this.
To your Amazon issue...perhaps others, like I did, are ordering and reading this as part of their freshman seminar or undergraduate philosophy class. "Communist Manifesto" may be on the same reading list. This would produce the result you've noticed on Amazon and also point to a potential flaw in the basic collaborative filtering/wisdom of crowds model, namely that it can be influenced or alterd by an outside force, in this case possibly the requirements laid down by a few hundred left-leaning college professors.
Interesting that you saw AROO as free-market--I agree with you now that you put it this way. For me it's been the best articulation of feminism as I can get (although I don't share VW's Bloomsbury tendencies) because it came home to me when I got divorced at the tender age of 26, and I realized I was only able to get AROO because I was earning my own way. To be honest I still feel more comfortable with AROO than choice feminism.
And JB is probably right, it fits right in to a 20th century intellectual history class, the emergence of the "isms." It just did not occur to me at all that students would be using Amazon to buy the textbooks. I'm stuck in the old model of going to the campus bookstore where all the books were arranged by courses, or combing through the second-hand bookstore for hours and hours trying to put your reading list together. Makes me feel old!
If beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, than so true with literary perspectives.
However, I'm going to stick with my guns on the interpretation. There was also a section that focused individual identity and its importance for establishing assets, and, tangentially, the individual freedom to write.
Mari will most likely say that I tend to view most things through the lines of identity and reputation. Which is true these days. However, Woolf's thoughts were indeed existential in their principles.
I love your site. It's funny, but I remember that day in church, too, and the image in my mind is of all the members of the congregation--and especially Don and Alberta Morrison--holding you up with their arms and hands. It is one of my favorite chuerch memories. Also, your life view reminds me of the letter you sent me when you were in Thailand and had gone to visit the temple. There was such a sense of your connectedness and spirituality within that temple--I wasn't surprised last year when you spoke of theology. But dad, who is reading over my shoulder, was. I aalso read "A Room of MY Own" during my undergraduate days and I distictly remember that the essay was notwhat I wanted it to be about. Hey, we miss you guys, bunches and bunches. I love you both...George, too. Mom
Elithechef,
Also known as Biz, or the Bizzer, I read your blog with great interest. Since you were raised in part by a genuine athiest christian, it is no wonder that you turned out so wise, and compassionate. It appears to me, and I am biased, that you are already doing what would (could) be considered "christian" work without the dogma of a religion getting in the way.
You need to get a big place in Maine so your mother and I have a place retire to.
Love to you both,
Dad
Willie, also known as Bop, Boppy, Willie G, Professor, Bill, WGN,... oh and Dad...
Can one actually be a Christian and not believe in Christ, i.e. be Atheist? Why would you not consider yourself a Ghandian since it is the same principles?
What is the dogma of religion? Are you not making a gross generalization about the characteristics of "institutional religins' that you have found unappealing?
Is religion (with a lower case 'r') anything more than a set of guideing principles or a faith with which it to live your life? Must it be defined as 'divine'?
Biz,
Of course you noted that I did not use the capital C in christian.
The more I learn about history, especially thr history of the Greek and Roman societies of 500BCE to 600ACE the more I understand the falicies of religion. I believe in the teachings of Christ on how we were to treat each, how we could live in harmony with each other, etc. BUT I do not accept the immaculate conception that crhist was the "son" of god, or the ressurection. If there is a sole creater than we are all "sons" of god.
Christ did not found the christian church. Peter did. According to jewish history, Christ was out to reform yhe hebrew faith. It was Peter and his followers who currupted a good thing.
When you have leaders laying down doctrine, you have power- and yes, power corrupts. Just look at the things that have been done in the name of god by religious zealots, both Christian and other.
Look at the radical "christian" right in this country and at the same time look at the Iraqis strugle with divisions of faith.
There can be no peace on earth until all religions and nationalities are done away with. That doesn't mean an end to spirituality or faith- these do not require a religion or a nationality.
Every religion has been re-thought by its leaders to fit the times. And so has long been the "opiate of the masses", a game of control And yes, I make generalizations about religious dogma, but these generalizations seem to fit all religions.
A good book on this subject is "Doubt-a history".
JB- The Communist Manifesto" is a good read. Surprisingly, it has great parallels with the underlying concepts put forth in the christian bible.
As always-
your loving father and left leaning college professor.
From Slate and to my father's point:
http://www.slate.com/id/2153398/fr/rss/
How one new author is trying to rehabilitate Paul...
Post a Comment