Words Without Actions Are Dead

Image by MIC Oligar via Artjoh's Renderings

   In his book Culture Jam, activist Kalle Lasn addresses both the issues and the solutions related to the seemingly unbreakable cycle of America’s overconsumption and lack of true freedom production. Lasn illustrates that: “Identical images flow into our brains, homogenizing our perspectives, knowledge, tastes, and desires” (11). That basic pattern of uniformity that he describes holds true for almost all mediums of popular culture within the U.S. When people are taught culture instead of creating culture, they are essentially mindless consumers and actors who have to work harder and harder by the year in order to feed their cravings. Americans are generally addicts who feel out of place when away from the internet, TV, and stores that quell their existence. The well-worded ramblings on modern mental and physical pollution that constitute the first half of Lasn’s book don’t have to be taken negatively, and instead can be used to fuel understanding of new perspectives. In Lasn’s words, “If the old American dream was about prosperity, maybe the new one will be about spontaneity” (109). As the book asserts, America’s one-track culture desperately needs to be derailed through “détournement”, the challenging or “jamming” of monotonous media in order to create more genuine thoughts. Not everyone will be on board with Lasn’s opinions after reading Culture Jam, but even one broken wheel or axle can interrupt the mindless travel of the passengers consigned to the corporate-run train that controls America.

The most prevalent and potent cultural artifact within American culture is the illuminated screen. Technology has become an extension of oneself, to the point where the people controlling technology conduct decisions more than ones own soul. The United States prides itself on freedom of choice, but communication and journalism student Des Freedman argues that “Media power has frequently been seen in terms of the ability of one group or a single individual to command such a sizeable presence in and control of the media environment, and thus the public sphere, that it undermines both the pluralism of voice and diversity of opinion necessary for a democracy…Concentrated media power, therefore, is antidemocratic both because it hands definitional, analytical, and interpretive power to unelected organizations and because it undermines the ability of citizens to acquire and exchange the information and ideas necessary to make informed decisions about public life.” Increasingly mediated by media, Americans are so used to living virtually, living through others, and trying to emulate others that they have become detached from themselves and their ability to be democratic. The superficial plenitude and attitude that “everything is under control” that is featured in the media and mimicked by Americans continues to enforce the illusion that the American dream is still tangible; it also distracts from the country’s crumbling foundations. The big cracks in American democracy -- corporate personification, dissatisfaction with government, wealth distribution, environmental irresponsibility -- seem too big to patch. The feeling of problems being too big to fix is exemplified in the words of songwriter John Mayer’s song Waiting on the World to Change: “Now we see everything that’s going wrong, with the world and those who lead it, we just feel like we don’t have the means, to rise above and beat it.”  
If technology has such an impact on people’s lives, can it be used for good? Kalle Lasn warns that television can be too much talk and not enough action. He did mention scenarios such as the take down of the British Columbia logging industry's "Forests Forever" campaign through the jamming of television, but that is a different concept than using television to actually grow as a person. Philosophy professor Gerald J. Erion’s ideas in his article “Amusing Ourselves to Death with Television News: Jon Stewart, Neil Postman, and the Huxleyan Warning” are very similar to Kalle Lasn’s, except that Erion gives more discussion to the positive possibility of television shows causing change. Both authors recognize the negative impact of TV primarily filled with empty talk -- talk that does not bring about any real knowledge or progress. As someone who watches The Daily Show with Jon Stewart often, I’d have to agree with Erion that Stewart’s reframing of current news does spur productive thought. I’ll admit that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are usually the only political shows that I turn to, but the shows don’t keep me contained to their information. If I feel that I need to obtain more information on a subject seen during one of the Comedy Central shows, I’ll look it up. The research that these entertaining shows motivates me to pursue is notable. Erion warranted this idea when he quoted Annenberg analyst Dannagal Goldthwaite saying, “The Daily Show assumes a fairly high level of political knowledge on the part of its audience”. Experiences are what you make them -- if you want to make them a learning experience or an instigator of action, then that’s exactly what they will become. 
And what about the internet? In the “Posthuman” section of Lasn’s “Autumn” chapter, life with internet comes across as miserable. Shocking but commonplace internet usage highlighted includes a man who is interested in nothing but surfing the internet, people who live only virtual lives, people’s experiences losing their validity unless they're captured by technology, computers regulating people’s moods, internet-induced depression, corrupted emotions, and humans wasting away in front of screens. Are these dim depictions the essence of the internet? Author Nicholas Carr’s conclusions about internet effects are similar to Lasn’s. He explains that, “...as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.” Others, such as digital creative director of ad agency Deutsch LA Josh Rose, are more optimistic about the internet. Rose feels that, “The Internet doesn’t steal our humanity, it reflects it.” The real question is whether the convenience generated by the internet is worth the unavoidable negative effects, i.e. decreased attention span and in-person experiences. I’d have to argue that it is- but only if used “responsibly”. My definition of responsibly using the internet would be: internet use without a loss of connection to the real world -- most likely only a few of hours a day. As technology becomes increasingly necessary for modern life, that can actually seem quite difficult. It takes focus and premeditation, but it is possible to complete many of the tasks people instinctively turn to computers for now without them. Try using a map instead of a GPS or Google Maps- it does wonders for navigation skills. Formulate your own recipe for dinner instead of robotically reading off of a screen. Get deep into the great outdoors, where you can rediscover a side of yourself that doesn’t rely on technology. 
“If the Earth felt less like something out there and more like an extension of our bodies, we'd care for it like kin.” (Lasn 6) The thought that earth’s environment is headed towards bankruptcy is considered pseudoscience by many. It is the most profound case of ignoring the truth that Americans, (as well as most of the world) have convened. “Fifteen hundred eminent scientists, including the majority of all living Nobel Prizewinners, signed a Warning to Humanity in 1992, and fifty-eight world academies of science released a similar document in 1994, warning that the human experiment on Planet Earth is veering out of control” (Lasn 201). World leaders announce the rising GDP with confidence yet there’s chaos going on all around us. The issue of the present human relation to nature tops the priority list in my opinion. After all, what will culture jamming do for us if the earth stops supporting our endeavors? The most encouraging aspect of the environment controversy is that huge changes would happen if individual consumers made better choices. If everyone stopped buying into the seductive idea of bottled water from Fuji or Mt. Shasta and just used filtered tap water, 9.67 billion gallons worth of water bottles and the heaping pile of plastic and pollution that goes along with that wouldn’t have to exist. Plus, the average American can drink tap water for a year for about 50 cents. There is a seemingly endless amount of similar examples that advertising companies work hard to keep in the background. Americans complain about the “burden” that is the responsibility to take care of the environment. Extreme plenitude -- the plenitude that keeps them from accomplishing any authentic changes -- is taken for granted. People just keep taking in and paying out in a robotic fashion. 
I recently spoke with a guy from Denmark who is wrapping up a three month trip to America, during which he visited around twelve states. He informed me that after asking countless Americans about the recent healthcare reform, only two people gave him any answer other than “It’s bad”. There is obviously some sort of disconnect from what is going on around Americans if they can’t even explain an issue as significant as their own country’s health care. Do Americans really want to emulate the negative stereotypes that other countries tag us with? Wouldn’t Americans rather “Disprove their false theories that are usually based on popular opinions without them ever scraping off the surface to look deeper into issues”, as suggested by the Dane? Perhaps the "Perpendiculaires" and Situationists are really onto something when they say that “...culture ought to be spread laterally (through salon-type discussions) rather than vertically (through TV and the Internet)” (102).
It can seem overwhelming to help trigger the complete reform of a country, but it is something that can be initiated by starting small. Individual changes, such as choosing local, organically grown food over fast food chains or talking to someone in person instead of watching reruns do make a difference. If everyone were to take actions such as those, there would be a noticeable transformation. Lasn rallies people to support advancement by proclaiming: “Instead of resisting this kind of fundamental change, let's embrace it. Let's cheer on our cultural rebels even as we fear them. Let's revel in (or at least not shy away from) the life and death of our paradigms” (113). Though Lasn is only one person, he has sparked some valuable changes, such as the Occupy Wall Street movement. If one does not at least try, then there is no chance for success. The validity of Ghandi’s words of wisdom, “Be the change that you wish to see in the world” has not expired. It is not as if there haven’t been victories already. On a modest scale, Arcata, California now has democratic control of the corporations within their community. A large scale example would be the enforcement of anti-smoking laws that largely limited tobacco companies’ ability to manipulate. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood the influence that an individual can have: “What affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.” Avoid being overwhelmed, understand what you want to stand for, and just go for it. 
Works Cited:
Lasn, Kalle. Culture Jam: How to Reverse America's Suicidal Consumer Binge-and Why We Must. New York: Quill, 2000.

Erion, Gerald J. “Amusing Ourselves to Death With Television News: Jon Stewart, Neil Postman, and the Huxleyan Warning”. In J. Holt (ed.) The Daily Show and Philosophy (Malden, MA/ Oxford, UK: Blackwell), 5-15.

Freedman, Des. “The Puzzle of Media Power: Notes Toward a Materialist Approach”. International Journal of Communication. 2014. Web. 25 March 2014. <http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2081>.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. The Atlantic. 1 July 2008. Web. 25 March 2014. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/>.

Rose, Josh. “How Social Media Is Having a Positive Impact On Our Culture”. Mashable. 23 Feb 2011. Web. 25 March 2014. <http://mashable.com/2011/02/23/social-media-culture/>

Hogan, Chris. “U.S. CONSUMPTION OF BOTTLED WATER SHOWS CONTINUED GROWTH, INCREASING 6.2 PERCENT IN 2012; SALES UP 6.7 PERCENT”. International Bottled Water Association. 25 April 2013. Web. 25 March 2013. <http://www.bottledwater.org/us-consumption-bottled-water-shows-continued-growth-increasing-62-percent-2012-sales-67-percent>.

Image by Peter Gleick via ScienceBlogs

vs.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Index for Sustainable Economic Welfare (GPI)

Image by Ida Kubiszewski via The Archilectural League NY

Ad Analysis

Image an original Old Spice ad via The Historical Society Blog

Bring Out Your Inner Cowboy

   The human cortex, or voice of reason, is ultimately dominated by our instinctual, reptilian brain when it comes to making purchases. Subconscious, primal impulses prevail because they are so strongly imprinted in our minds. One example of this from the PBS video "The Science of Selling" is when a person correlates a particular memory- such as their mother- with coffee. No matter the rationale, the association will always be the principal defining factor when the decision to acquire coffee is made. In the case of the cowboy Old Spice ad, the primal need for attention is targeted. Old Spice gives the promise of making a man into a real man, which implies getting positive recognition. 

   This Old Spice ad draws from the depiction of true cowboys in the media- men who would win shoot outs and always had a woman practically fainting from their degree of manliness. Consistent with those movies, the featured man is depicted as extremely tall. He has taken a very strong, dominant position. And what man wouldn’t want the confidence of a cowboy? The man in the ad gives off such an air of confidence that the woman beside him seems to think that he is her breath of life- her manly man. As seen in the movies and magazines, a man such as that always gets the girl- it would be unheard of for them not to. So by using Old Spice, a man is buying into those sort of 100% of the time odds- as unrealistic as they may actually be. Not only does this ad assure that a man will get attention, it also appeals to the ever present need for sex.

Image from the film Born to the West (1937) via Wikipedia

Technology and Culture

Technically Responsible

   Technology has always existed within culture- however simplistic. The 19th and 20th centuries have experienced a much more accelerated form of advancement that has created some controversial issues. Many people have the feeling that technology is progressing too quickly simply because the general population's education is not keeping up with the ever-increasing growth rate. In my opinion the amazing opportunities that technology has provided us outweigh the negative effects. As technology advances the focus should be on proper management so that efficiency isn't hampered by environmental and mental pollution.

   Economist John Steele Gordon points out that "It was the cheap automobile, far beyond any other invention, that transformed the daily life of the nineteenth century into that of the twentieth, especially in America, a country that loves its cars almost as much as it loves its liberty." Without the car, we would not have the social ability, feminine power, suburbs, financial credit system, and quick construction rate that is seen in present day America. The invention of the car engine was essentially the basis for modern technology. Cars have allowed for more human connection, the ability to complete more tasks in one day, gain access to more information, and produce things more quickly. These benefits are the same as with the invention of the internet. With similar benefits comes the similar pollution seen in both commodities. With a proper system for handling these downfalls people could constitute a truly productive world.

    The Luddites initiated a new way of thinking about technology that has set a good example for how present day people should question technology. Luddites "...recognized all the astonishing new benefits the Industrial Revolution conferred, but they also worried, as Carlyle put it in 1829, that technology was causing a 'mighty change' in their 'modes of thought and feeling. Men are grown mechanical in head and in heart, as well as in hand.'" Although the Luddites did not support the way in which new technology had been introduced into their culture, they did understand that technology could benefit people under the right circumstances. The Luddites- as with many people in the present day- questioned how technology would affect us, and fought against the possible bad consequences. By so easily smashing technology, the Luddites emphasized the contrast between what a human can do and what technology means. I think that the Luddites set a good basic example: that we should question how technology will affect our lives and do so in a recognizable way. Nowadays we should set ourselves apart from technology at times so that we can still note how we are without it. If we are not aware of how technology can affect us then bad things can happen.

   The "Post Human" chapter in author Kalle Lasn's Culture Jam describes the all-too-familiar inability to have a healthy relationship with technology. There may not be many official studies on the effects of technology, but problems certainly become apparent when you see someone displaying characteristics comparable to those who are addicted or insane. As the use of technology increases, more and more people are joining the virtual world and leaving reality behind. Insecurity and emptiness is being covered up with the anonymity that is offered through the use of technology. Whether the distraction is surfing the Internet aimlessly or taking on a new identity, eventually overuse or misuse of technology either brings out unhealthy qualities or makes a person a little less genuinely human. As someone who has personally experienced the side effects which Lasn describes, I agreed that the use of technology easily becomes an addiction. It is my hope that much more research will be done on the topic so that people can learn to manage technology sensibly.

   In developed countries the use of technology has infiltrated everyone's lives- even those in their 60's and 70's. Technology has allowed for convenience that is reshaping ordinary life. Without the internet I would not be able to take online classes, organize my travels, or obtain much of the information that I use in my everyday life. I'll admit that the possibility for increased inequality with the use of technology is a real one, (as price tags are placed on knowledge and physical ability) but I think that it is somewhat unavoidable. I understand that it is hard to imagine life without technology and I don't think that people should try to- they should just embrace it.  

   I'm personally very interested in protecting earth's environment and preserving the personal experience that typically comes with being human. I feel that the truth about the effects of technology is being suppressed and I hope that people will continue to fight for their right to know. Technology does have the ability to connect us, and I think that if people can keep a balance between the real and virtual world then humanity will thrive. Educating people about all aspects of technology is key in order to instill appreciation, awareness, responsible action.

Works Cited:

"Culture Jam": Post Human Chapter by Kalle Lasn

"Engine of Liberation" by John Steele Gordon

"What the Luddites Really Fought Against" by Richard Conniff

Image by Jon Eng via Sustainable Futures

Hipster Subculture

Nobody Wants to Be a Hipster?

"People compulsively complain about hipsters out of a sense of insecurity, when really, like bees, or sharks, the hipster is more scared of you than you are of them." -Luke O'Neill

   The negative stereotypes that I've heard about American hipsters have made me want to understand the history of the subculture, and what it means to be a hipster in the present day. I started off my research by asking my younger sister what she thinks of when I say the word "hipster". She immediately responded with: "Someone who thinks that they discovered everything before everyone else did; everything that's not mainstream- as soon as something becomes mainstream they get pissed." To me, non-mainstream is what I think of when I hear the word subculture, though I know that's often not the case. In order to get a more specific definition of what a hipster is, I explored a variety of websites- from the more technical Wikipedia to primarily opinionated blogs. In the case of the contemporary hipster, I think it's the negative stereotypes that have actually become the dominant definition. The widely recognized depiction of a hipster is characteristic of a hipster minority but is being used to describe the majority.

