deZengotita says that kids today aren't apathetic, they're just "ironically distanced." Hence we do nothing because we know we can't change anything and so why exert the energy? But Is there something else?
Take for instance how is it so easy for most people to imagine the end of the world. This may be in the form of global warming, catastrophic natural disasters, deadly diseases— so why is it so difficult for them to imagine a much less radical change in the way our world currently works? A shift in the economic world relations of today- a shift from global capitalism?
Slavoj Zizek summed it up by saying:
"A couple of decades ago, people were still discussing the political future of humanity - will capitalism prevail or will it be supplanted by Communism or another form of 'totalitarianism'? — while silently accepting that, somehow, social life would continue. Today, we can easily imagine the extinction of the human race, but it is impossible to imagine a radical change of the social system — even if life on earth disappears, capitalism will somehow remain intact. In this situation, disappointed Leftists, who are convinced that radical change of the existing liberal-democratic capitalist system is no longer possible, but who are unable to renounce their passionate attachment to global change, invest their excess of political energy in an abstract and excessively rigid moralising stance."
Mainstream media/politics/A-MUUR-ica wants us to think we have no power against it. We can't just go along being its bitch. We gotsta do something.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
To Save the World from the Comfort of One's Home Through Advertisement and the Simple Projection of One's Own "Values"
This sums up so much...
Banksy is my hero.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Of Music and Morals, Or, A Shameless Pitch for Kickball, Typhoon, Andrew Bird, and The Arcade Fire
“I write songs about what I cannot draw, and I draw what I can’t write songs about.” -Devandra Banhart
Dear ol' deZengotita won back my affections (after having completely lost them during his rant about children's books) as he began to analize music and why it is so important. He eloquently summed up why people connect via music more so than by any other means (explaining this by saying that friends can disagree on almost any topic, except for music... and humor, which has elements of music in it).
For a while I've been trying to write about and pinpoint the feeling of why it is that you feel so much closer to someone who loves the same music as you. This is after realizing through many random examples that I feel closer to and have more respect for people that share my music affections, (even when we otherwise have pretty much nothing in common,) even more so than: other thespians, outdoor school kids, and even fellow socialists (the last one's less so than the former examples, but still.)
And so as dZ explained what the Greeks realized, I saw that my struggle for words was not simply futile, but there was something there that'd I'd been trying to grasp for a while. Here's what I'd come up with:
--"Although it’s not openly discussed, there is a certain connection attained amongst a group of people that have gone through such a soul-opening experience as an intense, close up live show. There is a sort of quiet recognition that they all now share something, some common understanding of a truth that was reached just moments ago, and they all saw it. There is an air of common respect and peace in the room so that even a person who before would have had no reason to take the time to notice another, now sees them as almost an extension of themselves, as if the air coming through the trumpet on stage had some magical power to open people up. Part of this is because everyone inside knows that what just happened will be lost in translation to the outer world, and it is only these people here who will ever understand this other state where the only emotion is the music.
..."I’ve found this especially true at certain live shows. With some bands I feel such a strong connection to them, and something so strong yet unexplainable that I become entirely unaware of what’s around me and purely focused on the music, as if that’s the only real truth, the only thing that can communicate anything, the only thing that does and ever will matter. For example, while standing feet away from Andrew Bird, just taking in his voice and his inhuman whistling (that shouldn’t even be called whistling, but that’s the closest thing there is that we have a name for) I felt choked up and just in another state where the only emotion is the music. This relates to the state of being at a live version of the anthemic “Neighborhood #1: Tunnels” by the Arcade Fire, and just feeling so connected to the one song that it takes over all your feelings. I guess this is why I feel like there is a sort of higher understanding between people that truly listen to and seem to “understand” certain music, because you realize that there must be something either about the person in the first place, or that the music has opened up, that they must have inside of them in order to appreciate it.
..."I love it when there’s something about the music that feels much bigger than you, and bigger than the people playing it- like it’s transposing the emotions of an entire era, or an entire group of people. Often these types of songs seem to have a sort of tribal, native, feel. This is especially noticeable when it is either purely instrumental or there aren’t words that are understandable, yet the music has a feeling that is so strong that you feel a need to move with it, sometimes even cry. I’m particularly thinking of Typhoon’s “So Passes Away the Glory of the World,” a song which starts out with a slow, deep, soul-wrenching chanting of the line “Sic transit… Gloria mundi,” Latin for the above mentioned title of the song.
