triciawang:fyi - I love Christina Dennaoui’s blog Modern and Im/Material Things. I don’t know her personally, yet , but it feels like we would be good friends if we ever met. She’s super geeky intellectual, crisp, no bull-shit, & silly.
Tricia has me all figured out. It’s nice to know that my personality actually comes across in my writing. And based on the breadth of her blogs (including her awesome blogs about digital culture and urbanism) and her penchant for photos of Pho (see what I did there?), I also think we’d be friends. So go read Tricia’s blogs (all of them)!
“I was ticked off at Todd yesterday,” she said. “He walks into a gas station as we’re driving over from Minnesota. He buys a Slim Jim—we’re always eating that jerky stuff—for $2.69. I said, ‘Todd, those used to be 99 cents, just recently!’ And he says, ‘Man, the dollar’s worth nothing anymore.’ A jug of milk and a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs—every time I walk into that grocery store, a couple of pennies more…”
From Sarah “Truth to Power” Palin
“The working class is underrepresented on the Internet. Without their voices, their issues are ignored…That chasm is unlikely to break down until everyone has a host of digital production tools at both home and work.”
From “UC Berkeley study shows affluence dominates the social web”
Finally some empirical evidence to back up what I’ve always suspected.
H/T to AdworldMadworld for the story
“No genre is without its controversial and offensive characters- I’m not naive. I’ve asked myself a thousand times why this is pushing me over the edge. Maybe it’s the access to him (his grotesque twitter, etc). Maybe it’s because I’m a human being, both a girl and a lesbian. Maybe it’s because my mom has spent her whole adult life working with teenage girls who were victims of sexual assault. Maybe it’s because in this case I don’t think race or class actually has anything to do with his hateful message but has EVERYTHING to do with why everyone refuses to admonish him for that message.”
Tegan and Sara on Tyler, the Creator
I think Sara and Tegan are right in their assessment of Tyler. I’ve not been particularly impressed with any of his work or that of Odd Future…Tyler’s work is, in my opinion, neither clever nor indicative of any kind of special talent. That boy is churning out the same crap, albeit with a new style, as others have done before him. Is being a cocky, immature d-bag really all that radical?
You know what’s radical? An intelligent, cogent political and social opinion backed up with facts and expressed in a thoughtful manner.
Are you wealthy enough to afford cuts of [insert farm name] [insert special breed of pig] slow poached in [insert another farm name’s] [insert special type of milk] served with greens from [insert urban rooftop garden]? Then you are eating like a White Person. Do you feel really good about yourself while you’re doing it? Then you are a White Person.
Did this seriously get published in GOOD.is without someone telling the author that the “white people” phenomenon she is referring to is a product of class status, globalization and cross-cultural growth? I understand being provocative can help drive interest in an article, but how can you talk about class without actually using the word class? The author states that “white people food” has a lot to do with money but then continues to subsume the issue of economic capital under the category of race. Each of the author’s arguments about well-reviewed restaurants in New York and their relative proximity to or location in Manhattan has everything to do with money not race. Manhattan is an island of the rich and poor; the middle class is mostly priced outside of it. Call it “Rich People Food” if you must because that’s at least a little more accurate.
To be clear, there is indeed a relationship between race and class status. That relationship is not really explored in the article. People with enough money to be foodies are “whites.” What about the issues of cultural appropriation and fetishism inherent in the author’s definition of “white people food”? The whole article reads like something between white guilt and post-colonial studies for dummies.
“
You can read as many reports about inequality as you want (and there are lots) but the most important barrier to the introduction of pro-poor economic strategies is quite simple: lack of political will. What are the chances of the Peruvian (4 million users, 13% of the population) or Senegalese (360,000 users, 2.5% of the population) educated classes deciding to forgo the luxuries that their Facebook peers in the west (even the not very educated ones) discuss online? A car. Frequent trips abroad. The latest gadgets. Answer: about as much chance as those of us who already take all these things for granted deciding to give them up.
In the better off “middle income” countries, home to two-thirds of the world’s poorest people, the Facebook generation has done well out of the last 20 years. But their fortunes contrast with the huge numbers of people still living in abject poverty in city slums or further out in the countryside. In 55% of middle-income countries inequality has increased since the 1990s, and in a further 20% it has remained high, decreasing in only a quarter of middle-income countries – according to the World Bank.
”How The Facebook Generation Keeps People Poor
Via PSFK
Two notes:
1. Expect a lengthy response to this ridiculous argument about class and globalization to follow.
2. Facebook has not kept people poor; Neo-liberal capitalism has. An economic system that conflates exploitation with efficiency and success has more to do with keeping people subjugated than a social network. If anything, Facebook has PUBLICIZED the already existing divides and distinctions. Caleb correctly pointed out that the article does imply that FB publicizes class distinctions, which the above crossed out comment would suggest to the contrary.
“Food has become the premier marker of social distinctions, that is to say—social class. It used to be clothing and fashion, but no longer, now that ‘luxury’ has become affordable and available to all.”
