Simulacra

I recently bought new ear buds. I wasn't sure I even wanted them, but they would be small and good for traveling. The ones I had came with my media player and were cheap, too big, and the felt covers were coming apart. The earphones I use at work I like, but the wire is a bit too short, and anyway I wanted some for traveling. So I bought some mid-level ear buds and jesus, they feel nice and have some sweet bass!

And it got me thinking... the difference between the music I was listening to then and what I'm listening to now is purely due to the little tiny speakers in my ears (which I still find pretty annoying and weird). So which one is right? Obviously neither is the right way for the music to sound... it's not like my new ear buds are some how tapping into what the musicians thought the music should sound like. What they created with their instruments (synthesized or acoustic or whatever) is lost forever... it was captured by certain equipment, and what is played back is only a cheap copy. Then the sound people do what they do and change the levels and it becomes a different thing altogether. The musicians and the sound people decide on what the copied and played-back music is supposed to sound like, and they produce it.

And the journey has only begun! The music is consumed in various ways... on the radio, as CDs, or, and I say this with some disgust, bought as mp3s. Neither is what the musicians actually created, but at least the CDs represent what they think the music should sound like, instead of castrated and decapitated mutant-clones that contain a tenth of the original information. But then these digested forms of music are played with some kind of speaker and finally make it to your ear according to what the speakers can do; how do we believe that the speakers' interpretation of your music-playing software's reconstruction of whatever mutilated audio file that was torn from the original digital copy of music that was captured out of the air in some box where the actual music was created... how do we believe it represents that actual music?

It is actually a simulacrum; a "likeness" or "similarity." It is not the actual music, but we are used to taking symbols to mean the thing that they symbolize. I will admit that I only know the word "simulacrum" (plural: simulacra) because Jean Baudrillard's philosophical book "Simulacra and Simulation" was discussed in the behind the scenes DVD of The Matrix and referred to when Morpheus tells Neo, "Welcome to the desert of the real." The music that we listen to is a simulacrum of the music that it represents, and I don't mean to suggest that there is anything actually wrong with this way of listening to music, but it is interesting to think of it as it is and not what it appears to be. The journey from music creation to music appreciation, unless it takes place at a concert (and even then to some degree...), occurs through the degradation of meaning. The true form of the music (maybe Platonic, but maybe it's too late for me to be speculating on Platonic forms) exists in the act of music creation. Once the music is played, everything else is a copy, a likeness. (A shadow on the cave?)

I think the deep thing I'm going for here is that the creation of music is a process, and so it can't be captured, not by any audio equipment, and it certainly can't be sliced-and-diced until it's finally regurgitated into your ears. It exists only in the moment of its creation and is gone outside of that moment. BUT, listening to music is itself a process. All of my violent imagery aside, most of the true essence of the music survives this degradation of meaning, so that when you listen to some sweet beats it is an experience! Maybe the bass isn't all there and so some of the power of the moment is lost. Maybe it's an mp3 so it lacks complexity and fullness of sound... the complexity and fullness of the moment. But maybe listening to that combination of rhythym and melody is enough to bring you out of yourself and into your moment. Your attention is captured and you are fully aware of the music.

Even though the music may be a simulacrum, your experience of the music never is.

Crossings

Between forest and field, a threshold
like stepping from a cathedral into the street--
the quality of air alters, an eclipse lifts,

boundlessness opens, earth itself retextured
into weeds where woods once were.
Even planes of motion shift from vertical

navigation to horizontal quiescence:
there's a standing invitation to lie back
as sky's unpredictable theater proceeds.

Suspended in this ephemeral moment
after leaving a forest, before entering
a field, the nature of reality is revealed.

"Crossings" by Ravi Shankar

This poem came up on the PBS Newshour blog and I wanted to share.

That is all.

Jobs and Gender

There has lately been a bit of a scandal in (a very narrow segment of) the science community regarding a story published in Nature's Futures section called "Womanspace" by Ed Rybicki. Check it out for yourself, and then see which of the comments match your own opinions on the piece. There have been many blogs about it, including one by Ed in response to the outrage, that I am still reading and absorbing, and if I was on twitter I would probably start using the #womanspace tag, but a full blog post on this will have to wait.

What's more pressing currently is job season. In astronomy this is the time of year for postdocs, fellowships, and faculty positions to appear on the job register and rumor mill. I've been writing proposals, research summaries, research statements (which is incredibly vague and annoying), and finishing up papers. This morning I was sent a notice for new postdoc positions in my field. It turns out they're looking for people with different expertise than I possess, but sometimes it's nice not to have to apply for another job. And then I read the end of the advert and find myself back in #womanspace:

"Applications from disabled persons are encouraged and will be favoured when equally qualified. [The University] is committed to increase the percentage of female employees in sectors where they are underrepresented. We want to especially encourage female applicants to apply for these positions."

Now, as a female, I don't feel especially encouraged after reading these words. The intent is in the right place, but this type of disclaimer, I feel, only serves to promote the notion that women/minorities/disabled and other underrepresented groups only get accepted (to college, grad school, jobs) because of their demographic and not because they are qualified. The common conception that "all other things being equal" we will hire a woman or minority - held by those who believe they want to help - actually does more to hurt by reinforcing the Other-ness of these groups and down-playing their abilities, which is what all agree should matter in these situations. Consciously, people who think this way are saying "Your Other-ness is going to be a good thing, not a negative thing." But why should it matter at all? Does this mean that unconsciously, these people think the Other-ness is more important than actual qualifications? I don't want the fact that I'm female to be the deciding factor; I want to feel that I'm actually qualified for a job that I get. This type of thinking also reinforces the Imposter Syndrome in these "Other" groups: if my Other-ness is what got me here, maybe I don't really deserve to be here, I'm just filling a quota, etc.

The other side is how majority groups perceive this type of disclaimer. Those who aren't necessarily advocates for promoting equality among the majority and underrepresented groups see an unfair advantage being given to the Others at the expense of themselves. "These Others are not qualified and they are stealing our jobs! They are explicitly being favored! Not fair!!" Regardless of how fair the selection actually is (and I submit that standard practices give unfair advantages to majority groups because of unconscious biases and stereotypes, and that though this can be eliminated to some extent, the process will never be completely "fair"), the perception of unfairness is in fact quite harmful to all involved and especially to underrepresented groups, who always have to prove themselves with a higher standard just because of this assumption (held by few, not all, but enough to have an effect) that they start out less qualified because their Other-ness has helped them succeed.

There is in fact a growing amount of research into how unconscious biases creep into hiring decisions, including the writing of reference letters, that cause people of different groups (gender, race, etc.) to be judged with different standards. (Test your own unconscious biases here, you might surprise yourself!) After seeing a great talk on this topic by Dr. Abby Stewart, the PandA Diversity group has invited her to talk at JHU. Outright discrimination is much less of an issue these days so some are inclined to think the problem has been solved. Women just don't want to do science, right? As incredibly wrong as this is, and as unsupported by data from many studies that I don't feel like looking up and citing right now, some still do think this is the answer. Some may only think so unconsciously, having never bothered to consciously question their assumptions.

I could go on, but I'm getting into #womanspace issues again that will take more time and effort for me to sort out into a coherent post. Let's continue on with my day, during which I am reminded that the AAS job register has been updated (being the first of the month) and I should check it out. That's when I read this lovely job listing:

The Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille (CPPM) invites applications for a postdoctoral position in cosmology. The successful candidate will work with Dr. Stephanie X on original cosmological probes using large-scale structure surveys. The position is suitable for a wide range of expertises from theory and data modelling to statistical analysis of large-scale structures of the universe and of N-body simulations.

The successful candidate is expected to interact strongly with researchers of the Center for Theoretical Physics (CPT) and the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille (LAM). He will in particular work directly with Pr. ABC at CPT, who has led the development of new observables to probe the cosmological model. He will have privileged access to data from the BOSS and VIPERS redshift surveys. He is also encouraged to contribute to the science cases of next-generation wide-field surveys such as LSST, BigBoss and EUCLID in the conception of which our laboratories are strongly involved.

Perhaps it's because I've had #womanspace on the brain, but my immediate reaction was to get very angry. "Guess what job I'm not applying for," I tell my roommates. Oh, but the job is in France? It's probably just a translation issue, ain't no thang. (Full disclosure: no one ever actually said "ain't no thang," but they could have.) Other reactions are along the lines of "Oh, those French!" Somehow that failed to be satisfying, though my initial anger had cooled.

Then I noticed that the contact for the job was one Dr. Stephanie X. A woman! "You see!" says my roommate. "Ain't no thang!" (Ok ok, but he could have said that.) So maybe it is only a language issue and not a culture thing (those French with their insensitivity to gender, or something?), but the fact remains that it's not ok and I'm still pissed off. Whether or not I decide to apply (depending on factors other than choice of gender pronoun in the advert), I am seriously considering emailing Dr. X about it. On second thought, probably only if I don't decide to apply. But anyway, every other job listing has managed not to assume that the successful candidates will be male, and I feel like that is something to be encouraged. Whatever the reason how such language made it into the AAS job listing, it is completely unacceptable. Unacceptable!

I guess I'm less pissed off now. The lack of outrage from friends makes it hard to justify continued outrage in what's obviously an unintentional mistake that is completely unacceptable. I won't try to base my decision on whether to apply on this issue, but it will probably be a factor whether I want it to or not at this point. I wonder how many other female graduate students will read this and react with righteous indignation? I wonder if this job will get fewer female applicants compared to others? Of course, what would have been more awesome is if the advert ended with "females are especially encouraged to apply"...