..."What draws me in to the band Kickball is the singer’s voice. The way he sings makes it seem like every word is painful, and getting choked out of him- making each word extremely valuable but also hard to listen to. There is something as well about Typhoon’s main singer, but it’s different than the way Kickball pounds every word into your soul."
dZ clarifies that I'm not entirely crazy, that in fact certain ancient Greeks linked music and morals closely, because with music being the one form of media that is actually real as opposed to representation, it "blends with emotion, becomes emotion-- or "passion" as they used to say."
He says that the reason for this superior ability to connect is because "music takes hold of you on levels of your being that precede intentional articulation, levels of being that CONTAIN what you can put into words."
Having written about this, I now have more respect for dZ, as cocky as he may be.
Dear ol' deZengotita won back my affections (after having completely lost them during his rant about children's books) as he began to analize music and why it is so important. He eloquently summed up why people connect via music more so than by any other means (explaining this by saying that friends can disagree on almost any topic, except for music... and humor, which has elements of music in it).
For a while I've been trying to write about and pinpoint the feeling of why it is that you feel so much closer to someone who loves the same music as you. This is after realizing through many random examples that I feel closer to and have more respect for people that share my music affections, (even when we otherwise have pretty much nothing in common,) even more so than: other thespians, outdoor school kids, and even fellow socialists (the last one's less so than the former examples, but still.)
And so as dZ explained what the Greeks realized, I saw that my struggle for words was not simply futile, but there was something there that'd I'd been trying to grasp for a while. Here's what I'd come up with:
--"Although it’s not openly discussed, there is a certain connection attained amongst a group of people that have gone through such a soul-opening experience as an intense, close up live show. There is a sort of quiet recognition that they all now share something, some common understanding of a truth that was reached just moments ago, and they all saw it. There is an air of common respect and peace in the room so that even a person who before would have had no reason to take the time to notice another, now sees them as almost an extension of themselves, as if the air coming through the trumpet on stage had some magical power to open people up. Part of this is because everyone inside knows that what just happened will be lost in translation to the outer world, and it is only these people here who will ever understand this other state where the only emotion is the music.
..."I’ve found this especially true at certain live shows. With some bands I feel such a strong connection to them, and something so strong yet unexplainable that I become entirely unaware of what’s around me and purely focused on the music, as if that’s the only real truth, the only thing that can communicate anything, the only thing that does and ever will matter. For example, while standing feet away from Andrew Bird, just taking in his voice and his inhuman whistling (that shouldn’t even be called whistling, but that’s the closest thing there is that we have a name for) I felt choked up and just in another state where the only emotion is the music. This relates to the state of being at a live version of the anthemic “Neighborhood #1: Tunnels” by the Arcade Fire, and just feeling so connected to the one song that it takes over all your feelings. I guess this is why I feel like there is a sort of higher understanding between people that truly listen to and seem to “understand” certain music, because you realize that there must be something either about the person in the first place, or that the music has opened up, that they must have inside of them in order to appreciate it.
..."I love it when there’s something about the music that feels much bigger than you, and bigger than the people playing it- like it’s transposing the emotions of an entire era, or an entire group of people. Often these types of songs seem to have a sort of tribal, native, feel. This is especially noticeable when it is either purely instrumental or there aren’t words that are understandable, yet the music has a feeling that is so strong that you feel a need to move with it, sometimes even cry. I’m particularly thinking of Typhoon’s “So Passes Away the Glory of the World,” a song which starts out with a slow, deep, soul-wrenching chanting of the line “Sic transit… Gloria mundi,” Latin for the above mentioned title of the song.
..."What draws me in to the band Kickball is the singer’s voice. The way he sings makes it seem like every word is painful, and getting choked out of him- making each word extremely valuable but also hard to listen to. There is something as well about Typhoon’s main singer, but it’s different than the way Kickball pounds every word into your soul."
dZ clarifies that I'm not entirely crazy, that in fact certain ancient Greeks linked music and morals closely, because with music being the one form of media that is actually real as opposed to representation, it "blends with emotion, becomes emotion-- or "passion" as they used to say."
He says that the reason for this superior ability to connect is because "music takes hold of you on levels of your being that precede intentional articulation, levels of being that CONTAIN what you can put into words."
Having written about this, I now have more respect for dZ, as cocky as he may be.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
We Want Sexy
"Stop the Genocide in Sudan."
You've probably seen a lot of these shirts, especially if you're from Portland. What about "Stop the Genocide in Iraq." ? No? Now think about it... which country do you think we could actually make a difference in... In which one are WE the problem in the first place? Are we going to go in and "fix" Sudan? Just like we "fixed" the Philippine Islands, and we "fixed" Chile, and we are currently "fixing" Iraq?