Via The Society Pages
An interesting post about the issue of class, race, and digital culture. One of my own personal pet peeves is when people use the phrase ‘digital divide’ to refer to people who aren’t ‘early adopters’ of technology and web applications. I think this is a complete misuse of the term because it implies choice. A digital divide is a class and resource based divide not a divide of preferences; you need access to the tools in order to prefer not to use them.
“Political correctness” may be an even more despised term in our culture than “hipster,” but little has been written about p.c.’s utility, the source of its infernal staying power. Leftists may try to jazz up its drabness with a little radical rhetoric, but, as the exchange quoted above shows, progressives need the cordiality of p.c. to quell the fractiousness of any Left coalition. We won’t be getting rid of it anytime soon because we have no functional social contract to replace it with.”
From “Hipsters ‘R Us” By Ben Kessler
Via First of the Month Dot Org
The critical analysis of N+1’s “Sociology of the Hipster” panel you may or may not have waited for. Definitely an interesting read.
In other news, there’s content from the Social Text Journal (!) available online. Maybe the post graduate school ain’t so bad after all.
I’m glad the ladies of Jezebel addressed the question of supplementary income regarding the Dutch ladies who like to work less.
“In the case of Maria, we met her at the school but the cameras weren’t there, so we asked her to go back and tour the school,” Mr. Guggenheim said. “And as a filmmaker, I wanted to see her reaction to the school, and her genuine emotion. So that scene is real; her reaction, her talking to kids touring the school, is how she would play it.”
Affordable quality education in this country is actually a problem. There’s nothing to fake there.
What it means to hoard in the Digital Age
I have a confession. I have an obsession with the A&E show Hoarders. Each time a marathon starts, I get sucked in. I can’t stop watching. I’m equally horrified and fascinated. Actually, I’m watching the show as I write this post. This particular episode involving a woman who had over 30 cats in her home, some of which were dead, got me thinking about what it means to hoard. What does it mean to obsessively collect things not just to the point of excess, but to the point of erasure? What does it mean to be “buried” by the things you own? And lastly, what does hoarding look like in the digital world?
For those of you who are not familiar with the show, each episode is focused on one or two people who are excessive hoarders and whose collections of “stuff” are jeopardizing their health, relationships or even the safety of their living conditions. The shows all follow the same pattern: get to know person and why they have so much stuff, the impact of the stuff on those around them, the cleaning of the stuff and the redemption of the person and their home after the cleanse. Every episode is a rebirth for each of these people. They each get to start over with a clean slate, literally.
Although each person has different reasons for hoarding, their behaviors typically start after a tragic event. The act of collecting creates safety, and eventually the items become essential to the person’s sense of self. Maybe even their worth. For those of us watching, these people are collecting trash, worthless items. We watch them bury themselves alive with garbage, which says as much about them as it does us. It’s the worst of Middle class consumerist culture; it’s marketing taken to its logical extreme.
What’s most intriguing to me about hoarders is how the show seems to be an index of Western class privilege. There’s something really American about it. You have money, you can buy stuff. You buy stuff that defines you. Sure, hoarders exist in other parts of the world, but try picturing hoarders in the developing world. You can’t. You need capital and space to amass that much shit. The irony is that the people on the show are not rich. Most are lower middle class or working class. They rack up debt to buy things. Both the collection and the act of collecting are essential to their sense of self.
Hoarders are collectors of material things. If people can collect material things, can they also collect immaterial things? Can people hoard immaterial things? I would argue digital natives, myself included, are hoarders of immaterial things. We hoard information. We use our excess of time and relative class privilege to surf the web in order to collect information. Quests for more Twitter followers, reblogs, and interesting stories are all forms of collection. We use networks and information as social capital or currency in our quest for more information. We exchange information for more information. The networks and information become important to our sense of self, our online and offline identities.
On the show, material hoarders are buried by the things they own. The items take up so much space in these people’s homes that there is almost no room for the hoarders themselves in their own homes. It’s excess, clear as day. But what does excess look like for hoarders of information? Although I don’t have any answers, I think this, among many others, will be an important question for my generation.
“I’m homeless, very homeless, dirt broke and all, but I still own an iPad and a MSI Wind u130 netbook. These, I feel, are essential tools… Being without a home is not that big a deal in today’s world, but having connections to the rest of the world is pretty important.”
I’m Homeless and This Is Why I Have an iPad (via bunch)
This is a simultaneous celebration of digital nomadism and class privilege. On one hand it’s awe inspiring the extent to which an individual can live their lives entirely dependent on technology. On the other hand, the ability to sell off your goods, buy an iPad and a laptop and declare a life of poverty is made possible by having the money to do so.
I find it ironic that this guy eschews the importance of a home but uses the iPad to find people with homes via Couch Surfing that will let him crash on their couches. It’s not important for this guy to have a home, but it’s clearly important that other people have homes. I appreciate the sentiment of not wanting to be grounded by material things, but there is a difference between being nomadic and being parasitic.
(via un)
“In matters of taste, more than anywhere else, all determination is negation; and tastes are perhaps first and foremost distastes, disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance of the tastes of others … which amounts to rejecting others as unnatural and therefore vicious. Aesthetic intolerance can be terribly violent. Aversion to different life-styles is perhaps one of the strongest barriers between the classes”
Pierre Bourdieu from Distinction, a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste