1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
|
<!doctype html>
<html amp lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>One Nation Under a Groove</title>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://luxagraf.net/jrnl/2005/03/one-nation-under-groove">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1,minimum-scale=1">
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image"/>
<meta name="twitter:url" content="/jrnl/2005/03/one-nation-under-groove">
<meta name="twitter:description" content="The sky is falling! The iPod! It's ruining our culture! Or, uh, maybe it's just like the Walkman, but better."/>
<meta name="twitter:title" content="One Nation Under a Groove"/>
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@luxagraf"/>
<meta name="twitter:domain" content="luxagraf"/>
<meta name="twitter:image:src" content="https://images.luxagraf.net/post-images/2008/ipod.jpg"/>
<meta name="twitter:creator" content="@luxagraf"/>
<meta name="twitter:site:id" content="9469062">
<meta name="twitter:creator:id" content="9469062">
<meta name="twitter:description" content=""/>
<meta name="geo.placename" content="Northampton, Massachusetts">
<meta name="geo.region" content="US-MA">
<meta property="og:type" content="article" />
<meta property="og:title" content="One Nation Under a Groove" />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://luxagraf.net/jrnl/2005/03/one-nation-under-groove" />
<meta property="og:description" content="The sky is falling! The iPod! It's ruining our culture! Or, uh, maybe it's just like the Walkman, but better." />
<meta property="article:published_time" content="2005-03-25T18:12:59" />
<meta property="article:author" content="Luxagraf" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Luxagraf" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://images.luxagraf.net/post-images/2008/ipod.jpg" />
<meta property="og:locale" content="en_US" />
<script type="application/ld+json">
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "BlogPosting",
"headline": "One Nation Under a Groove",
"description": "The sky is falling! The iPod! It's ruining our culture! Or, uh, maybe it's just like the Walkman, but better.",
"datePublished": "2005-03-25T18:12:59",
"author": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Scott Gilbertson"
},
"publisher": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Scott Gilbertson"
"logo": {
"@type": "ImageObject",
"url": "",
"width": 240,
"height": 53
}
}
}
</script>
<style amp-custom>
body {
font-size: 1rem;
line-height: 1.73;
font-family: Georgia, serif;
background-color: #fff;
color: #333;
padding: 1em;
}
nav {
font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;
max-width: 60em;
margin: 0 auto;
}
main {
max-width: 60em;
margin: 0 auto;
}
main footer {
text-align: right;
}
a {
text-decoration: underline;
color: #c63;
}
nav a {
text-decoration: none;
text-transform: uppercase;
color: #222;
}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5 {
line-height: 1;
font-weight: bold;
}
h1 {
font-size: 1.5rem;
color: #666;
}
h2 {
font-size: 1.125rem;
color: #555;
}
h3 {
font-size: 1rem;
color: #444;
}
h4 {
font-size: 0.875rem;
}
h5 {
font-size: 0.75rem;
}
h1 a, h1 a *,
h2 a, h2 a *,
h3 a, h3 a *,
h4 a, h4 a * {
text-decoration: none;
font-weight: bold
}
code {
font-size: 0.875rem;
font-family: "Courier New",monospace;
}
pre {
white-space: pre-wrap;
word-wrap: break-word;
}
blockquote {
font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;
font-size: 0.875rem;
}
blockquote * {
font-style: italic;
}
blockquote * em {
font-weight: bold;
}
blockquote * strong {
font-style: normal;
}
hr {
border: none;
border-bottom: 0.0625rem dotted #ccc;
}
.hide {display: none;}
</style>
<style>body {opacity: 0}</style><noscript><style>body {opacity: 1}</style></noscript>
<script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<nav>
<a href="https://luxagraf.net/">
luxagraf</a>
</nav>
<main class="h-entry">
<article class="h-entry hentry post--article" itemscope itemType="http://schema.org/Article">
<header id="header" class="post--header ">
<h1 class="p-name entry-title post--title" itemprop="headline">One Nation Under a Groove</h1>
<time class="dt-published published dt-updated post--date" datetime="2005-03-25T18:12:59" itemprop="datePublished">March <span>25, 2005</span></time>
<p class="p-author author hide" itemprop="author"><span class="byline-author" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">Scott Gilbertson</span></span></p>
<aside class="p-location h-adr adr post--location" itemprop="contentLocation" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Place">
<span class="p-locality locality">Northampton</span>, <a class="p-region region" href="/jrnl/united-states/" title="travel writing from the United States">Massachusetts</a>, <span class="p-country-name">U.S.</span>
</aside>
</header>
<div id="article" class="e-content entry-content post--body post--body--single" itemprop="articleBody">
<p class="pull-quote">the need<br/> these closed-in days<br/> to move before you<br/> smooth-draped<br/> and color-elated<br/> in a favorable wind<br/> — <cite> Niedecker</cite></p>