Oh... right.
Think about it- there aren't any activist groups, anti-war groups, or Iraq-education groups at Lincoln. But there has been a major assembly on the genocide of Sudan, and tomorrow we're bringing in money to help Darfur. Now don't get me wrong- it's not that I don't care about Africa and the genocide of millions of innocent people; I think it's horrible. In fact it's currently the second largest slaughter taking place in the world.
And the first largest is happening at the hands of Americans.
So why do we put so much thought and care into "Helping Darfur" and yet nearly nothing into the war that our own country is involved in?
Because Darfur is the sexier issue.
It's much more appealing to think about feeding starving children and building shelters and saving women from rape- all stuff we can do from here at home with just a few dead presidents, but it's a pretty ugly thought that our government- our entire country could be doing evil RIGHT NOW and devastating an entire country for no good reason (except our own greed).
And part of this is the media. I mean, the last thing Big Corporations want you to do is make a stand against what the head honchos up in D.C. are doing everyday. So they redirect our care (and our hearts) to Sudan, where they know that we can't make a difference. Seriously- If we can't stop our own governmental crazies from killing innocent civilians, how are we going to stop another country's crazies from doing the same? OUR EFFORTS ARE MISGUIDED. If we focused instead, first on things that we actually could and should affect, and the people that the evil-doers are supposedly representing. Then maybe we could work on Saving Darfur.
You've probably seen a lot of these shirts, especially if you're from Portland. What about "Stop the Genocide in Iraq." ? No? Now think about it... which country do you think we could actually make a difference in... In which one are WE the problem in the first place? Are we going to go in and "fix" Sudan? Just like we "fixed" the Philippine Islands, and we "fixed" Chile, and we are currently "fixing" Iraq?
Oh... right.
Think about it- there aren't any activist groups, anti-war groups, or Iraq-education groups at Lincoln. But there has been a major assembly on the genocide of Sudan, and tomorrow we're bringing in money to help Darfur. Now don't get me wrong- it's not that I don't care about Africa and the genocide of millions of innocent people; I think it's horrible. In fact it's currently the second largest slaughter taking place in the world.
And the first largest is happening at the hands of Americans.
So why do we put so much thought and care into "Helping Darfur" and yet nearly nothing into the war that our own country is involved in?
Because Darfur is the sexier issue.
It's much more appealing to think about feeding starving children and building shelters and saving women from rape- all stuff we can do from here at home with just a few dead presidents, but it's a pretty ugly thought that our government- our entire country could be doing evil RIGHT NOW and devastating an entire country for no good reason (except our own greed).
And part of this is the media. I mean, the last thing Big Corporations want you to do is make a stand against what the head honchos up in D.C. are doing everyday. So they redirect our care (and our hearts) to Sudan, where they know that we can't make a difference. Seriously- If we can't stop our own governmental crazies from killing innocent civilians, how are we going to stop another country's crazies from doing the same? OUR EFFORTS ARE MISGUIDED. If we focused instead, first on things that we actually could and should affect, and the people that the evil-doers are supposedly representing. Then maybe we could work on Saving Darfur.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Postmod's Dilemma
Or, Is Pop Culture Out to Get You?
Even if you're not aware of it now, Pop Culture may some day turn against you. Sure, it can be your best friend if you are just stoked about following the crowd like a bunch of desperate cattle, focused on not being separated from the herd, but if you are the type to enjoy having an original thought, who enjoys having the potential to be classified as 'different,' then Pop Culture can be your worst enemy.
There was once a Lizzie McGuire episode where Gordo started liking Big Band, and liked the fact that he was the only one to like it. Then it became popular, and whereas he had taken the effort to learn every single minute detail and aspect about his hobby, many of the new followers knew nothing and had just had jumped upon the bandwagon to be cool. However, from just a glimpse, no one would be able to tell if Gordo had originally started the entire trend or if he had just hitched a ride aside the others to be admired as “in.” He did not want to run that risk of being misjudged, and so decided that the safest way out would be to ditch his original true love and go in search of a substitute passion. However, he never became truly happy, and by the end of the episode, Gordo and the viewer learned that the most important thing is to be true to yourself and stick with what it is that you love, no matter what other people are doing.
A 22-minute show gave a short and sweet answer to the ultimate question that has stumped rebels and indie kids for centuries. What to do if your proverbial non-beaten path becomes trampled by the masses? It is an all too common scenario: you start off liking something simply because you think it is likeable. Then Pop Culture establishes that you shouldn’t like it, and that “no one” likes that thing, so you take pride in being different and “against the crowd,” embracing this idea of being a rebel. This then evolves into becoming part of the reason why you even like the thing in the first place. Then in a flash, your prestigious amigo, Pop Culture, turns on you, making “your” thing an overnight sensation that “everyone” desperately wants to be a part of. When Pop Culture had been your friend in the beginning, aiding you in being unique, it has now turned against you, leaving you under its loom, worried that it will follow whatever step you take, only steps behind. What to do? Run away and find something else with the potential threat of being chased by Pop Culture in a vicious cycle? Is that just giving in to it? Or stay where you are, trampled on by crowds of desperadoes wanting to be cool, and sucking the life out of you?
There are two ways in which this can be played out: One is the shallow aspect. Clothing, phrases, lingoes, celebrity crushes... In these cases it is best to find a new something to latch onto in order to be unique. However, on a deeper level, there are books and music. In this case, ditching your passion is like taking poison and waiting for the enemy to die. It will do no good to anyone to give up what you found and love just because other have too, and it will just leave you feeling empty.
An example of something shallow and thus the questionability of latching onto it, is clothing. More specifically, sequin belts. One of my Value-Village-scouting compadres and I had found amazing sequined belts on one of our rummaging endeavors. We thought that they were so incredibly hilarious and out-there that we decided that we had to have them, (also for just about a dollar each why not?) Months later, however, they mysteriously became the new trend, being sold at stores like Forever 21 and Urban Outfitters. Now everybody who at least thought they were an “anybody” had a sequined belt just because they wanted to latch on to the hot new “it” item. My friend and I were stuck, not wanting to look like we just had the belts simply to make ourselves feel popular, but still wanting to show off our rummage finds. The problem with a subject as shallow as clothing, is that it is easy to be judged solely and quickly just on appearance and then not thought much of, so there is a great potential for being tossed into the category of a “follower.” Once everybody is wearing the same thing, no one cares about who bought it first, or who paid what for it, but only about the phenomenon of a bunch of monkeys all doing the same thing.
You are faced with the dilemma of deciding whether you should just find a new thing that no one likes, but with the potential of starting a vicious cycle and being chased by Pop Culture, or saying that you like the thing enough that it doesn't matter who else shares that same opinion. If you don’t want to give into the image-establishing potential of this type of scenario, the best way to win is to either simply surrender, and go off to find a new thing, or lay low for a while until the trend hits its peak, causing it to fall and mellow down, letting you resume back up again once the fad has faded everyone’s mind.
A problem with sticking is that people don't believe you were an “original” (the afore-mentioned Gordo’s fear,) which is just a weird ego-trip anyway, and so you look like another shallow follower newbie just trying to be cool. Should you keep the old thing but also add on a new thing so you still have a unique aspect? This might be a good idea with a band, but not with a belt or a celebrity crush.
For years I had had an obsession with the stars Jimmy Fallon and Adrien Brody, at a time when most people didn't even know who they were. When my friends eventually realized whom I had been talking about, they had the “voice of the media” inside their heads, telling them that no one would like those people, and that Adrien has a big nose, therefore is ugly, so no one should like him. As the child that I was, I embraced the fact that my friends thought I was strange, making me like my minor obsessions even more.
Then one sad day, Jimmy Fallon came out with his Redsocks movie. Any one who had questioned his stance before was now sucked in by the hype of “now,” and media. The day my friends began talking about him I was forced to make the decision that he would be dead to me (which I could afford because I still had Adrien Brody.)
For a while my friends still classified my tastes as odd and all was alright, until the dreaded day they saw the movie, ‘King Kong.’ “Hey, you were right- he is pretty cute!” –“NOOOOO!!!,” I screamed, and fell to my knees on the floor, having lost what I had before been clinging onto.
I realize that this is a sort of selfish rule with myself, but it’s not necessarily that I’m saying no one else can like the things that I like- just that I would rather like something that is unknown to the masses. This is an example of a shallow scenario because there is no real issue that you can get into involving a celebrity crush. It might make you feel happy, but ultimately you will probably get nothing out of it, so why not move on and find something new?
However, when it comes to music, if you ditch what you love simply because other people get into it, you could be missing something. Before the O.C. came out, there was a select Shins and Death Cab for Cutie fan base, proud that they had found the music on their own. They liked the music, and also the fact that no one else knew who this band was, making them part of an elite music crowd. Then the O.C. came out, automatically labeling these bands as “cool” and the “hip new thing.” Now there were a bunch of new fans who knew next to nothing of what they were following, making the original fans feel robbed.
