“(at 4:50 into the video) I’ve seen [Americans] singing the national anthem, and I’ve worked out how to do it. If you’re lost in the middle of it and you’re singing the words, it doesn’t matter wherever you’re singing it. All that people care about is the look: 70% of what people react to is the look; about 20% is how you sound; and only 10% is what you say. So if you look good and sound good, Everyone will go wild!”
-Eddie Izzard, Dressed to Kill
I think Eddie Izzard’s a brilliant guy. I saw his latest stand up in April 2008, and he talked about everything from the dawn of man to Wikipedia. And as is true of most comedians, it’s his ability to highlight honest truths about life that makes him absolutely hilarious. One of the largest themes the show I saw is how the internet has changed so much of our lives; we have access to limitless information almost everywhere we go, so there’s a lot less wondering.
The data we have access to is incredibly rich because the internet doesn’t forget anything. So I wonder: is Izzard’s original clam still as true today, or has the internet forced us to know what we’re talking about?
Something has certainly changed. It’s difficult for any person or company to have an identity (brand) without solid online content. Because that content isn’t fleeting, it will get dissected and deconstructed ad nauseam. Wouldn’t it be in your best interest to construct your identity with substance?
But perhaps we pay attention to the same things even through new channels. For all the new media clout Barack Obama earned through his campaign, one of the largest complaints against him was his lack of substance. For many, he didn’t outline his plans clearly or early enough. To many, he’s still a mystery. Yet he still won.
It definitely seems that the internet’s made us more honest. But I wonder how much of those percentages have changed.
The Golden Arrow of Consumption
“This is the heart of the system, the engine that drives it. That is why, after 9/11, when our country was in shock, when President Bush could have suggested any number of appropriate things: to grieve, to pray, to hope…He said to shop. TO SHOP?!
We have become a nation of consumers. Our primary identity has become that of consumer, not mothers, teachers, farmers, but consumers. The primary way that our value is measured and demonstrated is by how much we contribute to this arrow, how much we consume. And do we!
We shop and shop and shop. Keep the materials flowing.
And flow they do!”
—Annie Leonard’s Story of Stuff
I found Annie Leonard’s “Story of Stuff” (thanks to Patrick Richardson, a mentor from my previous internship at Schneider PR) shortly after I found Greenfeld , and I think they’re pretty closely related. Our secular modern culture requires we define ourselves through material means, and since the definition of our identities seems to be central to our contemporary existence, the most successful products are those that help us define who we are.
All strategic communication seeks to upset the norm and provoke action. In the case of the Materials Economy, the norm is a sense of identity; its disruption causes a need to further resolve, which manifests through the (trans)action.
The only problem is we’re ruining our planet and the quality of life for thousands of people—probably including our own.
Shit.
As my classmate Philip Waltzer pointed out, it’s everybody’s problem. But I think Leonard’s accusation particularly implies marketers: we might not make the trash or the toxins, but we certainly drive the machine. Without the “you suck” mechanism, there would be no motivation to consume (this clearly isn’t the way all marketing works, but that’s for another post).
Annie’s listed a number of ways that everyone, including marketers, can help “break the cycle,” such as responsible product design and limited marketing to children. But it seems to me that while the Story of Stuff is designed to upset our identity as consumers, there’s no easy (trans)action to resolve that identity. It’s a deeper, anxiety-ridden problem (Greenfeld might argue we can’t handle it).
Europeans are fascinated by the concept of American heritage. When I visited France in the 10th grade, my tour guide couldn’t get over our answers to his request: “Tell me about yourself.”
“Well, I’m half Italian, a quarter Irish and a quarter French,” I said.
“Wait a minute—aren’t you American?” asked Oliver, feigning astonishment.
A few posts ago, I listed a few things that, unbelievably, we get to choose. Add heritage to that list.
While we can’t change our genealogy, we certainly do choose what elements of our heritage we wish to display. We can even choose to identify with cultures in which we have no, or very little claim; like the 90% English, 10% Puerto Rican dude in my high school (I’ll give you one guess as to which culture he prefered display).
Does the act of choosing a culture undermine the very fabric of that culture?
I just started reading Mark Poster’s Information Please. In it, Poster hypothesizes that, because culture is a product of individuals and “information machines”, and because those information machines are generally the same across the modern world, culture can no longer be linked to one particular people or place. We’re quickly developing a global culture, where “local beliefs, values and practices can no longer be held as absolute or as exclusive” (Poster 9).
Gentrification isn’t a new phenomenon (though I’m always amazed at how far it reaches. My roommate, Ryan Hagerty, spent a semester in China, and his discoveries, documented in his Blog, Shanghais and Lows, have frequently amazed me). And it seems that Poster’s suggesting a gentrification of ideas and values.
Are the complications presented by our increased options for cultural identity outweighed by the ability to find and connect with a fitting identity? Or will our ability to choose a heritage eventually undermine our cultural identity so much that choosing it is no longer relevant or necessary?
