What do you think is the main point of Chuck Klosterman's essay, "Fail"? (Or, to put it another way, why is the essay titled "Fail"?) Can you relate to his predicament vis a vis technology? How so? (Or, conversely, why not?)
Please respond by 3 p.m., Sunday, Sept. 23. No late responses will be accepted.
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. -- James Madison
“When a dog bites a
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
About Me
Followers
forthcoming
- "A Newspaper Is a Collection" (poem)
- "News Today" (music video)
- 20th Century Man
- A Walk Back Through a Day's New
- BBC Facebook Parody
- Breaking News
- Bullshit
- Citizen Journalism -- What Is It?
- Civil Rights Movement
- Class Project: Media Parody
- CNN War (music video)
- Colbert versus Keen
- Dead!
- Dirty Laundry (Remix)
- Electronic Book Burning
- F the CC (music video)
- FCCFU
- Future of Book Publishing
- Internet Art!
- Interview With Andrew Keen
- Journalism Back in the Day (short movie)
- Journalism?
- Locus Novus
- Logorama (short film)
- Monoculture
- Murrow Broadcast From London
- Neil Postman on Cyberspace (YouTube)
- New York Times Home Page
- Newsboys
- Newsboys Shooting Craps
- Newsies
- NPR (Your Brain on Computers)
- Penn & Teller on Marketplace of Ideas
- Penn & Teller's FCC
- Perez Hilton
- Postman Comic: Orwell vs Huxley
- Reconstruction of American Journalism
- See It Now
- Story of Electronics
- Story of Stuff
- The Yellow Kid
- Turkel
- Video Game Faces
- Whackamurdoch
- Who Owns the Media?
- Who Owns the Web?
- World of Blogging (music video)
24 comments:
I would like to start my saying that I found this reading to be pretty eye opening but also very frustrating, because yet again I have been completely incited by the ideas but left hanging when any possibility of a solution is suggested. I realize that there is some point to that so I will not let it cloud the fact that I willingly read this essay three times. I think that the title of the reading refers to two things. The first being Ted Kaczynski’s failure to allow his brilliant ideas to be taken seriously by essentially sabotaging himself. and the second reason is the failure on the part of our entire society as a whole. In this story everyone lost, even the one person who was intelligent and willing enough to escape from our self constructed prison. This failure, as Klosterman points out, was inevitable though and happens in everyone’s lives every day. In the case of Kaczynski, I would also say that the failure was inevitable because it is totally reasonable to believe that a person who is truly seeing the world and society for what it is and has successfully detached themselves from it would be driven crazy by the notion that there is plausible way to solve the problems. I, like Klosterman, am not defending what Kaczynski did. I am however, saying that it is understandable and does not surprise me one bit that something like this happened. I have always been somewhat conscious of how much time I spend with screens, but never analytical enough until taking this class. Now I am frustrated all the time because I notice every time I look at my phone or go on my computer because I feel like I am helpless to do anything about it shy of burning my wallet and car and walking to Alaska to live in the Wild. In this way I am aware of my own failure but like Klosterman am unwilling to fix the problem. I found the three points of Kaczynski’s manifesto to be particularly interesting especially the first part. When he writes that “people do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control” I realize that he is right. It is human nature to conform and that conformity, although some of us might try to be unique, is unavoidable. Unless one is willing to completely separate from society and choose the life of an outcast, they will never have an original thought or idea much the same as they will never be free of the prison that is modern technology. Klosterman makes the point that “where [Kaczynski] not a sociopath, he could have stayed in his cabin and avoided the advancing world forever”. I would argue that perhaps it was only because he was mentally unstable that he was able to remove himself from society entirely. I will end by saying that I am actually jealous of Kaczynski. I think that the most powerful quote from the reading was “his ideas were too radical, but at least they were his own”.