The originals could have gone on to find their own new thing that T.V. had not popularized, but then they would have been missing out on the music they liked. Music isn’t superficial in the same way that clothing is, because just by looking at a person you can’t tell what they spend their time listening to. Because of this, if you forced yourself to wean yourself away from what made you happy in order to maintain your selfish pride, no one else would even notice your conscious effort, and it would just leave you feeling empty. Besides, in your heart you could still know that you were an original and that you don’t just fall into the same category as all of the bandwagon ride-hitchers.
I guess it all comes down to having to ask yourself what you like more: the fact that you like the thing, or the actually thing. Then, depending on your true answer you can decide if it would be a bigger benefit to you to find something new, because that is the real thrill, or if you must just stay with what you love, because you love it. I know that I will keep listening to The Shins and Death Cab for Cutie no matter what other people make of it, but I just might have to find someone knew and unfamiliar to croon over. Michael Angarano anyone?
Even if you're not aware of it now, Pop Culture may some day turn against you. Sure, it can be your best friend if you are just stoked about following the crowd like a bunch of desperate cattle, focused on not being separated from the herd, but if you are the type to enjoy having an original thought, who enjoys having the potential to be classified as 'different,' then Pop Culture can be your worst enemy.
There was once a Lizzie McGuire episode where Gordo started liking Big Band, and liked the fact that he was the only one to like it. Then it became popular, and whereas he had taken the effort to learn every single minute detail and aspect about his hobby, many of the new followers knew nothing and had just had jumped upon the bandwagon to be cool. However, from just a glimpse, no one would be able to tell if Gordo had originally started the entire trend or if he had just hitched a ride aside the others to be admired as “in.” He did not want to run that risk of being misjudged, and so decided that the safest way out would be to ditch his original true love and go in search of a substitute passion. However, he never became truly happy, and by the end of the episode, Gordo and the viewer learned that the most important thing is to be true to yourself and stick with what it is that you love, no matter what other people are doing.
A 22-minute show gave a short and sweet answer to the ultimate question that has stumped rebels and indie kids for centuries. What to do if your proverbial non-beaten path becomes trampled by the masses? It is an all too common scenario: you start off liking something simply because you think it is likeable. Then Pop Culture establishes that you shouldn’t like it, and that “no one” likes that thing, so you take pride in being different and “against the crowd,” embracing this idea of being a rebel. This then evolves into becoming part of the reason why you even like the thing in the first place. Then in a flash, your prestigious amigo, Pop Culture, turns on you, making “your” thing an overnight sensation that “everyone” desperately wants to be a part of. When Pop Culture had been your friend in the beginning, aiding you in being unique, it has now turned against you, leaving you under its loom, worried that it will follow whatever step you take, only steps behind. What to do? Run away and find something else with the potential threat of being chased by Pop Culture in a vicious cycle? Is that just giving in to it? Or stay where you are, trampled on by crowds of desperadoes wanting to be cool, and sucking the life out of you?
There are two ways in which this can be played out: One is the shallow aspect. Clothing, phrases, lingoes, celebrity crushes... In these cases it is best to find a new something to latch onto in order to be unique. However, on a deeper level, there are books and music. In this case, ditching your passion is like taking poison and waiting for the enemy to die. It will do no good to anyone to give up what you found and love just because other have too, and it will just leave you feeling empty.
An example of something shallow and thus the questionability of latching onto it, is clothing. More specifically, sequin belts. One of my Value-Village-scouting compadres and I had found amazing sequined belts on one of our rummaging endeavors. We thought that they were so incredibly hilarious and out-there that we decided that we had to have them, (also for just about a dollar each why not?) Months later, however, they mysteriously became the new trend, being sold at stores like Forever 21 and Urban Outfitters. Now everybody who at least thought they were an “anybody” had a sequined belt just because they wanted to latch on to the hot new “it” item. My friend and I were stuck, not wanting to look like we just had the belts simply to make ourselves feel popular, but still wanting to show off our rummage finds. The problem with a subject as shallow as clothing, is that it is easy to be judged solely and quickly just on appearance and then not thought much of, so there is a great potential for being tossed into the category of a “follower.” Once everybody is wearing the same thing, no one cares about who bought it first, or who paid what for it, but only about the phenomenon of a bunch of monkeys all doing the same thing.