   I've concluded that present-day hipsters are looked down upon principally because of consumerism. Jeff Wise of the website psychology today explains that generally the people of the subculture have become "represented as an uberconsumer of trends and as a new, and rather gullible, target market that consumes cool rather than creating it." The idea that the hipster subculture has become a mere marketing ploy would explain why the perceived negative norm of hipsters is so different than what their essence encompasses in a textbook definition. The delusional hipster as presented by Mr. Wise contributes a strikingly different illustration of the subculture when contrasted with the Urban Dictionary description. Urban Dictionary provides a clean phrase, claiming that "Hipsters are a subculture of men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking, counter-culture, progressive politics, an appreciation of art and indie-rock, creativity, intelligence, and witty banter." This divergence of the uberconsumer hipster niche and the fundamental hipster is what has caused the hipster to be seen as only the former- as I was pointing out in the introduction with the minority vs. majority argument. Based on personal experience, there are still an abundance of original-esque hipsters out there whose lifestyles revolve around conserving rather than consuming. Most of them wouldn't admit that they might technically be hipsters because of the discussion.

   There are certain traits that are at the "core" of hipster beliefs, and have been seen in all versions: the original 1940s hipsters, the beat generation, hippies, and the contemporary hipsters. In all decades, hipsters are not satisfied with American mainstream society and are philosophical with existentialist tendencies. Norman Mailer described a hipster's attitude very well in a fragment of his 1957 pamphlet on 1940's hipsters, stating that the subculture's members were people "with a middle-class background [who]...adopt what they believe is the carefree, spontaneous, cool lifestyle." The adoption involves self-imposed poverty as a way to contrast materialism. Exploration of new and non-mainstream politics, music, fashion, drugs, sexuality, and overall alternative lifestyles is very important to hipsters. There is a resistance to identifying oneself as a hipster since the labeling of a subculture seems too mainstream to the group. I agree with the Clark Historical Society that sometimes "Modern hipsters pride themselves above all else as being 'original', but today’s hipsters are actually very similar to the hipsters of the 1940s".

   Music has been an eminent interest for hipsters, especially considering that the culture began because of jazz rhythms. Independent and inventive music that doesn't enforce mainstream music rules is something that hipsters can believe in and take pride in. I love how straightforward Luke O'Neil, an admitted hipster, was about the hipster music scene when he blogged: "We mock the hipsters when we should be thanking them, because like it or not, many of these trends we're so quick to dismiss now are going to filter down into the mainstream sooner or later. Do you have any idea where your entertainment even comes from? How many truly horrible indie rock shows and DJs and art openings and readings and bars and fashion shows people like me have to suffer through on a nightly basis so we can sift through the cultural slush pile and report back to the rest of the world? We ate foam for a year there! And we did it so you wouldn't have to." Indie music allows for creative music that may not have gained any following otherwise, and I do agree that it's an important thing.

   "Thrift store chic" has become the ubiquitous fashion movement of hipsters. The style started gaining popularity in the 90's within the indie rock and emo music scenes. A lousy economy, the environmental movement, and the do-it-yourself mentality all contributed to thrift store chic becoming increasingly utilized throughout the 2000's. Shopping at thrift stores allows for more individuality, less impact on the planet, and an association with indie music. A hipster's thrift store garments of choice are usually cardigans, flowery dresses, vintage t-shirts, and flannel "lumberjack" shirts. These pieces are then mixed with dark skinny jeans or leggings and trendy accessories in order to chic things up. Hipster fashion has become very broad and commercialized, often leading to non-hipsters wearing supposedly hipster styles. Journalist Luke O'Neil contemplates this phenomenon in saying"...almost everything can be woven into the hipster fabric now; it's a choose-your-own-ending story where every option leads to the same page, you standing there in some silly hat or other. White guy with a beard? Hipster. Black dude on a skateboard? Hipster. Just a sort-of-skinny cop? Hipster. Woman riding a bike? Hipster. You can play either a mandolin or a turntable and somehow still be a hipster. No rules!"