I found Chuck Klosterman's "Fail" to be a really enjoyable and stimulating article because he articulated very well a lot of the issues with technology that we've been discussing in class. For instance, when Klosterman talks about how "TV takes away our freedom to have whatever thoughts we want" (218), at first I kind of groaned because that's the kind of thing you hear all the time that I didn't really attribute any meaning to. TV rots your brain, TV turns you into a screen zombie, blah blah blah. But when he began to explain what he referred to as the construction of a "lower, harder intellectual ceiling," the idea of TV's damage to the human thought process rang true for me in a way it never had before. Essentially, every picture and thought in my head has some root in media, and that makes any original relation to the universe absolutely impossible. Worse still, the damage done can't be undone. I could remove myself from society and media altogether, but that still won't change that fact that when I see an image I will always immediately connect it to a bunch of other images I've seen on TV and the internet. I especially liked when Klosterman pointed out that for 129,900 years, all moving images were real, but within the last century this was changed. We can comprehend that it's just a movie, but somewhere within us, there's thousands of years of evolution that don't sync up with the idea of false talking, moving images. As for the title "Fail," I would say that it refers to the awareness that the majority of educated people have that there are a lot of problems inherently associated with our dependence on technology, but as a culture we completely fail to do anything about this problem. This is because, as Kaczynski states "Technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom" (229).
Klosterman’s article mirrors Postman’s book, by acknowledges the detrimental effect of technology upon human society, and once again fails to provide a feasible solution for it—one of the many reasons the article is titled “Fail.” Klosterman is almost more effective in this endeavor than Postman, simply by his unique choice of subject matter. His quasi-defense of the Unabomber only serves to make his argument more compelling, even as he admits the fact that the goal of unplugging completely from technology is laughably impossible. Klosterman’s close analysis of the Unabomber’s largely unread manifesto reveals a philosophy embraced by most modern intellectuals; the belief that technology is destroying human society, combined with the somewhat hopeless belief that humans can challenge that. As pointed out in the article, humans do not rationally craft their own society—but the question posed is, do they have the ability to consciously change it? The Unabomber declares the answer to this is yes, while Klosterman, Postman, and others state that it is an empathic no. In this, Klosterman admits he—and most of the world—are precisely the type of people the Unabomber hated most, the people who understood the negative impact of technology on society and yet refused to do anything about it. But as with Postman, I find myself unable to offer up an effective solution. Moreover, even if we currently hate the society we live in, we did on some level, rational or otherwise, craft it ourselves. Perhaps we should just be stupidly optimistic and have faith that the future will be better (although I cynically don’t believe that, even as I type it).
Honestly, after reading the essay I cannot pin point Klosterman’s main point because on one hand he does have so many good ideas and arguments about technology but on the other hand it ends with the conclusion that he “failed,” and likewise all of humanity will fail. So, I don’t see the point in writing this great essay about how the world is going to ruin by technology if only to say, “I cannot be saved.” To me, the main point of this essay was to just raise awareness since no real solution was made. The essay is essentially a fail. It did not fulfill its purpose in helping humanity. In fact, it did just the opposite by saying that he loved the internet and could not live without it. This only makes people like me who are reading the essay think, “yup, were all doomed because if he can’t live without the internet then I sure can’t.” The essay is a failure, the Unabomber was a failure, and everyone else will be failures. It is inevitable, is what he is saying. I can definitely relate to his predicament. I’m a slave to technology and so is everyone else I know. No one is free from it. Even if you try to abstain from it, society will shove you in and force you to participate. I tried to avoid getting facebook for as long as I could but when I got to college it was almost impossible to participate in clubs and events because that is the main mode of communication now. I needed a facebook in order to participate. Likewise, now companies and organizations think it suspicious if you don’t have a facebook and likewise, may not hire you. Technology has molded me in ways that I’m not even sure I’m aware of. What really got me was when Klosterman said we have no images on our brains that are real. I thought about this for a moment and concluded he was right. I can picture literally anything in my head, even if I have never seen or experienced it. It’s crazy. What’s ironic is that the only thing I can’t imagine is a society without modern technology.
The title "Fail" comes from the Unabomber's failure to have his book taken seriously and humanity's failing to integrate technology in an "objective" way that allows for the free course of ideas.
I have to agree that this article felt like much of the same topics we have already discussed and it feels like we're getting nowhere. Klosterman's thoughts on Kaczynski's manifesto were interesting, but once again he was just another author complaining about how people should learn objectivity and stay completely unplugged unless it's too late.
The television taking away our freedom of ideas is kind of true, but I'd say it's true for books, music, and art as well. There's a saying among these creative groups that basically boils down to the idea that nothing is truly original, it's just presented in a seemingly new way. If you go through the history of the arts and sciences, everybody's ideas are either based off of someone else's or are a reaction to what came before. Kaczynski's ideas weren't his own, the were influenced by people like Thoreau who demanded you go back to nature as political and social protest and Huxley who feared technology as the nonviolent weapon of a totalitarianistic state. Couldn't Klosterman's sarcastic barb of "you just don't get it" be used against himself in the context of what freedom of thought truly is?
Maybe it's just me,but I kind of like the idea of intellectual inheritance. It can seem hopeless and overwhelming, but I feel part of something when I know famous authors and philosophers dealt with the same issues we do today. You can't create anything if you don't have something to start with, and I feel having this miasma of information acts as a springboard for what we want to do with our own ideas. By having that base, we can cut and add until something becomes truly our own and "new" ideas spring forth. Social and technological society isn't perfect, but I personally believe Klosterman fails to see a bigger picture and give credit when credit is due.
First of all, I haven't had a mindgasm in a while, but this essay did it for me. I really want to read "Industrial Society and It's Future," but I'm afraid of being put on a list. Whatever. I would also like to note that I didn't pick up the reading in class, so I had to ironically download it off Kindle.
The essay is entitled FAIL because the Unabomber failed in his goal. I don't believe that he thought he could actually transform society, but he at least wanted to make people aware of the folly of it and perhaps incite change. One of the things the Unabomber talks about in his manifesto is the "Modern Leftist." The Modern Lefist has nothing to do with a politically ideology, but is instead a person who has fully bowed to the democratization and technological dominance of the modern world. This person is so confused, overwhelmed and subject to "feelings of powerlessness" that they are unable to make decisions or think for themselves. Klosterman believes that the people that the Unabomber hates most int he world are those that "know the truth yet still refuse to accept what they know is true." These people are the ultimate "Modern Leftists." I believe that it was The Unabomber's hope not only to inform these people of the truth, but to jolt them into doing something about it. However, Klosterman, the ultimate "Modern Leftist," does not do this, but instead continues to flaccidly accept the status quo of 'inevitable' technological progression.
The essay's title also has a couple cool connotations. Firstly, it seems, with its all-caps presentation, to call up an image of some sort of piece of technology failing. This is pretty ironic, since it is the machine-like humans who are FAILing, and the machines which are succeeding.
That might be a bit of a stretch, but the more direct connotation is to the Internet meme EPIC FAIL, which showcases people screwing up things miserably. Memes (at least with the semi-modern definition) are only possible through modern technology.
I thought the point (which was also expressed in class) that our thoughts do not spring from our own experiences or the ether of our imaginations, but are simply copy-and-pasted from media, was extremely interesting. When Klosterman asked the reader to close their eyes and think of a basketball game, I did so, and the image that came to my mind was looking at the game from above, at a 45* angle from the court. In other words, where the camera would be placed. And I've played MUCH more actual basketball than seen professional basketball on TV.
I can completely relate to his abhorrence/dependence on modern technology. I really hated on smartphones and smartphone owners until last week, when I purchased one. I really loved it until I read this essay, which made me want to chuck it in a lake. However, I'm NOT going to do this, because I'm a Modern Leftist---a total tool.
a couple (maybe more) points:
1) to expect this class to present a solution to problems that are remaking -- or unmaking -- the world is unrealistic. as i've said, the first goal of the class is to problematize what you accept -- & me, too -- accept as normal & natural, when it is anything but.
2) our next reading offers strategies for caging the beast of technology. . . if you even consider it a beast capable of mauling your mind & spirit.
3) i sense a couple of you -- maybe more -- have closed your minds to the new & difficult ideas being discussed in class, mostly by translating them into categories you're already familiar & comfortable with. this defeats the purpose of the readings & discussions -- it's anti-education. to appreciate what's being explored, you'll need to new (or at least different) categories.
4)a tradition junk & poison isn't an intellectual inheitance to be build on. . . it's the very opposite of creativity. . .
