Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

McLuhan’s Rearview Mirror: Why it Matters in 2023

Marshall McLuhan was a renowned media theorist and philosopher. In the 1960s, he introduced the concept of the “rearview mirror” to elucidate how new technologies and media reshape societies and individuals.

For McLuhan, the rearview mirror metaphorically represents our tendency to perceive and understand new technologies and media through our past experiences and frameworks. We tend to project the values, assumptions, and biases of the past onto the present and future. This, in turn, limits our understanding of the transformative potential of emerging technologies.

In the modern era, media has evolved significantly. This has led to profound changes in how we communicate, interact, and understand the world. According to McLuhan, different media forms, such as the written word, print, television, and the internet, introduce new modes of information processing and cultural organization. These new modes subsequently shape our perceptions and behaviors. But despite these transformations, we often cling to outdated mental models. Instead of looking forward, we interpret new media through the lens of the old. This creates dissonance between our old values and the new realities of the digital age.

Technological Determinism and the Rearview Mirror

McLuhan’s rearview mirror has been tied to technological determinism: the idea that technological advancements exert a formative influence on human societies and individuals, altering the way we think, relate, and organize ourselves. Today, there is increasing skepticism about whether technological determinism is a useful framework for helping us understand how our world works. So I can see how some might also question the utility of McLuhan’s rearview mirror.

But even if we accept contemporary skepticism about the idea of technological determinism, I think the rearview mirror concept remains useful, because it centers more on the psychological and perceptual effects of media rather than the broader sociocultural implications of technological determinism.

McLuhan’s rearview mirror encourages us to think about how individuals and societies often interpret new technologies through the lens of their existing cultural and intellectual frameworks, and it highlights the inclination to carry forward past assumptions and biases when encountering new media or technologies.

The Rearview Mirror in 2023

In 2023, rapid advancements in technology, including artificial intelligence, augmented reality, blockchain, and biotechnology, continue to shape various aspects of our lives, ranging from work and communication to privacy and identity. Yet, our inclination to interpret these developments using familiar mental models from the past can hinder our ability to fully comprehend and harness their potential.

Further, McLuhan’s rearview mirror underscores how cultural and social structures often lag behind technological advancements. Today, this is observable in debates surrounding online privacy, intellectual property law, misinformation, the gig economy, and the ethical implications of emerging technologies, where existing legal, social, and ethical frameworks struggle to adapt.

Digital media, in particular, exemplifies the rearview mirror effect. The democratization of content creation and dissemination through social media platforms has disrupted traditional gatekeepers of information and introduced new avenues for self-expression and participation. However, the rapid spread of misinformation, echo chambers, and online harassment reveal the continued application of old patterns and biases in these new digital contexts.

Takeways

So where does that leave us? Can we navigate around the pitfalls of McLuhan’s rearview mirror? I think the answer is a qualified “yes.” But doing so requires us to cultivate adaptive thinking and critical awareness. We must engage with new technologies critically and reflexively, questioning our assumptions and the potential consequences they may have on society. This is especially important for those of us over the age of 40, because we have a lot more to look at in our rearview mirrors than do younger people.

By recognizing the influence of the rearview mirror, we can become active participants in shaping the future rather than passive recipients of technological change.

Posted on

What Cruel Optimism is and How to Address it

I recently heard the term “cruel optimism” used on a podcast, and I decided to learn a little bit about it. It was coined by the late cultural theorist Lauren Berlant to describe when people form attachments to beliefs, objects, or relationships that are ultimately detrimental to their well-being.

Frequently, people become attached to a particular vision of the future, a desired outcome or way of life, even when it is unlikely to be achieved or may be actively harmful. This attachment creates a sense of optimism that becomes “cruel” when the desired outcome is not achieved, or when the pursuit of it leads to harm or disappointment.

For example, someone might be optimistic about their career prospects as a musician, writer, filmmaker, dancer, basketball player, or college professor, despite the limited job opportunities in these fields, and then continue pursuing their career goal for many years. As their optimistic vision of the future is not realized, it becomes increasingly “cruel,” sucking the positivity and joy from their life, hindering their ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and blinding them to alternative sources of meaning and satisfaction.

Continue reading “What Cruel Optimism is and How to Address it”
Posted on

Memo to Michael Hiltzik: If you think The Force Awakens Stinks, the Problem was your expectations — and here’s why….

A couple of days ago on Facebook, my buddy Aaron Starkey posted the following piece by L.A. Times columnist Michael Hiltzik: Admit it: ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ stinks — and here’s why. If you haven’t read the piece, you might want to do so before continuing.

Given the historic box office success of the Force Awakens, and the triumphant tenor of the press surrounding it, I can understand the curmudgeonly impulse to want to take the piss out of the film.

Indeed, I’m exactly the sort of cynical, middle-aged, white guy who is ripe for a piece like Hiltzik’s. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Star Wars hater. But I also have no special relationship with the films, aside from seeing all 7 installments in the theater upon their release.

I’m not deep in the Star Wars universe. Star Wars didn’t define my childhood. I don’t have a position on the role of the expanded universe in the Star Wars canon (I don’t even know what the expanded universe is).

I don’t attend conventions, collect action figures, or camp out overnight weeks in advance to buy tickets for the 3:00 am showing on opening night. I don’t hang out on Internet message boards devoted to Star Wars, or quote passages from the film in day-to-day conversation.

An attack on Star Wars doesn’t feel like a personal attack on my community or my identity. I have no personal stake in defending it, and I’d welcome interesting and insightful criticism of the Force Awakens.

Unfortunately, Hiltzik’s column was neither insightful nor persuasive — and here’s why.

It’s unfair to judge the Force Awakens against our memories of seeing New Hope in 1977, and we need to acknowledge the affect of personal history and cultural context on our reaction to it.

I saw the first Star Wars movie when I was 14 y/o (Hiltzik is 11 years older than me, so he was around 25 y/o in 1977). No matter what the Force Awakens is (or isn’t), I can only see it through the eyes of the 52 y/o guy that I am now. Given that I’ve seen a lot more at 52 than I had at 14, my take is bound to be different, no matter what the film is (or isn’t), and it’s probably going to feel somewhat compromised.

I have this problem with music all the time. I’d love to hear more music through my 14 y/o ears, because those ears knew so much less about the history of music and how the sausage was made. They didn’t have that knowledge getting in the way of just eating the sausage on its own terms and enjoying it. There was so much uncharted territory to explore.

On the other hand, it was the love of that sausage that motivated me to study the history of it and to learn more about sausage making, so it’s a trade-off. I can still love music, but I have to love it in a different way and with different expectations than the ones I had in 1977. But that’s nobody’s fault, and it’s not an inherent flaw of today’s culture. It’s just one of the challenges of aging and acquiring knowledge and wisdom. The old drugs don’t work like they used to. Continue reading “Memo to Michael Hiltzik: If you think The Force Awakens Stinks, the Problem was your expectations — and here’s why….”

Posted on

Artists and Art

This entry is part 12 of 12 in the series Navigating In Fog: Thoughts on the Music Business

The Artist is a very romantic figure in our culture. There’s a lot of ideological mumbo jumbo attached to what an Artist is and what an Artist should be. It’s one of those paradoxes. The dominant ideal is that art is about freedom of expression. Yet lots of people would put a lot of rules on art given a chance. People love to set up boundaries and categories. Some people might even try to shatter the whole notion that Artists making art is a romantic ideal.

I like those kinds of high-minded debates. But this isn’t the place for them. So I’m not going to get into that stuff here. Instead, I’m going to accept the following premises: (1) being an Artist and making art represents a noble pursuit; and (2) if there is anything pure and good in the music business, it starts with the Artists and the art they make.

Why am I going to the trouble saying this? Well, the further you venture into the Fog Machine, the easier it is to lose sight of these ideas. And once you forget them, you’re sunk, especially if you see yourself as an Artist.

At the same time, it’s important remember that Artists make art in a context. Our context is a market economy, where people have to make their living somehow. And the ideals of making art and making a living don’t always easily co-exist.

But if you are an Artist, you have to find a way to deal with this reality. Usually, that involves figuring out where your compromise point is on a broad range of issues. As an Artist, you’ll probably have to face this process head on. But never forget the idealistic goal of art: that the product should come first regardless of what the market seems to be saying.

Sometimes that can be a tough one, especially when people who are supposedly experts about the market are challenging your judgment. But never forget the reality of the Fog Machine. Ultimately, a lot of these folks don’t know anymore than you do. And oddly enough, when an Artist has talent and stays true to his or her ideals, it’s actually pretty surprising how often that resonates in the marketplace.