   Sophy Bot has coined the occurrence of the word hipster being thrown at a growing count of people and things as "the hipster effect". The hipster effect describes how Americans are quick to qualify anyone who possesses any of the qualities as a hipster. Stereotypes, misinterpretation, and the popularity of the hipster designation contribute to this "hipster trap" in which a growing number of people are classified as hipster against their intention. Bot points out that the focus when speculating the subculture should not be the alleged negative aspects but instead the innovative "freedom of choice". When it comes down to it, it is not a hipster subculture that makes a person a stuckup know-it-all- it's the person themselves. It is important to recognize how much individuality there is within the United States and to become more acquainted with genuinely getting to know a person rather than simply placing them into a category hollow of fair judgement.

Works Cited:

Parasuco, Tray. "Hipster." Urban Dictionary. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 22 Nov. 2007. <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipster&defid=2705928>.

Wikipedia contributors. "Thrift store chic." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 Jul. 2012. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.

Wikipedia contributors. "Hipster (1940s subculture)." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.

Wikipedia contributors. "Hipster (contemporary subculture)." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.

Wise, Jeff. "The Sad Science of Hipsterism." Psychology Today. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 8 Sept. 2010. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201009/the-sad-science-hipsterism>.

Bot, Sophy. The Hipster Effect. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://thehipstereffect.com>.

'On the Offbeat': The Original Hipsters. Clark Historical Society. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 March 2011. <http://clarknews.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/%E2%80%9Con-the-offbeat%E2%80%9D-the-original-hipsters/>.

O'Neil, Luke. "It's Hip to Be Hip, Too". Slate. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2013. <5 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2013/09/proud_of_being_a_hipster_one_bearded_indie_rock_loving_contrarian_article.html

Image via Create Awards

Response to "Thou Shalt Be Judged" by Mark Probest

Read Thou Shalt Be Judged

Summary:  
In this article, Mark Probest further evaluates a college class debate regarding the soundness of first impressions that are caused by the existence of subcultures. A portion of his class believed that subcultures cause false judgements that are detrimental. Other students thought that subcultures are just a part of growing up and are relatively harmless. Probest concludes that he had experienced positive effects from being associated with subcultures in the past. He also recognizes that because people are so complex, we must understand that they often do not represent every characteristic of a particular subculture.

Analysis:
I agree with Probest because I think that subcultures help peoples' minds to process a large population. It is important though that our judgments are not inflexible. As much as people are different, they are also very similar. People can often find similarities in others whom they first thought contrasted themselves. An example of this could be seen between my sister, an extremely preppy girly-girl, and her friend, a girl who associates with the punk subculture. They are different in many ways but have similar personalities and are very close. Ultimately people should be confident in who they are to the point where they can brush off being judged by others.   

Response to Culture Jam Chapter "Autumn"

Read Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn

Chapter Summary:
   The "Autumn" chapter starts off with an explanation of why Americans complain about their lives despite extreme plenitude. He points out that Americans are not happy because "When everything is at hand, nothing is ever hard-won, and when nothing is ever hard-won, nothing really satisfies." (pg. 22) Americans have so much that they end up with an overload that creates hypochondriacs and pessimists. Because of this effect, Americans are always searching for something bigger, better, and more shocking to fill the void. A large percentage of Americans become hoarders, (whether it's physically, virtually, or mentally), but don't view themselves as hoarders because "everyone else" is doing the same thing. As Kalle Lasn illustrates, Americans become increasingly similar because "Identical images flow into our brains, homogenizing our perspectives, knowledge, tastes, and desires." (pg. 23) Lasn goes into detail about the mental pollutants we take in and their effects, including: noise, jolts, shock, hype, unreality, erosion of empathy, information overload, infotoxins, loss of infodiversity, Manchurian effects, posthuman tendencies, and the media virus. My notes highlight the details of each section.

