The Political Technology Era

After reading the article Oppositional Politics and the Internet, I tried picturing my life without Google, blogs, or the Internet at all but I couldn’t. Today our world revolves and operates around the World Wide Web. I agree with many of the problems Kahn and Kellner see in this. But at the same time, I think about the Internet and how it’s only going to stay and increase in value. Though I do agree on the political unfairness that Google or other search engines create when choosing sites to be on the top of the search list. I don’t know how we can try to change this because of how much power Internet companies such as Google hold. In some ways the Internet is very resource and helpful but in other ways it’s a very scary tool. By just a click of a button websites or blogs can be created with inaccurate political or any other subject matter. I am interested in to see how the web will grow and change over a couple of years. In some ways I wonder what it would be like if I could have grown up in a different decade where everyone didn’t relay on the Internet or other technological advances like cell phones.

Cognitive Surplus

In their article Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A Critical Reconstructive Approach Kahn and Kellner argue the numerous impacts the Internet has had on society, both good and bad. On a similar note, Clay Shirky’s view of what he calls cognitive surplus (from his new book Cognitive Surplus), expresses how group activity has been positively impacted through the net, exploring creativity in ways never anticipated. Shirky describes that in past decades we have spent our time watching television and neglecting brainpower. However, today he argues, with the Internet as a tool we have a plethora of availabilities to do something of great value and once we do (although in the end it may not be very useful) it may create what he calls a cognitive surplus. Cognitive surplus can be defined in five words; “group action just got easier”, meaning that this trend of blogging and posting (social media) is leading to valuable and influential forms of cultural production and human expression. Essentially Shirky talks about communication as an art. Each individual has the ability to produce this “art”(“the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”) by partaking in the frenzy of online communication and networking taking place across the globe.

The Emergence of Virtual Communities

It can be agreeably said that the internet has changed our lives, most of our lives - those who engage in the technologies of our century to make life easier and faster in some parts. The global economy is becoming so much more competitive because it has become so small due to the use of technologies, especially the internet. The internet has many purposes. Kahn and Kellner address that the "emergence of the utpoian rhetoric of cyberdemocracy and personal liberation" have allowed the growth of new online communities. I feel the internet can be both dangerous and extremely beneficial for people. Kahn and Kellner also introduce that the internet (World Wide Web) "constitutes a dynamic and complex space in which people can construct and experiment with their own identity(ies), culture, and social practices. People are able to "act out roles" of themselves that they wouldn't really do in real life. Posts of social networks like Facebook of the "daily me" statuses allow people to publicize their lives they otherwise would not think to share to others in person - this makes information about other people more easy to find than ever. The internet is a place that embodies reconstructions of citizenship as Kahn and Kellner argue in their essay "Oppositional Politics and the Internet". This youtube video below demonstrates a good example of what this essay is talking about. It is scary when you think deeper on this idea.

Rebel with your dollars!

In Why Johnny Can’t Dissent, Thomas Frank explains how the rebellious ideals held by the counterculture of the 1960s have been adopted in the Information Age by corporate America in order to sell products. While large corporations were once seen as a repressors of individuality, they has now come to embrace ideas of rebellion as a means to keep up with the ever-changing tastes of consumers. Consumerism is no longer about fitting in, but about distinguishing yourself from the masses. Information Age capitalism utilizes this desire of consumers to defy rules and structure in their marketing campaigns, putting a “rock and roll” spin on things in order to make them seem edgier, and “new”. The persistent desire for newness in American consumers is satiated by this “constantly updated individualism” (273), perpetual rebellion from whatever becomes “old”, or too popular (and thus, no longer a mark of distinction). The article mentions the partnership between Nike and the edgy and subversive author William S. Burroughs, explaining how corporations are going further than just appearing “hip”, digging into the “underground” to further this idea of rebellion. While its been said that Burroughs “sold out”, Frank goes on to explain that it is the structure that has changed, and not Burroughs himself. The merging of countercultural rebellion and corporate ideology is a wildly successful way to market to the consumers of the Information Age, drawing parallels between punk rockers like Henry Rollins, and the idea of the “self made man” in business.


(This sweater, taken from UO online, costs 50$)

This idea of the “commodification of the counterculture” reminds me of stores like Urban Outfitters and Hot Topic. They both allow the instant adoption of an entire lifestyle by commodifying their respective countercultures - the “hipster” and “goth/punk”. Shopping at either of these stores can allow a person to completely transform their appearance and lifestyle - stores like these are a one-stop shop for the music, clothing styles, books, and even home furnishings specific to what is popular in their specific genre. When I visited Portland last year, one of my aunt’s friends (young aunt, typical Portlander) was complaining about how Urban Outfitters stole their “culture” (referring to their announcement to sell Polaroid film). UO commodifies the “thrift store” look, making it very expensive to look like you dug through a sweaty pile of clothes in a dirty warehouse to find the perfect Bill Cosby sweater. Stores like UO are responsible for the mass-production of hipsters by making it easy for people to purchase an entire identity, effectively removing any legitimacy that this “counterculture” may actually have. (This reminds me of the adbusters article about hipsters, so I’ll link to it...good stuff: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html )

Counterculture: Changing Capitalism

In Thomas Frank's article "Why Johnny Can't Dissent," he discusses a lot about the changes of capitalism and how they came about. He talks about how counterculture originated in the 50s, and how they are "summarized with images of 1950s suburban correctness" (32). Anyone can tell times have changed, particularly because "consumerism isno longer about 'conformity' but about 'difference'" (34). The new way of thinking toward consumerism is to "rebel" and do your own thing, rather than conforming to what the rest of the world thinks is right. Figures who demonstrate this idea of "going against the crowd" are the Beatles and Bob Dylan (35). Not only was the new sense of rebellion displayed in the music industry, but also in advertising. All different types of advertisements were broadcasting and promoting the rebellion. For example, Burger King's new slogan became "Sometimes you gotta break the rules," Vision Cologne's new punch line became "It separates you from the crowd," and Swatch's new saying, "The art of changing" (41). By showing the consumer that their products went against the norm, it drewmore attention to their companies. I found this article interesting, especially in the way he described the new changes in consumerist society. The examples he gave were especially helpful to truly see the change.

Counterculture: The Voice of Corporations and Consumers

Thomas Frank discusses the merging of the counterculture and capitalist ideals in "Why Johnny Can’t Dissent." He argues that the “evils of conformity are…summarized with images of 1950s suburban correctness” (Frank, 1). He also states that revolt by embracing diverse and individual lifestyles is well understood and agreed upon. Beats best represents the counterculture idea, as they live on the edge for immediate gratification and freedom. The consumer society directly corresponds to the counterculture idea. Consumerism has become about being different, and corporate America has become a “sponsor of fun.” Although, Frank does point out that in order to enjoy capitalism’s rebel products consumers must feel some sort of capitalist repression and hostility to pleasure. Still, tradition and establishment are becoming more obsolete, leading to a complete lack of dissonance between capitalist and counterculture ideals, as demonstrated by the Burroughs/Nike partnership. Capitalism now embraces breaking the rules and abolishing rigid corporate structure. Tom Peters draws similarities between dissident and business culture, such as the desire to destroy order and the suspicion of traditional practices. This leads to countercultural rebellion becoming corporate ideology in a chaotic world of turbulent change that preaches “diversity,” “empowerment,” and “thinking outside the box.” It involves risk taking and rebellion. Page seven gives examples of this rule breaking, revolutionary theme as used in advertising by stating companies slogans such as Burger Kings, “Sometimes You Gotta Break the Rules,” Arby’s, “This is different. Different is good,” and Hugo Boss’s “Innovate Don’t Imitate.” Henry Rollins (who embodies empowerment and thrives on chaos) provides an example of how businessman and rebels sound so similar, as he “straddles both worlds unproblematically” (Frank, 7). Overall, Frank argues that the structure and thinking of American business have changed so that today, corporate America embraces the counterculture idea, which he states, “is no longer different from the official culture it’s supposed to be subverting” (Frank, 9).

I chose to show three images this week. The first is a cartoon drawn to represent the 1950s. Frank uses the 1950s as the prime example of conformity, which contrasts to the dominant counterculture idea dominating both businessmen and consumers alike. In the sketch, all the houses look the same, and all the men are wearing the exact same outfit, walking out to check the mail at the exact same time. The fact that the cartoon lacks color reinforces the lack of creativity and diversity that is associated with conformity. Contrast is shown when looking at the other two pictures. The first is an advertisement for Burger King and reads, “Have it your way.” This illustrates the emphasis of individuality and the importance of being different that accompanies the counterculture movement. The picture with the boy peeing on the wall that reads Nike’s slogan, “Just do It,” further communicates these values. Here, the boy is clearly breaking the law, and is allegedly persuaded to do so by Nike’s encouraging words. This relates to the idea that businesses destroy order and promote rule breaking through advertisements in order to appeal to consumers. Here, the campaign is seen in a humorous but nonetheless successfully convincing manor.

Counter-culture

The article by Thomas Frank was very interesting. One area that interested me was when he walked about how capitalism was trying to repress pleasure (35). He compares this fact to musicians like the Beatles and Bob Dylan and their association with counterculture and the rebellious nature that constructed the time periods they were both performing in. This constructed the counter culture nature of sixties and seventies. This "movement" broke boundaries, getting past the sexually repressive and conservative lifestyle that the fifties featured.

Companies started "changing" as the article pointed out. Companies like Burger King, Levis, and Toyota had their mottos made to reflect the culture of the time. I think that the whole era of rebellion is very interesting and a critical step for our understanding of culture of today and of the past. There are many political, social, and economic reasons behind the repressive nature before the era of rebellion.

One major event that fueled rebellion in the late sixties/early seventies was the Vietnam war. People rebelled through protests, music, drugs, and general anti government behavior. I think the time of major rebellion has past due to historical differences between the past and present. However, there are still many groups and people who rebell in today's world.

Here is an image regarding counterculture/rebellion that I believe fits well with the article. (click on it to read)