<p><break></break></p>
<p><span class="drop">T</span>he sky is falling again. The man outside the liquor store seems unconcerned. The sky seems to fall a good bit. Perhaps the man didn't notice. Perhaps the sky has fallen too many times now. Perhaps it's been falling for quite some time and we're just now noticing it. Perhaps its always falling. Perhaps it never has and never will fall. Perhaps we just really like to say the sky is falling. </p>
<p>This latest chunk of sky burling down at us is a brilliant little piece of circuitry known as the iPod. Andrew Sullivan, writing for <strong><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/" title="The London Times">The London Times</a></strong> claims "<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-1501-1491500-1501,00.html" title="Comment: Andrew Sullivan: Society is dead, we have retreated into the iWorld">society is dead, we have retreated into the iWorld</a>." A catchy headline no doubt, but it's basis in reality is questionable. Echoing this trend is John Naughton's recent article for <strong>The Guardian</strong>, "<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1396485,00.html" title="A generation lost in its personal space">a generation lost in its personal space</a>." Joining these authors is Christine Rosen who has managed to parlay this topic into two separate articles, <strong><a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/7/rosen.htm" title="The Age of Egocasting">The Age of Egocasting</a></strong> and <strong><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/magazine/20WWLN.html?ex=1268974800&en=fca8190266cc6b78&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt" title="Rosen's NYTimes Magazine article">Bad Connections</a></strong>. Call it the iPod backlash.</p>
<p>The underlying implication of all these articles is that the iPod (and the cellphone and TiVo and the remote control and the mirro and dem Russians) narrow our perspectives and, in case of the first two, make us oblivious to and in public spaces. </p><blockquote>the proportion of young people who never venture out in public without first putting on headphones is astonishing <br/><cite>-John Naughten</cite></blockquote><blockquote>Even without the white wires you can tell who they are. They walk down the street in their own mp3 cocoon, bumping into others, deaf to small social cues, shutting out anyone not in their bubble. <br/><cite>-Andrew Sullivan</cite></blockquote>
<p>I have owned an iPod since 2001 and I really enjoy my bubble. I was in a band a few years back and we were recording what would be our only production, a five song ep. For those that have never been in a recording studio and have this mistaken idea that it's all fun and games... well, it's not. Recording music is pretty boring actually. One evening the drummer and I were smoking cigarettes outside our studio and we got to talking about walkmans and the newfangled mp3 players that were just hitting the market. Nice we agreed, but what would be really cool I said, what I really want, is a way to put my entire collection of music in a device the size of a deck of cards. True story, 1995 or so. Buena Park California, sunset iridescent orange. High clouds lending a bit of purple. Swig of beer. Drag of cigarette. Yeah, that would be brilliant wouldn't it?</p>
<p>And it was. The first few were too small, 5 gigs and then 10, if I recall correctly from a billboard in Redondo Beach stuck in traffic and thinking, holy shit, they're gonna do it. And they did. When the 20 gig version arrived it seemed like plenty of space so I bought one. Unfortunately when I got done ripping all my cds it was almost full. Now four years later I have almost 35 gigs worth of mp3s and I'm needing a new iPod (holding out for the 80 gig model, which again seems like plenty...).</p>
<p>I am far too much an audiophile however to settle for the cult of white ear buds and in fact have never used apple's provided headphones (too much time spent in the recording studio to trust my music to cheap speakers). No I am actually worse in Mr Sullivan's view, I use noise canceling earbuds from Sennheiser. Even if I turn off my iPod I am still deaf to your social cues Mr. Sullivan. I will even confess that sometimes, when my iPod runs out of batteries, I leave the headphones in just to have an excuse to ignore social interaction. In fact, I find it really irritating when people fail to respect the message of headphones (don't talk to me) and insist that I remove them so they can ask me for a cigarette (no) or a donation (sorry, one step away from the breadline myself).</p>
<h3>Space is the Place</h3>
<p>At the same time I go out a lot with my girlfriend or with a group of friends and never wear headphones. As a writer overheard conversation and snippets of other lives caught accidentally or through purposeful audio voyeurism are very important to me, invaluable even. This is the sort of accidental material that can put you where you ought to be—where you least expected. But at the same time I never knew I would feel quite like <strong>that</strong> as the winter afternoon glare crystallized the spires at the top of the Sixth Avenue Library to the sound of Grant Lee Buffalo's lament of New Orleans. I got the same juxtaposition of the familiar and foreign that I might glean from an unexpected snippet of the overheard. Both have their place (and use from my point of view).</p>