Analysis:
   What stuck out to me most in Lasn's "Autumn" chapter was the "Posthuman" section. His stories described miserable lives, and what shocks me is that the lifestyles seem desirable to many. A man who is interested in nothing but surfing the internet, people who live only virtual lives, experiences losing their validity unless they're captured by technology, computers regulating our moods, internet-induced depression, corrupted emotions, humans wasting away in front of screens! All of these dim depictions relate to what I've seen or experienced myself. I am not yet desensitized to these happenings and thoughts of them make me feel terrible- helpless. I'm looking forward to easing my anxiety by reading about Lasn's proposed solutions. As for now, I am experiencing extreme nostalgia. When I think about all the issues America faces it makes me want to go back to the summer that I spent living in Yosemite- a time when I only used a laptop for about twelve hours in the four months that I was there. I guess my instinct is to go somewhere where culture isn't quite as impersonal, rather than dealing with the issues. My hope is that I will become more active in standing out/standing up since the matters discussed inevitably affect me.

Image via Small Business Profit Explosion

Low Wages, Low Morals- Always

   Culture frames what has become widespread among a group of people. Within a culture you can find the symbols, codes, characters, and artifacts that together have designed a bigger picture- a way of life. An artifact in a cultural context is anything created by a human that reflects his or her personal culture. In order to exemplify this essay’s point I will focus on a living cultural artifact that I think depicts present day American Culture most fully: the discount superstore. The American superstore Walmart is currently the most profitable business in the world. Walmart's bargain prices promote the vicious cycle of overconsumption that now defines American Culture. America's largest company may be doing more harm than good, and the debate continues over whether or not the convenience is really worth the social and environmental consequences.

   American consumers generally think that the world works the same way that Mary Poppin’s bottomless bag does. Advertising campaigns done by large retailers such as Walmart enforce ideas that Americans are entitled to getting “good deals” and owning pretty much whatever they want. It seems as if Walmart would be the perfect way to support prosperity and the American Dream but the company is not all smiles. As activist Kalle Lasn has illustrated, “We have evolved into a smile-button culture. We wear the trendiest fashions, drive the best cars industry can produce and project an image of incredible affluence—cool people living life to the hilt.” (Lasn xiii) When a society becomes ruled by materialism shoppers are no longer in control- the source of the materialism is. Advertising companies are that ruling power and Americans are exceptionally willing to serve them.

   Walmart claims to fuel local economies, provide great jobs, and give people the prices that they need. The reality is that a Walmart absorbs a lot of the profit that small businesses rely on and instead of many unique stores you get one giant superstore blob. Americans increasingly look and live like each other because they shop at the same exact places and see the same things. In reality that similarity is usually seen in all cultures, but America in particular uses the desire to look culturally acceptable in order to make a very large profit.

   America ultimately loves the power of the trashcan and its citizens would not be able to maintain the landfill of environmental consequences that they do without it. Places like Walmart make it cheaper to replace rather than re-use. American’s don’t have to deal with most of the mess that such a wasteful scenario compiles so the practice continues to seem perfectly fine. The country’s disconnect from nature is the root of the problem. “If the Earth felt less like something out there and more like an extension of our bodies, we'd care for it like kin.” (Lasn 6) I’ve personally seen emergence in nature completely change people, myself included. When working and living in Yosemite National Park I often saw fellow employees end up more excited about going on a hike than going on the computer, and for many that was not the case when they first relocated there. 

   Many Americans that are aware of the growing shallowness of their culture hope for the best but do not know how to compromise. The instinct to belong and to follow the example of others is hard to go against. There are a growing number of people who are choosing to explore new ways to experience freedom within American culture. I think that the hardest aspect of being an American today is finding the balance between following and rebelling against the corporate-inspired norm. The more you experience the more wisdom you gain, and I’d like to think that Americans just need the right experiences in order to set things straight.

Works Cited:

Lasn, Kalle. Culture Jam. New York: Eagle Brook, 1999. Print.

Wikipedia contributors. "Walmart." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Jan. 2014.

Image from film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price via Lightning Entertainment