Klosterman's "Fail" was definitely an eye opener for me and I believe that to be the main point of the article. It was not meant to provide any solutions for the obliteration of technology because I believe that, like Posterman, Klosterman does not think any viable solutions exist. He wrote this as a way to open peoples minds to the situation we've gotten ourselves into. He relates to the reader by admitting he is just as enslaved by technology as the rest of us and tells us that we don't have to leave society and live in a cabin in the woods to believe that technology and our media culture is drowning us in a sea of useless and trivial information. Klosterman talks about how the unabomber resorted to killing people in an effort to get his ideas out to the public but he failed in doing this because in becoming a murderer Ted Kaczynski completely destroyed his credibility, no one is going to take a man who sends bombs through the U.S. Postal System seriously. Klosterman on the other hand managed to get all his ideas about technology in an article that people could relate to and believe. Sure he didn't get the amount of readership Kaczynski did through the New York Times and The Washington Post but I would sure as hell rather be taken seriously by a thousand people than thought a fool by millions. It is because of this that I think "Fail" succeeds in its own little way. Klosterman puts himself and his readers under the category of "People who know the truth, yet still refuse to accept what they know to be true." I am certainly one of those people but thanks to Klosterman me and many others have been given a one up on the rest of the world.
Chuck Klosterman’s essay is titled “Fail” in reference to the unabomber’s failed when the public did not take his book the “Unabomber Manifesto” seriously.
I agree with his notion that TV is affecting people in a negative way. IT takes away peoples objectivity because the programming simply is not objective. I think television is one main reason why the American society is so torn on certain issues. They just watch different TV shows! We live in a time where we have the ability to be so informed yet the larger percentage will sit on a couch and wait for the same age-old opinions be delivered to them as oppose to trying to make society grow and become something greater. In this regard, people have been stripped of objective reporting and objective opinions and divided civilization. I think the dependency on technology and the power given to the television will undoubtedly cause society to falter. “people do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control” I agree with this quote but this also reminds me of Sir Bertrand Russell who had one main idea for the world at the time he passed. A great social philosopher in the 20th century, Russell stated that humans eventually will realize religion is a man made form of faith that only divides the world and we will be better off without it as a whole. He said this was inevitable but if people listened to him he hoped to increase the rate in which the world changed. I apply that idea to Klostermans idea that society is created by unconscious society; our collective subconscious. These ideas can be swayed by action and I don’t think it is impossible to undo certain shitty, for lack of a better word, habits like sitting on a couch for 8 hours and having programming and ‘content’ shoved into your eyes. So I guess I agree with the Unabomber in this regard that society can absolutely be changed but I lean more towards Russell in the idea of using words not planted explosives outside unsuspecting victims doors.
The dependency on technology is certainly frustrating and unfortunately the world now has a generation who grew up with the computer. The grew that saw it skyrocket from the personal home computer they may have gotten when they were 7 and watched it turn into the beast it is today. The computer has engulfed every aspect of life, people feed it. I am not saying I am not a victim of it, I am; I hate it. In my opinion I have grown accustom to filling my blank time with these forms of instant gratification. Most people would rather see a show that will make them laugh than read a book that makes them think.
People have become so attached to technology that I can only see it becoming a larger part of society before it gets smaller. People have become so dependent on it they wouldn’t know how to organize if we didn’t have all the main technologies, yet none of them were around and countries, like our own, were able to organize and revolt. Due to humans current technological dependency we have weakened our collective strength and put is in a position where we are doomed to fail.
I think at the very basic level, he’s simply expressing that, yes, the Internet is a damaging force to our society. I think it’s his use of really pertinent and interesting examples though, that illustrate why it’s bad in a way that I’ve never quite considered before. His example about imagining a basketball game was perfect. Like he said, yes, I’ve been to basketball games, in fact, my high school had a very active team and it was almost routine to go see them play on weekends. But, just like Klosterman, my first mental image was one that came from television. Also, I don’t think it’s so much a “fail” on the part of society, the title seems like more of a nod to the fact that, despite his best efforts to understand and interpret Kaczynski’s essay, he knows that there is no chance in hell that he’s not going to succumb to the convenience and prevalence of technology in his world. I really loved that he devoted an entire essay to explaining why he agreed Kaczynski but then finished it with, “Oh but wait, I actually really do love the Internet. I suck.” That’s literally how I feel every time I spend a fifth of what my rent payment is on my iPhone or spend three hours a day stalking people on Facebook whose lives are completely useless to me. So, thank you Klosterman for further solidifying the deep, intimate knowledge, that I too, suck.
Klosterman's "Fail" was so similar to Postman's style of writing, I found myself confusing the author periodically through my reading. It was equally enjoyable to read as Postman's book as well as it was stimulating and enlightening. I must be upfront and honest from the beginning; I am not sure how much I agree and disagree with both of these authors. Part of me feels compelled to say that yes, absolutely we as a society are spiraling into a black hole of technology that will only end in our destruction. Another part of me, however, wonders if the problem lies within humanity rather than the technology we created. A few times throughout my reading of this article, I found myself thinking that Klosterman puts too much blame on technology and uses it as a scapegoat. I don't know ... it's almost an irrelevant point to bring up here.
The title "Fail" refers to Kaczynski (let's use Ted so I don't have to spell that out multiple times) failed attempt to relay his message successfully to the public. I agree with Klosterman that Ted sabotoged himself by portraying himself as a crazy pyscho who mercilessly killed people - and let's be real, he was. But still his point about how "societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control” and that "people do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society" was spot on. I even played the same game with my roommate about imagining a basketball game, and her description came from an episode of One Tree Hill. Obviously this is not normal and a huge problem. Is there a solution to it? No. Because I agree wholeheartedly with Klosterman that people, though able to consciously acknowledge the problem, will never do anything to change it.
Chuck Klosterman, author of Eating a Dinosaur, entitled the chapter regarding Ted Kaczynski, aka the “Unabomber,” ‘Fail’ because Kaczynski colossally failed at a mission which was, at it’s deepest core, admirable: warning the American public of the dangerous role technology plays in the eminent collapse of society. The American public, myself and the author included, also fail¬—at heeding this warning.
Kaczynski definitely failed in his psychopathic belief that “he had to kill people in order to get his ideas into the public discourse.” Klosterman quotes Kaczynski’s manifesto, Industrial Society and the Future-- “In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.”
But, as the author explains, there was no lasting impression of the message at all. All anyone remembers about the Oklahoma City bombing was that people died and it was horrifying. Kaczynski’s mission was an epic failure because his message was completely lost amidst all the, you know, horrifically misguided violence.
I can see how, as Klosterman writes, “Technology is bad for civilization,” and is leading to “the overall loss of humanity that is its inevitable consequence.” iTunes and Mp3s were the catalyst for the closure of record stores all over the country. Netflix meant the video stores shut down next, and movie theatres are less crowded. The Kindle may mean, eventually, that there are no more libraries or bookstores. This is not just the loss of jobs; it is the loss of social interaction. We are not just bowling alone anymore; we are bowling alone without ever leaving the house.
Can I relate to the author’s love-hate relationship with technology? Absolutely. I like air-conditioning. I like my cell phone, laptop, GPS, E-Zpass, iPod and television. Do I resent, for example, sacrificing my privacy for the ability to virtually connect to friends, family and personal connections via social media? Sometimes. Our technological addiction is similar to that of smoking cigarettes: knowing that there are going to be dire consequences in the future, but doing it anyway.
But I have to agree with the author. “Even though I am defending several of Ted Kaczynski’s ideas, I’m the kind of human he hates most.” Did I quit smoking? Yes. Will I put down my smartphone? No way. #Fail.
The title "Fail" can have several different meanings for several different people. One could say that the title is a comment on our society, according to him, does not seek freedom (I kind of agree, iPhone 5 anyone?). One could likewise say that the title is a reference to his personal failure, or at least his own recognition of needing technology, namely the internet, in his life. I think that the title is more of a reference to Kaczynski. One would be remiss to read the essay and not see the connection, in the very least. I see the title as a colloquial "poke" at Kaczynski, much similar to the terminology used by the younger generation to describe when someone misses the mark, as it were. Throughout the essay Klosterman reacts to Kaczynski's views with what seems to be admiration. Every comment, however, is offset by him reminding the reader that Kaczynski is sociopath that chose to make his voice heard by blowing people up. He points out that Ted was brilliant to the point of lunacy, and that if he indeed wanted to, he could have been one of the architects of the internet. Again, madman who blew people up. Kaczynski's ideas had valid truth - even if some were a little oddball. Did I mention crazy person in a shack making homemade, deliverable bombs?
