Rage Against the Machine
My generation suffers from technology induced laziness. Our formative years were shaped by (over)exposure to an early ’90s novelty, cable television. As we blossomed, so too did the internet, in all its ‘wikipedic’, pornographic glory. We embraced each technological advance while physical and intellectual stimulation plummeted to all-time lows. Our minds and culture have indeed shifted, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the effects of today’s technology (and not to mention today’s economy) will have a profound effect on our future in ways we have not and cannot predict. If it is our freedoms that are in question, we must first examine the definitions of freedom, rebellion, and identity as they have changed as well. My baby-boomer parents grew up in a different world. In elementary school, they practiced bomb drills by crawling beneath their desks. They learned about politics from the likes of Nixon, the assassination of JFK, and Martin Luther King. Bob Dylan sang songs of youthful rebellion and Leary encouraged young America to “turn on, tune in, drop out.” The ’90s, in contrast, was a relatively peaceful, carefree decade. As wide-eyed 5th graders, we were introduced to politics by Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, and snickered as we asked our parents, “What does sexual relations mean?” Britney Spears sang “Hit Me Baby One More Time,” while America Online encouraged us to “turn on, sign in, zone out.” Among these differences, I feel like there is one distinct similarity in that both generations feel/felt as though they were radically different from any other that had come before, and rightly so.
My parents fought for freedoms that my generations have become so accustomed to that I feel as though they are almost taken for granted. Peace protests and anti-war rallies have all but been replaced by Facebook groups and blog posts. To restate one of the main ideas at the forefront of Siegel’s book, technology has steered our nation’s social dynamic away from the “we” and more towards the “me”. The internet has made it so that you really don’t need to leave your house anymore. Access to virtually everything is just a click away. But when questioning how this will affect future generations, we must wonder if people will opt to be lazy. God knows it’s possible and easier than ever, and the internet has made it easier to sit on our asses than it ever has been before. The question is whether or not laziness will get the best of us.
Here is an example I came up with: Let’s say you’re going to grab a cheeseburger from McDonald’s on a cold winter night. You pull into the parking lot and notice that the drive-thru line is about 7 or 8 cars long. As you peek through the restaurant window you can see that the line inside only consists of about two customers. Do you park your car and walk inside to order? Or do you wait in the drive through line because you don’t want to get out of your warm car? This example (very simply) demonstrates how technology could affect future generations. It is really up to people what they want to do. Convenience is more available today than it ever has before, but does the availability of convenience lead to overall laziness? Just because we can, does that mean we will? We have more freedom than ever before, and I would like to think that a good amount of people would choose to get out of their car and go inside to order. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that just the opposite is true and I am fearful for the outcome of this societal shift and so is Siegel.
We spoke in class of a phenomenon that relates well to Siegel’s attack on reality television and his notion of the “bourgeois bohemian”. These days (thanks mostly to the internet), it seems as though modern culture lacks individuality. Once upon a time, the notion of something “being cool” had little to do with popularity or financial success. Music is a great example of this. We used the example of Jim Morrison being told that he couldn’t sing the verse “girl we couldn’t get much higher” on the Ed Sullivan Show. Morrison, being the eccentric that he was, sang the lyric anyway and was never welcomed back on the program. The Doors weren’t doing what they did for popularity or fame or money. While it may have been an added bonus, they were passionate about their music and staying true to their creativity. If people bought their record, that was just extra. Had they not become successful in the mainstream, I’m sure that The Doors would have kept playing in dark whiskey bars for years to come. This revolt against the media is what made them cool. These days, the public has so much more access to media than they ever did before. If a band were to say the f-word on live TV, or if a woman’s breast was exposed (Janet Jackson ring a bell?), it would be all over YouTube and thousands of other media outlets so quickly. Hell, you don’t even need to be at home anymore to learn about the latest celebrity scandal if you have a Blackberry. The convenience and speed at which everybody can access information these days forces today’s media to become the slop that it is. Due to the fact that everybody is constantly watching, critiquing, complaining, and moaning, our TV shows and our music must appeal to the masses. This is also due in part to the fact that our population has increased dramatically and everybody now has the ability to voice themselves (and their complaints). Let’s also not forget that the increase in media availability and convenience has also created a new potential for profit.