You are faced with the dilemma of deciding whether you should just find a new thing that no one likes, but with the potential of starting a vicious cycle and being chased by Pop Culture, or saying that you like the thing enough that it doesn't matter who else shares that same opinion. If you don’t want to give into the image-establishing potential of this type of scenario, the best way to win is to either simply surrender, and go off to find a new thing, or lay low for a while until the trend hits its peak, causing it to fall and mellow down, letting you resume back up again once the fad has faded everyone’s mind.
A problem with sticking is that people don't believe you were an “original” (the afore-mentioned Gordo’s fear,) which is just a weird ego-trip anyway, and so you look like another shallow follower newbie just trying to be cool. Should you keep the old thing but also add on a new thing so you still have a unique aspect? This might be a good idea with a band, but not with a belt or a celebrity crush.
For years I had had an obsession with the stars Jimmy Fallon and Adrien Brody, at a time when most people didn't even know who they were. When my friends eventually realized whom I had been talking about, they had the “voice of the media” inside their heads, telling them that no one would like those people, and that Adrien has a big nose, therefore is ugly, so no one should like him. As the child that I was, I embraced the fact that my friends thought I was strange, making me like my minor obsessions even more.
Then one sad day, Jimmy Fallon came out with his Redsocks movie. Any one who had questioned his stance before was now sucked in by the hype of “now,” and media. The day my friends began talking about him I was forced to make the decision that he would be dead to me (which I could afford because I still had Adrien Brody.)
For a while my friends still classified my tastes as odd and all was alright, until the dreaded day they saw the movie, ‘King Kong.’ “Hey, you were right- he is pretty cute!” –“NOOOOO!!!,” I screamed, and fell to my knees on the floor, having lost what I had before been clinging onto.
I realize that this is a sort of selfish rule with myself, but it’s not necessarily that I’m saying no one else can like the things that I like- just that I would rather like something that is unknown to the masses. This is an example of a shallow scenario because there is no real issue that you can get into involving a celebrity crush. It might make you feel happy, but ultimately you will probably get nothing out of it, so why not move on and find something new?
However, when it comes to music, if you ditch what you love simply because other people get into it, you could be missing something. Before the O.C. came out, there was a select Shins and Death Cab for Cutie fan base, proud that they had found the music on their own. They liked the music, and also the fact that no one else knew who this band was, making them part of an elite music crowd. Then the O.C. came out, automatically labeling these bands as “cool” and the “hip new thing.” Now there were a bunch of new fans who knew next to nothing of what they were following, making the original fans feel robbed.
The originals could have gone on to find their own new thing that T.V. had not popularized, but then they would have been missing out on the music they liked. Music isn’t superficial in the same way that clothing is, because just by looking at a person you can’t tell what they spend their time listening to. Because of this, if you forced yourself to wean yourself away from what made you happy in order to maintain your selfish pride, no one else would even notice your conscious effort, and it would just leave you feeling empty. Besides, in your heart you could still know that you were an original and that you don’t just fall into the same category as all of the bandwagon ride-hitchers.
I guess it all comes down to having to ask yourself what you like more: the fact that you like the thing, or the actually thing. Then, depending on your true answer you can decide if it would be a bigger benefit to you to find something new, because that is the real thrill, or if you must just stay with what you love, because you love it. I know that I will keep listening to The Shins and Death Cab for Cutie no matter what other people make of it, but I just might have to find someone knew and unfamiliar to croon over. Michael Angarano anyone?
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Revolution Will Not Use Facebook... (or will it?)
So I've been thinking a lot about and trying to figure out why it is that the majority of students today seem pretty passive about major political/environmental/world issues. Now you may say that it's covered in deZengotita, that it's all part of being flooded with so much information, so much trauma, that the only way to survive is to tune it out, become apathetic, so that you aren't constantly emotionally breaking down and becoming demoralized.
But I think it actually has a lot to do with technology.
For instance, in the 60's, during a war and much political travesties, there was much student activism. Sit-ins and demonstrations were the norm. In Berkeley, students were getting organized and dealing with the administration and the police, fighting for what they knew was right, getting masses of people to do something (for example sit in the street so a police car couldn't make a ridiculous arrest) to get their point across.
Now people just start a Facebook group. "Students Against The War." "Save Lincoln From Greedy Developers!"
This is all they do. No action, no nothing. With the mentality of well,-now-that-I've-shown-my-view-I've-done-something.
When they haven't.
My reasoning is that we've been told so much, through media, grown-ups, and seen through recent past that we can't do anything and so there's no point in trying, so we might as well join in solidarity by joining a group and feeling like you're not the only one frustrated with whichever issue. Because there's no point doing anything bigger because it won't help anything.