I’m not sure. But I am considering joining http://www.i-italy.us/, “a social network for all those interested in Italy and Italian America.”
I posted this comment on bournesocial.com in response to “If You Don’t Have Anything Nice to Say, Shutup!” It doesn’t make as much sense without the context of the original post, but I doubt you’ll be lost.
When it comes to the VMAs, there’s one thing for sure: this was fantastic publicity for all involved. Beyoncé reminded us of her class, Taylor turned on the charm, and Kanye’s even more controversial than before. Meanwhile, MTV seems suddenly relevant and has reminded us all they’re still the masters of media antics. The hype surrounding West’s outburst was completely consistent with everyone’s image, so it’s a win-win-win-win.
I find Congressman Wilson’s outburst more upsetting because it was more than just a rude exchange between two laymen. Rather, the President’s speech symbolized a formal meeting between the Executive and Legislative Branches; in the same way the Supreme Court could never hand down a ruling with the outright declaration of “Liar,” Wilson’s comment demonstrated an ignorance and total lack of respect for the very government system of which he is a part. (Separately—and perhaps unfairly—I expect more from the allegedly educated leaders of this country than I do of a rap star.) But outbursts in Congress are nothing new, and I don’t think it’s fair to drag race into the question as many of the media’s talking heads have done.
I’m undecided regarding Social Media as a culture change agent: perhaps it’s simply amplified the echo chamber of extremists at whom we can point and gasp. Not only is it easier for us to find and gawk at racist, sexiest, etc. content and communities online, it’s also one of the only places where those communities can grow and thrive. We advocate and encourage productive and entertaining online communities and discussions, but unfortunately the capability is there for all, even those who suck.
I am interested to see if the relative anonymity we’re granted in online exchanges begins to change the decorum offline. Today, I can anonymously say online whatever I like with no damage to my reputation. In ten years, will it be acceptable to say the same things out loud with a similar non-result?
And is that a bad thing? Should we be less PC? Or in the same vein as Wilson’s outburst, will it decrease our ability to function as a culture?
I’m not sure. But I do know NPR’s On Point aired a fantastic segment last week called “Questions of Civility” that discussed these events and more. It’s a great conversation—check it out here.
Though I never thought I’d ever envy the plight of a serf, last night I found myself wishing I was digging a ditch in midevil Europe. Though such a life would certainly pit me against plague, hunger and incredible monotony, it would just as certainly relieve me of one incredible stress we digital natives confront:
I don’t mean this simply—yes, Facebook didn’t exist 800 years ago; pretend for a moment it did. While I’m sure the amount of language required to adequately complete the profile would be unbelievable, the largest stress I encounter would be completely non existent. “Who are you?” was not a question an inhabitant of the 12th century had to think too much about. In fact, the identity of any non-modern human was (is) pretty obvious: name? race? religion? gender? None of these were choices. Your identity was cemented in birth and didn’t change.
And thank goodness that’s changed, right? Right?
Definitely. But the choices we can make are truly unprecendeted, and our internet profiles only start to represent the incredible number of choices we’re able to make. Though no one is advocating a return to the feudal system, it’s interesting to think critically about the stresses these choices create.
A few months ago, my good friend Richie suggested I read Nationalism and the Mind, an essay by Boston University professor Liah Greenfeld. Previous works by Greenfeld argue that our modern culture, nationalism, is sovereign, secular and egalitarian; it’s self-sufficient and changeable, and above all else, it exalts the individual. Nationalism and the Mind begins to explore the subject of Greenfeld’s next book: that while humans have chosen choice, our modern culture’s emphasis on independence may be too much for many minds to handle, and may in fact be the source for functional psychoses such as depression, anorexia and schizophrenia.
It’s a fascinating argument: at the core of anxiety lies an identity crisis. It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
Logical or not, it’s a tough and controversial sell. But even if Greenfeld’s wrong, her work makes me wonder how technology, especially the social nature of the internet, has effected our contemporary identity? Does it help, hinder or simply highlight the identity crises that have become so crucial to our society?
@repcor I mean it when I say that you're too sweet. Thanks for everything! // 23 hours ago
@rickburnes It was fantastic meeting you today. Thanks for the words of wisdom (and your time)! // 23 hours ago
I need an iPhone app that plays the Home Alone "WE DID IT AGAIN" music on demand. // 1 day ago
@BU_Tweets I try, but this place (and all of our people)is the inspiration. // 1 day ago
"Successful ppl rarely confuse a can-do attitude w/a smart plan, but realize that 1 w/out the other won't work" S.Godin http://bit.ly/bd7fmN // 1 day ago
WELCOME
Hi! I'm DJ, a senior at Boston University, a Social Media Strategist at Mullen, and an aspiring digital/social marketer. Thanks for stopping by!