<p>I like to be able to choose whether or not to involve myself in the public space. But the elective to remove oneself from the public is troubling for our iPod critics.</p><blockquote>Walk through any airport in the United States these days and you will see person after person gliding through the social ether as if on autopilot. <br/><cite>-Andrew Sullivan</cite></blockquote><blockquote>And as a result, our concept of social space will change. Imagine the future: a crowded urban street, filled not with people interacting with one another, but with atomized individuals cocooned in their personalized sound-bubbles, moving from one retail opportunity to another. The only sounds are the shuffling of feet and the rock muzak blaring from the doorways of specialized leisurewear chains.<br/><cite>-John Naughten</cite></blockquote>
<p>Why is it astonishing that a generation which finds itself bombarded with advertising and the crass commercial commodification of public space at every turn would want an isolationist bubble? To me that seems a perfectly logical extension of the culture we have created. Meet me down at the Blockbuster Pavilion where we can catch the Verizon Wireless Presents show tonight and maybe afterward we can head to the Trojan Condom presents DJ Circuit City spinning at Club Walmart. Come on down, we'll have a grand time ringing in the new Year of the Depend Undergarment. <br/></p>
<p>What Mr. Naughten seems to ignore is the second to last sentence of his own nightmare, one that has nothing to do with headphones and everything to do with cultural changes that precede the iPod—"moving from one retail opportunity to another." This is fast becoming the sum total of our public spaces—retail opportunities.</p>
<p>Rather than contributing to this sort of corporate co-opting of public spaces, the iPod allows us an escape from the so-called public space. Increasingly that space is not public at all, it's branded private space that views the public as little more than advertising targets. How long before we have advertisements beamed up into the night sky?</p>
<p>Headphones are an attempt to avoid the homogenization of the "rock musak blaring from the doorways of specialized leisurewear chains." Is it not the desire to escape the vulgar commercialism of our advert culture that drives us to block out it's monotony? To seek something meaningful in one of the most intimately and meaningful realms—music. To interject back the danger that once lurked outside the burlesque theaters and dance halls that seem to have closed just after Henry and June snuck out the back door.</p>
<h3>The New (Old) Danger</h3>
<p>The problem with the iPod for these authors seems to lie in the shutting off of the public space in favor of the personal. As I've already pointed out we the public are losing our collective spaces (have lost?) to far more than the iPod. But, setting aside larger cultural issues like promiscuous advertising, what of the iPod's privatization of public space as these authors claim?</p>
<p>Neither author gives any kind of reason as to why this is bad. They both get abstract and use the iPod as jumping off point for larger concerns. Starting with Mr Sullivan who sees in the iPod the loss of, call it respect for music.</p><blockquote>Music was once the preserve of the living room or the concert hall. It was sometimes solitary but it was primarily a shared experience, something that brought people together, gave them the comfort of knowing that others too understood the pleasure of a Brahms symphony or that Beatles album.<br/><cite>-Andrew Sullivan</cite></blockquote>
<p>I don't know about you, but the music I listen to was never welcome in the living room I grew up in. For some reason, my parents failed to relate to or appreciate <strong>License to Ill</strong> or <strong>Nothing's Shocking</strong>. Mr. Sullivan seems to think 'once upon a time' music was confined to the space where we expect it and now, good god, now it's everywhere and no one is sharing or bonding over it. I for one would much rather everyone carried around a pair of speakers with their iPod and blasted them at 11 so music became a truly public space. But apparently I am alone in this desire and there are noise ordinances against this sort of thing. (If this notion intrigues you check out some of the Flaming Lips' experiments with hundreds of simultaneous playbacks to form textures of sound).</p>