As for my view opposed to Klosterman's, I hesitantly agree with him. I hesitate because I can empathize with his view. His view about self-esteem, and his own personal quandaries are eerily similar to my own. Again, eery because my own personal quadaries with self-esteem are the same. I would like to imagine that things would be better without the internet or connectivity, but I simply don't believe it. I have gone almost a year without internet and I can honestly say that life is much harder without it. Especially for the student. If one disagrees, one would only need a ten minute conversation with me to understand. And no, the argument of "just don't go to school" isn't valid or reasonable.
I also would agree with the Kaczynski idea, as worded by the author, "the unibomber believes modern people have no idea how they're supposed to think or feel, so they convince themselves to care about whatever rules the rest of society seems to require." iPhone 5 anyone? I see this more often than not when I see people express their opinions, or better yet, the so-called "truth" as they learned it in high school or college. Very rare is the person or moment that reveals actual knowledge and insight into any one particular subject. We are a culture of knowers that have little wisdom. You can know what something is going to be like. You can be taught it in a class. You can watch movies and youtube videos about it. You can talk to experts and listen to advice. But you have no wisdom on the subject until you have truly experienced it for yourself and put to the ACTUAL test. Only after that point can you really know something. Wise people know that there is a difference between the two, and they keep their mouths shut unless they have wisdom to offer. In fact, a wise person would likely agree to this point, whereas one who is not would be apt to contest it, citing some piece of information. So why the diatribe about wisdom and blah blah blah? Because there is this separation between the informed and the wise because that is the rule of society; get as much as you can as long as you can so that you can fit in and be "up to speed" with the rest of the world (West). So there is no outright importance placed on being specialist in a one field, or being a master of any one thing. Sure you can do that, but why would you when you can do all this..... Sure you can buy that phone, but why not the iPhone 5? It's only $800 on ebay. Why wait for things? You NEED it NOW. If your homepage doesn't load right away, throw a fit! That is how our culture is. That is our society. From what I can gather, this was Ted Kaczynski's issue. This is also the problem that Klosterman sees. The difference? Klosterman accepts this problem and Kaczynski blew people up. I am undecided.
Unabomber*
The main point of Chuck Klosterman’s essay was to point out how the Internet has negative effects on our culture, and we all know this yet we all still continue to use it. He talks about how the TV takes away our ability to have whatever thoughts we want. The examples he used with closing your eyes and imagining an Eskimo village was really interesting. I think it’s hard to disagree with what Klosterman is trying to say after he explained that example along with the basketball example. He later goes on to talk about how we as people conform to the status quo because we don’t know how we are supposed to think so we convince ourselves to care about what other people are caring about. Basically, none of our thoughts are actually “our” thoughts. Our thoughts are what we have seen, or have heard other people say. Klosterman explains the Internet as, “the most important aspect of my life that I hate.” I am aware of the negative effects the Internet has and how it’s damaging; yet I still continue to use the Internet every day. It is scary to think that the media controls all of our thoughts. Klosterman’s article was very similar to Postman’s book. I agree with both of them and wish there was a way to fix this but I think that the Internet is only going to expand and as a culture, we rely so much on the Internet and TV that at this point, it is not something that we can just switch off.
I think in a lot of ways Chuck Klosterman’s essay “Fail” is about people failing to recognize their enslavement to technology, and even worse is when they know how addicted they are and they don’t try to change anything. Yes, technology is detrimental to society but, as Klosterman says at the end of the piece, it’s even worse to recognize the dangers of the internet and not taking any action. He points this out when he talks about Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber’s, thirty-five thousand word manifesto and how he “believed he had to kill people in order to get his ideas into the public discourse” (214). Klosterman points out that Kaczynski, despite his instability and horrifying actions, was not wrong about technology. Kaczynski was a technophobe who sought “a specific type of political freedom” which “most people don’t even realize is possible” (215). I completely agree with two points he outlines: “technology is a more powerful force than the desire for freedom” and “we cannot separate good technology from bad technology” (222). It is only when I try to truly unplug that I realize how dependent on technology that I really am. Sometimes I’m surfing the web or I’m on my phone and I feel as if I’m shackled to it. I’ve honestly said the words “I can’t go out without my phone” and I hate it. My dependence on technology is deep rooted and it’s not something I take lightly, but like Klosterman, “I am a slave to my own weakness” (227). If we are all slaves to our own weakness (technology dependence), where and how do we find strength? If technology takes away our desire for freedom (and the means to attain it), what do we have? The idea that everything we experience is extremely scary but also accurate. We live in a constructed world where computer jargon seeps into everyday conversation and face-to-face interaction has all but deteriorated. Freedom from technology is not a luxury people from my generation have ever experienced and it’s not something we ever will experience. We have to learn to quell our dependence on technology and uphold our duty to be good human beings.
