“Pasta Cunegonda” – How Umberto Eco Dealt with a Troll

Umberto Eco

In this short essay included in Turning Back the Clock: Hot Wars and Media Populism, Eco tells the tale of how he had written an article with some pragmatic suggestions on how to take action against the right-wing government controlled media. The article spawned a hateful response from someone who sent Eco a copy of a book that Eco had written, with the word “Shit” written in big red letters across every other page. Rather than succumbing to anger, Eco looked at the event with his usual wit and insight.

I tried to understand the mind and the walk of life of my correspondent. For the psychology, there’s no need of a psychoanalytic session, and I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions. As for the man’s social background, I wonder if he already had the book at home, if he bought it specially, or if he stole it. If he already had the book at home, even if it belonged to his children, he must be a person of some status, which makes the business all the more interesting. If he stole it, theft too can be a form of political struggle, but the people who steal books were usually on the far left, and I would say that this isn’t the case here. Which leaves us with the possibility that he bought it, and if he did, then he spent a certain amount, plus the cost of mailing, in order to give himself this satisfaction. He must have calculated that he wasn’t going to contribute to my personal well-being, given the paltry percentage authors receive on paperbacks, but he didn’t consider the big check I will receive for this article.

(Turning Back the Clock: pp 193 – 4)

In my years of blogging, I have gotten several trollish remarks. After my initial indignation, I did my best to just let them go. But in this age of abundant internet trolling, Eco provides some great advice. There will always be people who disagree with you and feel emboldened to bolster their beliefs by putting you down. The best way to deal with them is with a sense of humor and a touch of empathy. And, if you can use it as inspiration for something creative, then by all means, do so!

“The Loss of Privacy” by Umberto Eco

Image Source: Microsoft

This essay is included in Turning Back the Clock: Hot Wars and Media Populism and deals with an issue that has been getting a lot of attention lately: privacy.

Eco begins by discussing boundaries and their importance. He points out that the concept of boundaries applies to humans and animals, and that when someone or something crosses these boundaries and invades our space, or natural inclination is to feel threatened.

Ethology teaches us that every animal recognizes around itself, and its fellows, a bubble of respect, a territorial area within which it feels safe, and that it will see as an adversary whoever steps over that boundary.

(Turning Back the Clock: p. 77)

To define and secure our boundaries, we often erect walls, either physical or emotional. Eco cites examples of walls constructed by governments to create a sort of communal privacy and states that “people have always paid for the communal privacy by accepting the loss of individual privacy.” (ibid: p. 78) I am reminded of the walled and gated communities that were dominant in Miami when I lived there, where people subjected themselves to the scrutiny of the all-mighty Homeowners’ Association for the false sense of security gain by living within the enclosed walls.

It seems as if every week there is news about a computer hacker accessing a system and stealing personal information. This is blown up in the media as a major threat to our privacy. But Eco claims that this is not the biggest threat to our privacy, that online tracking used by corporations is much more insidious and dangerous.

The big problem facing a citizen’s private life is not hackers, which are no more frequent and dangerous than the highwaymen who beset travelling merchants, but cookies and all those other technical marvels that make it possible to collect information about every one of us.

(ibid: p. 79)

So then the million-dollar question is: How did we allow ourselves and our society to get to this point? Eco claims it is because we have become an exhibitionist society.

It seems to me that one of the great tragedies of mass society, of the press, television, and Internet, is the voluntary renunciation of privacy. The extreme expression of this renunciation is, at its pathological limit, exhibitionism. It strikes me as paradoxical that someone has to struggle for the defense of privacy in a society of exhibitionists.

(ibid: p. 82)

It is kind of ironic when you consider this. We love to put ourselves out there for the world, sharing our lives on Facebook and Instagram. Even blogging is a form of exhibitionism. I accept this about myself. I put my thoughts, my ideas, and my reading preferences out there for the world to see. When I was younger, this would have been part of my private world. I would hide in my room and read under the covers. Questionable books my friends and I read were discussed in closed rooms, away from the prying eyes of those who want to market to my tastes or track any subversive books I read. I remember there was a time when the government wanted to collect records from libraries regarding the books that people checked out and the public outcry against this. Now, your reading habits are tracked online. All you have to do is look at a book on Amazon, you don’t even have to purchase it, and immediately ads begin popping up based upon the fact the you just clicked on that one link.