<p>Typical of a web essays, Sullivan is really just aping statements made a generation earlier in response to the iPod's predecessor, the Walkman. Far more reasoned and persuasive (and lengthy) is Christine Rosen's piece in <strong><a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/" title="A journal of Society and Technology">The New Atlantis</a></strong>. As Rosen relates in her essay:</p><blockquote>Music columnist Norman Lebrecht argued, "No invention in my lifetime has so changed an art and cheapened it as the Sony Walkman." By removing music from its context—in the performance hall or the private home—and making it portable, the Walkman made music banal. "It becomes a utility, undeserving of more attention than drinking water from a tap." <br/><cite>-Christine Rosen</cite></blockquote>
<p>I suppose that's one way to look at it. If you swapped "iPod" and "Sony Walkman" for "radio" I might somewhat agree with both statements. But as it is, recorded music has never had a context. It has always existed in the abstract space of our heads more than any temporal location. We are not in the room as it as the music is played we get only an abstracted representation of the music. Recorded music has never been containable, just crank your speakers and enlighten the neighbors. </p>
<p>The notion that music (especially recorded music) has a natural space where it belongs is counter to waht it is—music located outside any temporal location. And if you are worried about the narrowing of public space, locking music up in the private space is not an argument against iPods. It's a safe way to avoid the issue, but it undercuts the other arguement, that personal space is invading public space. Let me get this straight. Headphones are narrowing our public cultural space, but music (in said headphones) ought to remain private space? So the problem then is not the music, but the space we occupy while we listen to it? </p>
<p>I for one don't think music should be consigned to where we feel safe with it. Music is not safe. It should not be relegated to the living room or the concert hall, it should be played in the streets at top volume until the sky really does shudder and crumble. But that option has already been taken away by noise ordinances. So we have gone internal, put the speaker directly in our ear.</p>
<p>If anything changes with headphones it's the attention devoted to the music. Music coming from speakers has a directional vector. It approaches you from some point and is blatantly external to the listener. Put on a decent pair of headphones and the music becomes omnidirectional and you are enveloped in it. Close your eyes and you can swim through it and pick out tiny bits of sound that you would never notice coming from an external speaker. For the listener on headphones the experience is both more intimate and more consuming than music from a living room stereo or even a concert hall stage.</p>
<p>As for the lose of public culture to personal headphone cocoon, is not the mere recognition of white earbuds itself a form of cultural interaction? Even if it be only a nod and smile, is this not even closer to the truth of life, the mystery unfathomed but acknowledged? I know how you feel the nod says and it is good speaketh the smile. </p>
<h3>Its All Around You</h3>
<p>Neither Sullivan nor Naughton is content with the iPod as harbinger of doom, the end of social space, the isolationist future of automatons. Yawn. No, it does not stop there, this is the slippery slope down which we all slide into communism and cannibalism and dem russians and dem russians and dem earbuds and dem earbuds and dem dem, damnit the sky is falling why don't you see it? Rosen at least has a more reasoned argument that might actually be on to something.</p>
<p>She believes that the personalization of media is leading to a narrowing of experience. That's a legitimate fear, one that I don't agree with, but legitimate nonetheless. The other two articles in question just use the iPod as evidence of a larger crumbling that is, rather suspiciously, never clearly delineated.</p>
<p>Mr. Naughton in the Guardian article sounds a bit like Wordsworth calling us all back to the countryside. he even goes so far as to stake his critique partly on recently uncovered Edwardian era documentary films. These movies he claims reveal a society where,</p><blockquote>Men raise their hats to women; people stop to talk; groups congregate at junctions and street corners. The clear implication is that, for Edwardians, being out in public meant being on display and being sociable. It meant paying attention to what was going on around you, and acknowledging the existence of others.</blockquote>
<p>Beware all calls for a return to past glories. Assuming for a moment that people act naturally in front of a camera and that they weren't in fact congregating to discuss the weirdos at the end of street pointing lens at everyone, so the Edwardians were more self-consciously aware when out in public. Does that make them role models of public behavior? They were also more elitist, racist, and classist as well; should we emulate those behaviors too while we're out for a Sunday stroll?</p>