I feel Chuck Klosterman titled his essay "Fail" not only because Ted Kaczynski's failure to have the rest of the world take "Industrial Society and Its Future" seriously (chances are it would have been "completely absorbed by mainstream society," as Klosterman said happens to most pieces of cultural criticism), but because we have failed ourselves. Most of us have become what Kolsterman considers himself, people he said Kaczynski would feel most represent the problems he outlined in his manifesto: "people who know the truth, yet still refuse to accept what they know to be true."
I would agree that Chuck Klosterman's essay was an eye-opener. It was refreshing because I personally always enjoy reading or listening to people who question conventional methods. In high school, I thought I'd grow up a radical. We were learning about people like the Weather Underground (who I immediately thought of when Klosterman talked about Ted Kaczynski's reasoning behind sending bombs to strangers), the Black Panther Party, etc.
I had not heard of the Unabomber prior to reading this essay, and although some of the points Klosterman made himself and derived from other published works have come across my mind before, I was really never able to asses them the way he presents them. There were a lot of "hallelujah" moments for me.
I can say that I am grateful to have learned about the Unabomber by reading Klosterman's essay, because I feel had I been around when the bombings took place, I wouldn't have been given the chance to make my own assessments of his reasoning. (I feel deeply for those who lost their lives.) And then again, the Unabomber's sentiments are far more relevant to today's technological era, as Klosterman makes a point in by saying the Unabomber couldn't have fully understood what he was writing about because one has to assume that it was impossible for him to fully understand what the Internet would eventually become.
One of the most interesting assessments Klosterman makes regarding one of Kaczynski's principles in "Industrial Society and Its Future," is the the price we pay for technology, which seems to be unimportant to most people because we don't really realize what we're loosing. Klostermoan stated "in ordered to have a 70-degree living room, I have to give up almost everything." The way our society functions, which is controlled by rational humans, calls that we live by the rules and laws of community living and contribute to it (by working jobs other people find valuable to earn money)in order to reap the benefits of technology.
I've been saying this for a long time, and have always been looked at as the crazy one for saying it, that "modern people have no idea how they're supposed to think or feel so they convince themselves to care about whatever rules the rest of society seems to require," that "people conform to the status quo because the status quo validates the conformity they elected to adopt." I have just been unable to asses it the way Klosterman does.
Everyone wants to make a living, everyone wants to have a good life, and frankly that's what the choice boils down to, which is scary and proves who or what truly holds the power in this society, because it clearly isn't the people. We simply live by the laws and ways already laid out for us. Which isn't entirely a bad thing...I guess. And this goes not just for technology. It's just the way things are. I feel technology is kind of the scapegoat in this sense.
This is the way in which I relate to Klosterman's (even Kaczynski's) predicament. There are some of us who cannot afford the lastest fashions or technologies, and who aren't willing to break their backs for it. I am one of those people, and as a result have felt ostracized from friends who can and do break their backs to fit in. This all makes loving ourselves harder because as Klosterman said, "my existence is constructed, and it's constructed through the surrogate activity of mainstream popular culture."
I have failed myself, but not by choice. I am still on that quest for truth, not one claiming to know it all. I too, would have probably had to been blown up by one of Kaczynski’s bombs. I would like to move away and live in a cabin sometimes, because I do feel pressured by society to be, look, and act a particular way. Most that are conflicting with my spiritual being. But I choose to stay for now. Not to get all biblical on you, but because of what Luke 11:33 states: "No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light."