But I don't think it's because students are incapable of mass action. This is because recently when there have been are smaller issues, school wide, district-wide, PPS issues that affect students, they have shown up to protest at City Hall, march the streets, fight Vicki Phillips, et cetera. All hope is not lost.
The difference is simply that they feel there is hope in these issues becuase they are smaller. The media hasn't tried to convince them that they can't make a difference.
So back to Facebook.
Is it what's making us less motivated to fight? Or can it be used for good?
Let's look at the recent Lewis & Clark case. Quick overview: there's a man who's been committing sex crimes with many women on campus for a couple years. Finally one of them decides something must be done and starts a Facebook group, "[Guy's Name] is a Piece of Shit Rapist."
Work of The Book spreads, word of mouth spreads, eventually everyone knows, and realizes that they weren't the only one with problems or who had been hurt.
Here's where the difference comes in: A bunch of women (and some men) decide to actually meet up, have a discussion abiout what should be done. In other words, once Facebook had spread the word, and people had connected in sentiment, the issue LEFT FACEBOOK and went out into REAL LIFE and REAL TIME and had a READ DISCUSSION about what to do. (And all turned out well with the school and the man convicted.)
So Facebook was the jumping point for what needed to be done, and arguably it might not have happened without Facebook, but in the end something more was needed.
So Facebook is not necessarily a bad thing? Right? Because it helps people see that they aren't the only one who is frustrated with the President/global warming/the war, and so forth.
BUT IT'S NOT THE ANSWER. It serves as a starting point, and then something else must be done.
Quick look at other technology. Because it can be beneficial. Because communication is so much easier these days. We just have to use it to communicate, not go further away back into our own little lives, never to reappear again, and if we do only after being covered in Blobby, snotty goo.
(Don't worry, I'm almost done.)
Example- Text messaging: Now it seems like a ridiculous extension, only taking us further away from speech, even pen and paper. HOWEVER my friend Adam was in Chile several years ago when the government was cracking down on people's rights issues and radicalization. There were constant arrests as well as protests and workers' mass action, and EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, if one person was arrested by the police, or if a struggle was starting up, people were USING THEIR PHONES TO TEXT MESSAGE and tell/warn other people of what was going on. To help their fight. Making it a positive thing.
So I don't think the answer is just to ditch Justin's Bike Helmet, along with every bit of technology we own, I think we just have to be aware of how we use it. And use it to our advantage.
But I think it actually has a lot to do with technology.
For instance, in the 60's, during a war and much political travesties, there was much student activism. Sit-ins and demonstrations were the norm. In Berkeley, students were getting organized and dealing with the administration and the police, fighting for what they knew was right, getting masses of people to do something (for example sit in the street so a police car couldn't make a ridiculous arrest) to get their point across.
Now people just start a Facebook group. "Students Against The War." "Save Lincoln From Greedy Developers!"
This is all they do. No action, no nothing. With the mentality of well,-now-that-I've-shown-my-view-I've-done-something.
When they haven't.
My reasoning is that we've been told so much, through media, grown-ups, and seen through recent past that we can't do anything and so there's no point in trying, so we might as well join in solidarity by joining a group and feeling like you're not the only one frustrated with whichever issue. Because there's no point doing anything bigger because it won't help anything.
But I don't think it's because students are incapable of mass action. This is because recently when there have been are smaller issues, school wide, district-wide, PPS issues that affect students, they have shown up to protest at City Hall, march the streets, fight Vicki Phillips, et cetera. All hope is not lost.
The difference is simply that they feel there is hope in these issues becuase they are smaller. The media hasn't tried to convince them that they can't make a difference.
So back to Facebook.
Is it what's making us less motivated to fight? Or can it be used for good?
Let's look at the recent Lewis & Clark case. Quick overview: there's a man who's been committing sex crimes with many women on campus for a couple years. Finally one of them decides something must be done and starts a Facebook group, "[Guy's Name] is a Piece of Shit Rapist."
Work of The Book spreads, word of mouth spreads, eventually everyone knows, and realizes that they weren't the only one with problems or who had been hurt.
Here's where the difference comes in: A bunch of women (and some men) decide to actually meet up, have a discussion abiout what should be done. In other words, once Facebook had spread the word, and people had connected in sentiment, the issue LEFT FACEBOOK and went out into REAL LIFE and REAL TIME and had a READ DISCUSSION about what to do. (And all turned out well with the school and the man convicted.)