Eco concludes by stating that most of us have come to accept the loss of our privacy and have taken it to the next step. We now believe that the best way to keep our secrets is to just put everything out there. If everyone’s secrets are made public, then ours will not seem that interesting anymore when compared with those of everyone else.

But it’s a vicious cycle. The assault on privacy accustoms everyone to the disappearance of privacy. Already many of us have decided that the best way to keep a secret is to make it public, so people write e-mails or make phone calls in which they say everything openly, certain that no one listening in will find interesting any statement made with no attempt at concealment. Little by little we become exhibitionists, having learned that nothing can be kept confidential anymore and that no behavior is considered scandalous. Those who are attacking our privacy, seeing that the victims themselves consent, will no longer stop at any violation.

(ibid: p. 87)

Star Trek: Khan – Issue #5

This is the final issue in the series and it concludes nicely. Essentially, Khan finishes his testimony and the sentence is handed down (I will abstain from saying what the sentence is—you’ll have to read the comic to find that out for yourself).

After the trial, there is a great conversation between Kirk and Spock regarding human nature and the construct of history. For me, this was the most interesting part of the final issue. How we construct history based upon stories and scraps of information is something I find fascinating. Anyway, here is the conversation.

Spock: We have no way to verify his account of the late twentieth century. Records from that period are simply too scarce,

Kirk: That’s just it, Spock. Khan knows that. Now he gets to write the history he wants, and it’s human nature to make yourself the hero of your own story.

Spock: I fail to see the logic in that approach, Captain, if that was truly his intention. History will hardly judge him kindly given the destruction he has caused in both the past and present.

Kirk: Like I said, Spock, human nature. Logic doesn’t have much to do with it.

Most of humanity’s early history was written by the victors, and they certainly wrote the histories in a manner that put them in a positive light. Currently, with the internet and the democratization of information, modern history appears to be a little less biased. At least you can find alternate versions of events. But we still relate our history from biased perspectives. Just compare how FOX News and MSNBC tell totally different versions of the same event. This makes me wonder how our history will be interpreted 500 years from now. Digital records can be easily manipulated or erased. What historical documentation will remain in our future, and how will that color the images that our future generations have of events that are transpiring today? It is an interesting question and one worth pondering.

Why Were We So Surprised?

This morning I read an article in Wired magazine about the NSA and how it nearly destroyed the Internet. (Click here to read the article online; or better yet, subscribe—it’s a great publication.) As I was reading the article, all I could think about was “why were we so surprised?” I mean, seriously. The Internet was originally Department of Defense technology. Did we really expect that information we post online would be kept secret? I never did. I fully expect that each online petition I sign, each article I read, every site I visit, each “like” on Facebook, is tracked in a database somewhere. If companies are doing this with cookies, you can be sure that the government is doing the same.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be upset about it—we should be. But we should not be surprised. I’m a dork, so I love the Internet and I love the abundance of information that the technology brings to my fingertips. I love that I can stream movies, download digital copies of arcane texts, instantly share pictures with my friends and family, and that I can discuss topics of interest with people like myself around the world. It’s awesome! But I also expect that the government will be able to access this information and that they will be able to construct a profile of the type of person I am, my interests, and my ideologies. That’s fine. I’m not concerned.

For those of you who are concerned, there are some amazing new technologies you can consider:

• Postal Service—This service allows you to write your thoughts on a piece of paper, hermetically seal it in an envelope, and send that to a specific individual and only that person can read it.
• Bookstores—These places allow you to buy printed material, no matter how subversive, and read it in the privacy of your own home. And if you use something called “money,” there is no record that you ever purchased or read it.
• Printed Photos—Who knew you could actually print out pictures and create your own book with them? You could call it, I don’t know, how about a photo album. Then, you can invite your friends over to your house, have a nice dinner, and look at them together.

Pretty cool, huh? 🙂