<p>In researching this little piece I found several nice rebuttals to Sullivan's piece. The best of which is by a man named Jerry Stratton in an essay entitled <strong><a href="http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=92" title="society never ends, it just fades away">society never ends, it just fades away</a></strong>. Stratton rightly cuts past the iPod intro of Sullivan's article and addresses what Sullivan really wants to talk about.</p><blockquote>His most worthwhile observation was that iPod users sometimes accidentally break out into out-of-tune singing to whatever is on their pod. But he seems to think that it's bad, whereas I stand with Joni Mitchell that the more out-of-tune voices, the better. And that's the real point of Andrew's editorial. The proliferation of multiple viewpoints runs the risk of isolating individuals so that they hear only the viewpoints that they want to hear. We as individuals need more out-of-tune voices. <br/><cite>-Jerry Stratton</cite></blockquote>
<p>This is also Rosen's concern in both of her essays, that our means of consuming information (for her the mirro, remote control, TiVo, and iPod) are narrowing our exposure to new ideas. By meticulously selecting content that we already know we like we are even less likely to discover the new stuff. Couple this with "smart" search algorithms that pick recommendations based on what we already like and our chances of encountering the shocking, the challenging or the potentially enlightening approach nil according to Rosen. Without these sorts of jarring, chance encounters with the unknown we cease to think outside ourselves. This may well be true, but it's always been true. Conservative viewers are more likely to tune into Fox news because it fits their pre-existing worldview. Liberals read the the New York Times and watch Woody Allen movies. This is nothing new. It has always taken conscious effort to find viewpoints outside your own reality tunnel of beliefs.</p>
<p>I fail to see anyway in which the iPod contributes to this trend. In fact it may well go against it if only by virtue of its ubiquity. On college campuses for instance many students swap headphones to see what the other is listening to. The iPod's ease of use and the easy availability of mp3s make exploring new music simple—hear a band on someone's headphones, go home and fire up a torrent search, grab the album, slap it on your iPod and be enlightened. Illegal? Certainly. Potentially life enriching? Certainly.</p>
<h3>No Alarms and No Surprises</h3>
<p>When you come down to it, how is the iPod any different from other music devices that use headphones? It's not. It's just the latest harbinger on the chopping block if we mash our metaphors for a moment.</p>
<p>At the same time, the targeted nature of new modes of consumption do raise some issues for thought. Are narrowly targeted ads (i.e. users who bought x also bought y...) constricting our exposure to the unfamiliar? Maybe, but as illustrated earlier there has always been a tendency to seek the familiar, the safe, the comfortable, the expected. </p>
<p>But even that doesn't always happen. The gravity of this potential danger, if we may call it that, that comes from targeted advertising depends greatly on the realm in which occurs. If we are talking about the realm of politics then this kind of marsupial burrowing is decidedly bad. If you bought Bill O'Reilly's book (presumably he has one) and the suggested "you might like..." stuff is more of the same, then yes your worldview remains narrow. But in the realm of art where the political statement is often less overt, less likely to be partisan, more likely to be complicated and often not there at all, then the suggestion might be welcome and can lead one far from the sources that suggested it.</p>
<p>For example let's say you really like Jay-Z and so when the new album comes out you pre-order it on Amazon.com. The "you might like..." screen claims that people who like Jay-Z have also purchased Outkast. So you figure, what the hell I'll pick up this Outkast album. Turns out that those who purchased Outkast also bought both Stevie Wonder and Sun Ra. Hey, why not? You buy them too. If you're a fan of Jay-Z but have never ventured into Sun Ra territory, well, you're about to blow your mind.</p>
<p>In my own experience, I find that I tend to read books that mention other books. So I read the other books and maybe they mention some other books and on it goes. I don't see a significant difference between that and the Amazon suggestions. Or potentially TiVo's suggestions or any other targeted marketing. In the realm of the arts nothing is so much the same that it cannot lead to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation" title="Theory of Six Degrees of Separation">something ever more different</a>.</p>
<p>It seems that to a certain extent the authors in question here are specifically concerned with the potential narrowing of political capital, which is a concern given that democracy depend on the existence of a multitude of voices. Are we losing that? Well that's a larger question and one that does not necessarily relate to remote controls, TiVo or the iPod.</p>
<h3>You Were Wrong When You Said Everything's Gonna Be All Right</h3>
