Ulus Baker (1960 – 2007) was a Turkish-Cypriot sociologist, philosopher, and public intellectual. He was born in Ankara, Turkey in 1960. He studied Sociology at Middle East Technical University in Ankara, where he taught as a lecturer until 2004. Baker wrote prolifically in influential Turkish journals and made some of the first Turkish translations of various works of Gilles Deleuze, Antonio Negri, and other contemporary political philosophers. His profuse and accessible work and the novelty of the issues he enthusiastically introduced to Turkish-speaking intellectual circles, earned him a widely spread positive reputation in early age. He died in 2007 in Istanbul.The text in this edition is edited from essays and notes Ulus Baker wrote between 1995 and 2002. In these essays, Baker criticizes the sociological research turning into an analysis of people’s opinions. He explores with an exciting clarity the notion of ‘opinion’ as a specific form of apprehension between knowledge and point of view, then looks into ‘social types’ as an analytical device deployed by early sociologists. He associates the form of ‘comprehension’ the ‘social types’ postulate with Spinoza’s notion of ‘affections’ (as a dynamic, non-linguistic form of the relation between entities). He finally discusses the possibilities of reintroducing this device for understanding our contemporary world through cinema and documentary filmmaking, by reinstating images in general as ‘affective thought processes’.Baker’s first extensive translation to English provides us with a much-needed intervention for re-imagining social thought and visual media, at a time when sociology tends to be reduced to an analysis of ‘big data’, and the pedagogical powers of the image are reduced to data visualization and infographics.
MULTIFILE
Privacy, copyright, classified documents and state secrets, but also spontaneous network phenomena like flash mobs and hashtag revolutions, reveal one thing – we lost control over the digital world. We experience a digital tailspin, or as Michael Seemann calls it in this essay: a loss of control or Kontrollverlust. Data we never knew existed is finding paths that were not intended and reveals information that we would never have thought of on our own. Traditional institutions and concepts of freedom are threatened by this digital tailspin. But that doesn’t mean we are lost. A new game emerges, where a different set of rules applies. To take part, we need to embrace a new way of thinking and a radical new ethics – we need to search for freedom in completely different places. While the Old Game depended upon top-down hierarchies and a trust in the protective power of state justice systems, the New Game asks you to let go of all these certainties. Strategies to play the game of digital tailspin rely on flexibility, openness, transparency and what is dubbed ‘antifragility’. In Digital Tailspin: Ten Rules for the Internet After Snowden Michael Seemann examines which strategies are most appropriate in the New Game and why.
Background: In postoperative pain treatment patients are asked to rate their pain experience on a single uni-dimensional pain scale. Such pain scores are also used as indicator to assess the quality of pain treatment. However, patients may differ in how they interpret the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score. Objectives: This study examines how patients assign a number to their currently experienced postoperative pain and which considerations influence this process. Methods: A qualitative approach according to grounded theory was used. Twenty-seven patients were interviewed one day after surgery. Results: Three main themes emerged that influenced the Numeric Rating Scale scores (0–10) that patients actually reported to professionals: score-related factors, intrapersonal factors, and the anticipated consequences of a given pain score. Anticipated consequences were analgesic administration—which could be desired or undesired—and possible judgements by professionals. We also propose a conceptual model for the relationship between factors that influence the pain rating process. Based on patients’ score-related and intrapersonal factors, a preliminary pain score was ‘‘internally’’ set. Before reporting the pain score to the healthcare professional, patients considered the anticipated consequences (i.e., expected judgements by professionals and anticipation of analgesic administration) of current Numeric Rating Scale scores. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the process of how patients translate their current postoperative pain into a numeric rating score. The proposed model may help professionals to understand the factors that influence a given Numeric Rating Scale score and suggest the most appropriate questions for clarification. In this way, patients and professionals may arrive at a shared understanding of the pain score, resulting in a tailored decision regarding the most appropriate treatment of current postoperative pain, particularly the dosing and timing of opioid administration.