So Facebook was the jumping point for what needed to be done, and arguably it might not have happened without Facebook, but in the end something more was needed.
So Facebook is not necessarily a bad thing? Right? Because it helps people see that they aren't the only one who is frustrated with the President/global warming/the war, and so forth.
BUT IT'S NOT THE ANSWER. It serves as a starting point, and then something else must be done.
Quick look at other technology. Because it can be beneficial. Because communication is so much easier these days. We just have to use it to communicate, not go further away back into our own little lives, never to reappear again, and if we do only after being covered in Blobby, snotty goo.
(Don't worry, I'm almost done.)
Example- Text messaging: Now it seems like a ridiculous extension, only taking us further away from speech, even pen and paper. HOWEVER my friend Adam was in Chile several years ago when the government was cracking down on people's rights issues and radicalization. There were constant arrests as well as protests and workers' mass action, and EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, if one person was arrested by the police, or if a struggle was starting up, people were USING THEIR PHONES TO TEXT MESSAGE and tell/warn other people of what was going on. To help their fight. Making it a positive thing.
So I don't think the answer is just to ditch Justin's Bike Helmet, along with every bit of technology we own, I think we just have to be aware of how we use it. And use it to our advantage.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Facebook, Part I.
From the Willamette Week:
"'Facebook is completely safe from authority, and it's completely real within your network of friends.' [Every word posted on Facebook is attached to the author's name, photograph and contact info.] 'It's what makes it as real as if they'd said it in the cafetieria. IT'S MORE REAL, ACTUALLY, SINCE IT'S TEXT. IT'S WRITTEN IN STONE.'"
Isaac Holeman, Lewis & Clark student. Article written by Beth Slovic.
So there you have it. Facebook is utterly real. More so than face-to-face conversation. Clearly.
"'Facebook is completely safe from authority, and it's completely real within your network of friends.' [Every word posted on Facebook is attached to the author's name, photograph and contact info.] 'It's what makes it as real as if they'd said it in the cafetieria. IT'S MORE REAL, ACTUALLY, SINCE IT'S TEXT. IT'S WRITTEN IN STONE.'"
Isaac Holeman, Lewis & Clark student. Article written by Beth Slovic.
So there you have it. Facebook is utterly real. More so than face-to-face conversation. Clearly.
Oh, To Be Hip
I've been struggling with the concept of post-modernism, and the question keeps popping up- are hipsters truely apathetic? Because in my mind, although hipsters are far from perfect (upon observing any mass of hipsters one can see that they all look the same- far from anti-Blob), yet they seem so much better than the general American-mentality public...
And of course, this is going off of the definition of post-modernism being a word to describe the new, "hip," twenty-something generation that sees the irony in everything including themselves, and over-uses quotation marks in daily speech and --here's where the apathy comes in-- is aware of and has thought about the utter ridiculousness of everything so much that they have been driven to a perpetual life of the shrug and "whatevs."
But I still wouldn't say I think they're completely apathetic. (I mean, I consider myself much more of a hipster than any other catergory (? and I guess the whole categorizing people is another case of Blob-ism, but we'll let this pass for now) and I consider myself far from apathetic.))
SO. Here's the best I could come up with to explain the question of Hipster Apathy:
If hipsters were actually apathetic, this would mean a scenario where one is a hipster up until the point where they realize that they are one, and at this moment the classification would simply disappear into this air.
Making it kind of like The Game.
...And I just lost.
I think it gets pretty complicated- to where there are categories of "the hip", being those who are truly hip and those who are only surface hip... GAAAHHHH. I will revisit this later.
And of course, this is going off of the definition of post-modernism being a word to describe the new, "hip," twenty-something generation that sees the irony in everything including themselves, and over-uses quotation marks in daily speech and --here's where the apathy comes in-- is aware of and has thought about the utter ridiculousness of everything so much that they have been driven to a perpetual life of the shrug and "whatevs."
But I still wouldn't say I think they're completely apathetic. (I mean, I consider myself much more of a hipster than any other catergory (? and I guess the whole categorizing people is another case of Blob-ism, but we'll let this pass for now) and I consider myself far from apathetic.))
SO. Here's the best I could come up with to explain the question of Hipster Apathy:
If hipsters were actually apathetic, this would mean a scenario where one is a hipster up until the point where they realize that they are one, and at this moment the classification would simply disappear into this air.
Making it kind of like The Game.
...And I just lost.
I think it gets pretty complicated- to where there are categories of "the hip", being those who are truly hip and those who are only surface hip... GAAAHHHH. I will revisit this later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