I think that the reason for Klosterman to title his essay “Fail” was referring to the failure of humans and their ability to think. He asked his audience to picture a basketball game he pointed out that the only image people see is the one they saw on television.
People cannot function without the use of television or the internet. He says we are all
His comparison to Kaczynski makes sense because his love/hate relationship towards the technology. He hates it, but has no choice but to confirm. Society is glued to screens 24/7, and that is taking away from the ability to think and learn. In Unabomber’s manifesto, “A big chunk of the manifesto is about the desire for power and socialization.” This statement is a great example of how technology is ruining people’s lives. Look at Facebook, it was made to connect and share ideas with friends and family. That’s great, but now Facebook is making socializing in real life extremely awkward. Now, you don’t even have to respond to people’s messages, you can “like.” You don’t need to explain your opinion, just “like”. What is society without being able to talk to other people and express your feelings? Overall, Klosterman’s essay kind of freaked me out. Something so ordinary as technology has become too ordinary. I feel like at this point it is abused since it is what we use to sell products, to find directions, to socialize, and basically to do everything else.
The title "Fail" was used to describe Kaczynski's failure to be recognized for his radical and intelligent ideas. I think the title also describes society's failure to acknowledge that our dependency on technology is destructive. This essay has summarized what we've been discussing in class for the past few weeks. Though I haven't actually read his manifesto, Kaczynski makes some very rational points. His principle that "people do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society" . Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control" is illustrated when Klosterman writes about what we give up to have air-conditioning. The point he made was actually pretty scary. Just to feel some comfort in the heat, we "work at a job that was constructed by someone else for their benefit." We don't even realize that we are giving up so much just to use this technology. This essay also highlights why people may feel a certain way about the Internet. Klosterman makes an interesting point when he says "the degree to which anyone values the Internet is proportional to how valuable the Internet makes that person." This is why Clay Shirky praises the technology and why Lee Siegel condones it. I also think this is why people have a hard time letting go of this technology. It not only allows for people to make a living but it also gives people a set of rules and ideas to care about and conform to, which is essentially what Kaczynski says people value more than freedom. I agree that most people find it easier to use the technology than acknowledging that it doesn't allow for autonomy, something Kaczynski cherised. I think many people fall into the category that Kaczynski identified as individuals who most represent the problems in his manifesto--"people who know the truth, yet still refuse to accept what they know to be true." Even Klosterman ends his essay with a proclamation of his love for the Internet. We are aware of how this dependence affects us but we have become so entrenched in this technology that we cannot imagine life without it.
I think Chuck Klosterman’s excerpt was titled “Fail” because despite all of his arguments about technology and how detrimental its effects are on society, he failed to offer a substantial alternative. It was frustrating to finish the excerpt and feel just as lost and slavish as when I started. That being said, I found it to be a brilliant, beautifully written piece with many a quote that stuck with me.
Klosterman’s discussion of internal images was fascinating, especially after speaking about it in class recently. It’s a little scary to know that I have been so bombarded with media and images my entire life that I can imagine Machu Picchu easily, and it’s probably a somewhat accurate image I am picturing. Because television thrives on the exaggeration of stereotypes, TV tends to perpetuate images that are not correct or representative of a group of people, place, or culture. According to my internal images, thoughts of the state of Louisiana (and its inhabitants) conjure up screenshots from the HBO show Trublood, for example. Though I am aware that is obviously not representative of the entire population of the state of Louisiana, those images are what I immediately imagine. What Klosterman fails to acknowledge is that education and schooling play a large part in internal images we create, but I still agree that it is overwhelming traced back to what we see on television and in movies.
Closterman’s excerpt had so many profound and contemplative sentences that my reading was covered in stars and asterisks by the time I finished. One line in particular that intrigued me was “As a species, we have never been less human than we are right now.” I had never thought of that before, but the longer I considered it, the more it made sense to me. Klosterman is right. We have never been less in touch with the natural world than now (we are also destroying our natural world now more than ever, but that is an argument for a different day). Over the summer, my mom went camping with friends. In a tent, in the woods. Yet she was still compelled to bring along her 3G iPad. She couldn’t go 3 or 4 days without being able to check the news. She couldn’t unplug. She, and much of society, is representative of the person Ted Kaczynski hated.
Post a Comment