Jim Morrison wasn’t in it for profit or fame. These days, it seems as though everything is just another statistic and every unique individual is replaced by the all powerful dollar sign. Siegel’s attack on reality television revolves around these concepts. He quotes author Kevin Kelly; “What will entertainment technology look like in 20 years? [...] The current distinction between biological actors and virtual actors will cease, just as the distinction between real locations and virtual distinctions has almost gone. The choice will simply come down to what is less expensive […] We’ll see more reality shows that are scripted, scripted shows that run out of control, documentaries that use actors, actors that are robotic creations, news that is staged, stories that become news and the total collision and marriage between fantasy and the found”. While this is an admittedly dystopian view, it brings up some good points. Siegel goes on to say “Nothing affects our values and perceptions, our thoughts and feelings, like the shows we watch, the movies we see, the books we read—and we watch far more than we read; Americans spend a large amount, if not a majority, of their leisure time being entertained”. I feel that as long as we can understand the distinction between reality and “reality” in an entertainment sense, than we might not be quite as doomed as Siegel makes it out to be but he certainly brings up some great points.
Siegel uses the contradictory term “bourgeois bohemian” to describe the mythical American business model that simply cannot exist among today’s rapidly expanding technological world. “Bourgeois” is a word used loosely to describe people who are concerned about their wealth and capital. Any person working with the intent of making money and benefitting themselves would fall under this category. Our capitalist society and our business oriented culture is what Siegel refers to here. “Bohemian” refers to the Bohemianism movement of the 19th century. Bohemians often had unorthodox or anti-establishment social values, expressed themselves freely, and lived “non-traditional” lifestyles.
Bohemianism reminds me of the counter-culture movements that occurred years later such as the hippie movement. Put more simply, a bourgeois bohemian is one who is “devoted to making money but at the same time revolted by the concept of making money”. He speaks about how anti-establishment values have been leaking into our society ever since the dawn of the information age, and how ironic it is that these bohemian values are actually being marketed and sold. This is important to remember in relation to the concepts of the internet and personal freedom. The internet boasts and tempts us with complete freedom in terms of information and communication. Accordingly, we feel as though the information and these new technologies make us feel powerful. The internet is quite a powerful tool to have at your fingertips, and it is most certainly an empowering thing. This makes us feel as though we have the freedom to information and the freedom to access all of these amazing technologies. In one sense, this is true. However, Siegel points out how the promise of these said freedoms is being packaged and sold right back to us. He is afraid we are becoming slaves to our own freedom, as contradictory as that may sound. While the internet surfaces as a monumental tool that boasts freedom and benefit for all, underneath the surface our reliance on the internet and our perception of it as this “perfect thing” masks the problems that coexist with its benefits. Such problems include (but are not limited to) Siegel’s concerns of addiction to technology, concerns of security, blending of the familiar and taboo, and of social impacts that have yet to be seen. With the good comes the bad, and the myth of bourgeois bohemianism is that many people don’t understand or take time to consider both sides of the proverbial coin, and I agree that this is a serious problem.
Movies sometimes have the amazing ability to predict events that occur years later. Science fiction movies from half a century ago did a halfway decent job of predicting some of the great advancements we have made as a society. I remember reading somewhere and mentioning in class that science fiction movies had, to a degree, predicted almost all of the technology that we would consider to be “modern”. The only one that could not be predicted; the only thing that had literally surpassed our wildest imaginations is our current communications technology. The concept of cell phones with high speed internet and the ability to talk to anybody on the planet instantly was never thought to be possible. I think this goes to show just how powerful of a revolution this is. Not to mention how quickly it is happening, also. In just 30 years, our country has become completely dependent on the internet and machines, and I can’t help but think of movies like “I, Robot” or “Terminator”. If we don’t do something now, will there be an eventual rise of the machines? It’s unlikely, but it also seems unlikely that we will ever be able to cut our dependence on the internet and machines. Every time I give my credit card number to a website, I can’t help but think about the fact that those digits will probably be stored on a server somewhere forever. As the lines between reality and virtual reality, individuality and collectivism, and freedom and confinement grow increasingly blurry and the world continues to evolve around us, will we be able to apply our bright minds and abundant resources towards harnessing the power of technology? Siegel’s view is critical, and rightly so. He is, after all, a cultural critic. I agree that there are some serious issues that need to be taken into consideration, and I agree that there are reasons to be concerned. But at the end of the day, Siegel will always be a critic while I will always be an optimist. Perhaps the internet is just a glorified television set used to control us and suck the money out of our wallets as Siegel would tend to believe; or perhaps not. In any case, there is no disputing the fact that it is one of the most powerful tools ever to be invented, and it provides a freedom unlike anything we have ever seen before. I’ll finish with a quote from ‘Spiderman’ that I find quite appropriate; “With great power comes great responsibility”. Now please excuse me while I go watch Spiderman on YouTube.