<p>Though it is odd I would say such a thing, it almost seems to me that all three of these articles smack of a bit of leftist sentimentality. After all isn't it the video-game-addicted, pill-popping future parents of America that are somehow responsible for this political mess we find ourselves in? Isn't their apathy the very thing that has gotten us eight years of GWB and friends? If they just took the headphones out of their ears, put down the remote, turned off the television and read a couple of books none of this would have happened right? Nice dream, nice dream... </p>
<p>In fact this notion of iPod=evil represents the same simplistic thinking that has landed us here in Dubya land in the first place. If easy prescriptions worked to solve our problems we wouldn't have the reactionary mess we have. And I don't mean that in partisan terms. I think we can all agree that America is somewhat of a mess right now. I don't think one political party or the other is as fault. We are all culpable. And we are all looking for solutions. </p>
<p>I don't believe in the techno-utopist future of completely wired life and peace through blogging, but I also don't believe in the techno-dystopist future where we all unplug and discover our heartfelt love and meet in central park for an earbud-free hug-a-thon. Reality is much more complex and to avoid it authors like Sullivan resort to cheap, easy sentimentality.</p><blockquote>but what are we missing? That hilarious shard of an overheard conversation that stays with you all day; the child whose chatter on the pavement takes you back to your early memories; birdsong; weather; accents; the laughter of others.<br/><cite>-Andrew Sullivan</cite></blockquote>
<p>A lovely piece of sentimentality, it almost makes me want to take out these headphones and listen to the silence of the house. But as Wallace Stevens' said "sentimentality is a failure of feeling." Sentimentality is false feeling, pseudo-feeling and affectation. And Mr. Sullivan's quote above is the most embarrassing episode of mindless sentimentality I can think of right now. It fails to account for all kinds of complexity and depth ever-present in our lives.</p>
<p>Sentimentality is the easy answer: the birds, the laughter, the children (followed shortly by the the bullshit, the bullshit, the vomit, the vomit). Real feeling involves complexity, it rejects the simple. To realize that there is more to it than unplugging, more to it than any technology, more to it than a sound bite you can pass off as heartfelt—that is actually the very essence of the problem: the failure to engage your surroundings as anything other than a simplistic snapshot of what you wanted to see. Does Sullivan acknowledge the ugliness? Never. He skips right over it and tells you what you wanted to hear. Sullivan's sentimentality does the very thing he accuses the iPod of doing—he narrows your reality. Never for a second does Sullivan acknowledge that the birds might be endangered, headed for extinction, that the weather might be worsening with global warming, that the laughter of others might well be cynical and cheap or that the children are living below the poverty line, abused etc, etc. This the same sort of narcissistic thinking (I am observing, where the emphasis on I and observe is equal) that gave us romanticism, is it any wonder that these authors look too fondly at the Edwardians? Everything looks good from the lazy middle class intellectual point of view. Edit out the things you don't like and you too can narrow your reality to the point of irrelevancy.</p>
<p>Please do not mistake me for a cynic though. I use this example merely to acknowledge that there are things below the surface that we can happily ignore if we are constructing the world to our own desires rather than recognizing the complexity that is inherent in it. </p>
<h3>...And I Feel Fine</h3>
<p>Perhaps the problem with the iPod is so ephemeral it's slipping through our fingers. Perhaps there is no problem with the iPod. No harm in headphones. No danger to run from save the desire to have a new danger to run from, a new evil to fight because the real one is just too big to tackle, a new threat to declare war on because the old one just bores us to death, a new something to rage against because the dying of the light seems inevitable and unvanquishable. Perhaps the new danger, same as the old, is our own failure, our own sentimentality that show us the world not as it is but as we wish to see it.</p>
<p>At the same time I encourage everyone to, as Robert Anton Wilson often suggested, change reality tunnels. Point your RSS reader to sites with viewpoints you don't share, something outside your belief system, something you might even consider crazy. Listen to what these viewpoints are saying and think critically about why you do or don't agree with them. There has never (not even yesterday) been a day in the history of humankind when you have had so much information at your finger tips. Take advantage of that and see where it leads you—hopefully where you least expected.</p>
</div>
</article>
</main>
</body>
</html>
|
