Are we, as a society or set of societies too quick to categorise?

I think we have built upon the Victorian-era’s predilection for classification for understanding. You’ll notice, no doubt, that I categorised the idea of classification as Victorian. Perhaps this is a helpful metaphorical conduit for expressing a large number of semantic nuances–a sort of communicative shorthand. When I mention ‘Victorian’, loads of images appear in my mind: women in petticoats and parasols, men with mustaches, steam engines, industrial buildings, red-brick, tea, lack of smiles… and a corresponding set of ideas begins to emerge rather like a tag-cloud which gets more intricate the longer you focus on a single tag.

But, what if this becomes a hindrance to meaning. I am not alone in experiencing the frustration involved when someone tries to categorise you. My wife, a veterinary surgeon, was recently introducing herself to a middle-aged woman who had asked us how long we’d lived in our town.

“Oh, I recently got a job in the vet’s practice,” says my wife (who’s blessed with ageless looks which often leave people stunned to learn her real age)

“Really! Do you need some sort of qualification to do that?”

Both my wife and I had to bite back any reproach involved in explaining that it does indeed take quite a bit of training and qualification before being allowed to take a job as a practicing veterinary surgeon, the last of which being five-years’ worth of 40+-hour weeks of a veterinary degree and harrowing RCVS examinations.

Zach Beauvais

Curriculum Vitae

Nationality: United States of America (resident without restriction in the United Kingdom)
Born: 1984
Gender: Male

Career Objectives:

To produce positive impact in the most effective and interesting way possible
To take opportunities to apply reasoning through efficient communication to solve problems; and to have the responsibility to make that difference
To help others reach their full potentials while maintaining a good environment in order that the entire network may see positive results

Relevant Employment:

Talis Information Ltd:

April 2008 - Present
Researcher

Talis—Shared Innovation—is exploring and applying semantic web technologies to business, education, and potentially public-sector markets. By researching high-level concepts, and synthesising ideas though blogs and print, as well as at conferences, I am working with Talis to advance its innovations. My position is with the Talis Platform, a Semantic Web enabling medium, and I work through Talis blogs and also edit the magazine Nodalities.

For more information on Talis, or for more information on my perspectives from here, feel free to email me on: zach.beauvais(at)talis.com.

Grandstand Media Ltd

Jan 2007 – Dec 2007
New Media Executive

Grandstand Media, organisers of Horse of the Year Show and the British Open Show Jumping Championships employed me to project-manage their electronic marketing and online presence. I was responsible for furthering Grandstand’s brand on the web—now their primary marketing tool—, for exploring the potential for Social Media involvement and for developing content with the marketing department. My remit included the production of the British Open official programme, press office work, and some graphic and digital design.

I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading on the Semantic Web lately, and its primary feature from the perspective of  a writer is a difficulty of easy definition. It avoids simple sobriquet and isn’t explained without analogy and lengthy description.

The best way I have come to think of the whole system is as a set of perspectives, a way of looking at information in a network. Sir Tim Berners Lee described it using the Social Graph as an analogy, but described it using the Social Graph as an analogy, but Nova Spivack, from Radar Technologies,  has a brilliant talk about the Graph which explains the concepts and history behind the Semantic Web:

Nova Spivack - Semantic Web Talk from Nicolas Cynober on Vimeo.

Blogging about politics can be a bit of a mixed bag, so we’ll see how it goes. I want to avoid polarising talk, tabloid tactics, and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Instead, I’d like to discuss the latest raft of changes which seek to make immigrants ‘more British’ before offering them citizenship.

Personal Perspective

First, and as a matter of context: I am an immigrant. I was born and raised in Colorado, USA, and have lived in the UK for the last 5 years or so. My national identity, however, is a more complicated matter. I resonate politically better with Britain than the United States. I admire more British personages than American (probably due to the fact that the only great Americans I can think to name are either dead or long dead…). I laugh at British comedians, and listen to Radio 4. I queue. I share the occasional withering glance  with my fellow public transport passengers whenever a tourist declares loudly that something is cute or quaint. I even say: "Oh, excuse me, sorry" when someone else runs into me at Sainsburys, and I say "Cheers" or "Ta" even when someone should be thanking me.

This has put me in an interesting position at times. I have been part of conversations when the other party doesn’t actually know, or momentarily forgets, that I grew up singing The Star-Spangled Banner before watching baseball.

"Well, I think Americans are rude and ignorant".

I am a firm believer in the idea that a little knowledge is dangerous. When you overhear a conversation in which one person says to another (imagine whatever derisory accent adds to the flavour-I always seem to hear Watford…):

"Yeah, ever since I watched that (insert celebrity TV show) the other day, I gave up (eating, drinking, buying) + (wheat, white wine, bleach…). Really makes you think, donnit?"

I always, always wince and imagine having the temerity (or bad manners) to break in with questions about the speaker’s level of intelligence, trust in an over-paid celebrity, or belief in a ridiculous cult of misinformation. Allergies seem to be a favourite topic in these conversations, I’ve noticed.

I find the proponents of these ideas far more galling, however. Dieticians, ’scientists’ from dubious academic associations, ’specialists’ and ‘independent consultants’: all these people ruin their very titles for the proper holders. Worse is when people go off half-cocked and make a mint selling their partially-formed philosophy.

I have just discovered a new breed in the person of Lee Siegel. I will, in the interests of transparency, state that I only heard about the man today, at about 16:30, and I know about him only what Wikipedia does, so not much, and therefore have only a limited platform from which to wince and whinge.

Having been reading Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, I’ve begun formulating a few thoughts on what some have called the ‘emergent church’.

Because I work with the internet, I tend to see things from an ‘online’ perspective. When I see a presentation, I ask why it doesn’t link to resources and I tend to Google answers and keep many tabs open with on-the-fly further reading on a subject. One of the most wide-spread of all internet buzzwords is "Web 2.0". The ideas behind it have been summed up (indeed, coined) by the O’Reilly network. To me, many of these have a strong resonance with the ‘newly painted church’ of Mars Hill. For example, there is an emphasis in Web 2.0 on participation and "The long tail" which I see reflected in "every member ministry" and discussions instead of sermons. Teaching has taken on a very interactive flavour, and theology is less about rules.

While the tag ‘Church 2.0′ is wildly inaccurate on one score (e.g. there have been many renditions of the church), the notion of a renaissance is definitely present and many of the tenets of Web 2.0 can be helpfully used as metaphor in the church.

Participation vs. Preaching:

With links to various incarnations of the ‘Cell’ movement, the idea of discussion supplementing or even replacing pulpit-sermons is certainly not new.