Scott Christian's Open Salon Blog

Follow Me

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:03:47 -0400

For those who used to follow me on this blog, it's clear I haven't been here for awhile. I have a new blog called Last of the Analogue Kids at http://notesonageneration.wordpress.com/. Swing by and check it out if you feel so inclined.

Architects of Obsolescence

Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:04:02 -0400

When I was a kid growing up I wanted to be a cartoonist. My hero was pretty much Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, one of the funniest and most brilliantly drawn comic strips ever to grace American newspapers. Then I chucked it all and decided I wanted to be a writer. Basically I went from the dream of one dying profession where few people get paid well to the dream of another only slightly less terminal profession. I used to get a lot of grief for this but now, one decade into the 21st Century, a hell of a lot of other people are starting to know how I feel. Thanks to the forward march of technology, most of America has priced themselves into obsolescence.

It’s easy right now to blame the economy for everything, but there is a much more insidious trend in the American job market. Think about it, when the dust settles, how many jobs are going to be lost or severely blighted by technology. Manufacturing of course has been feeling that pinch for a long time. Experts have been saying that America is on the road to a white collar economy for years. But what is that white collar economy supposed to look like? If you’re in health care or finance, good for you, enjoy your new status as a one percenter. But what about the rest of us? Engineers? Unless you’ve got Chemical in front of that title, you may as well fill out an application at Starbucks. Remember those heady days when a web designer could make piles of money? Knowing HTML once meant guaranteed income. Now all you need to know in order to create a web site is how to Google the words “Wordpress” and “template.” What about graphic designers? When I first moved to L.A. over a decade ago, one of my roommates was an art school grad plying his trade in the world of graphic design. There was money in that because it required a lot of skill, technique, and know how. Especially when using computers. To be a graphic artist meant you had to actually know how to draw. Now thanks to the advancement of Adobe Illustrator, anyone can cut and paste their way to a usable logo, advertisement, or even movie poster. The experts now need not apply.

I could of course go on like this. Blogs have killed journalists and magazine editors (don't worry, I see the irony of writing this in a blog), Apple has pretty much single handedly killed off film and music editors, not to mention record companies, although I don’t know many people mourning their loss. Google and internet research has shuttered libraries. And then to pile it on, thanks to the bad economy, thousands of companies have learned to make due with less employees, which means if this nightmare ever does rebound, there still won’t be enough jobs waiting for us. So what’s left? Everyday when I check my email, my homepage has some article about industries that are growing, or the best degrees to get for a job, or whatever. And every damn one of them is in finance, health care, or a combination of the two. Let’s see, I’m not a doctor or a nurse, I’m not an accountant, so that pretty much means I’m screwed. With all of this great technology we’ve invented, it’s kind of interesting that no one ever stopped to think about its consequences on our way of life.

Maybe we all should have paid closer attention to American manufacturing. First automation came in and took away thousands of jobs decades ago. Then global outsourcing pretty much took care of the rest. Well, here we are in the 21st century where technology has eliminated thousands of white collar jobs. How long before global outsourcing takes care of that too? What color collars will we be wearing then? It’s interesting that in our culture, and I mean developed world culture, not just American culture, we’re so concerned about the latest and greatest that we never really stop to consider whether it is truly beneficial or not. I keep seeing Obama go on and on about making our education system focus on science and the jobs of the future. As I understand it, the jobs of the future are pretty much engineering drugs to keep us happy and working on or with some form of fuel technology. Great, good for all of the kids who are good at math and science. What about the kids who are creative, who like to paint or draw or play music and who maybe don’t have much interest in quantum physics. Meet the welfare recipients of the future I guess. What the hell are we doing to ourselves?

I’ll tell you one of the major problems that has driven us to this point, our education system. It is and alway has been about jobs. It is a factory where we teach young people how to be commercially viable. It isn’t an education in the sense of trying to figure out the world. Most of my college grad friends can’t even spell Kierkegaard let alone know who in the hell he is. But that doesn’t matter, as long as you qualify for the job of the future. It’s a shame really, that we’ve reached a point in our evolution where we have so much information and so little knowledge. Thanks to reckless enthusiasm we’ve single handedly made three quarters of our population redundant. And this is progress?

I do have a solution to it all, although it is not one many people will be interested in: I’m out. I hereby remove my hat from the ring. I no longer have any interest in being commercially viable, I only have interest in a life that is humanistically relevant. I will write and I will paint and I will probably end up on the street, but I frankly just don’t care anymore. I refuse to become a medical records clerk because it pays and has dental just because I happen to be good at things no one cares about anymore. I don’t know, maybe there are others out there who feel the way I do and who are willing to stand up to all of this insanity. Maybe we can start some kind of cool revolution with a barricade in the street and a guy on top dramatically waving a giant flag. Most likely though I’ll just end up poor and hungry, but, and here is the important but, not soul crushed and ashamed of myself.

Why Is America Great?

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:03:11 -0500

America is the greatest country on Earth. Or so we're repeatedly told from our very earliest consciousness. In school, by our parents, by our elders in general, by anyone and everyone, from pretty much the time we are born. We recite the Pledge of Allegiance everyday in school. We celebrate the Fourth of July as something of epic triumph. Although I’m not saying I completely disagree, I have for the last decade or so been wondering why. What is it that makes America so great? Whenever I ask this question in America, I can pretty reliably count on it threatening my health and well being. But I seriously want to know, what is it that makes this country so much better than any other? I am earnestly welcoming reader responses here, but first, let me expand my thoughts a little.

Of course America is a much preferable place to live than great swathes of the globe. It’s light years beyond starving in a developing country or suffering under the iron rule of a repressive regime. So it’s easy to discount pretty much two thirds of the planet as a worse place to live than America. Yet this still doesn’t define America as the best in the world. Most of western Europe lives within the confines of excessive luxury just as we do. Freedom, I find, is a common answer as to what makes America shine. Sure, of course, but again, if you’ve been to western Europe, these days they’re pretty much singing the same song. There are nuances of course, England has stricter sedition laws and therefore a slightly more restricted press, but for day to day living, these types of things are often purely academic. We used to be able to say jobs and quality of life, but our unemployment is similar to much of the bigger western European countries, and quality of life is highly debatable. My biggest fear I suppose is that the real reason that Americans consider America great has nothing to do with the present but is wrapped up in a history where we once were great.

For the 19th and most of the 20th century, America was a haven from the turmoils of Europe and the rest of the world. High unemployment, a rigid caste system, and constant political unrest sent people by the boatloads into our harbors. America really was a truly better alternative. In the 20th century, Europe and Asia were decimated by massive wars and extended recovery, thus America continued to be an idyllic port in the storm. Eventually though, Europe recovered from two World Wars and, throughout the 90’s and into the millennium, produced a staggeringly high quality of life. Populations of countries like Norway, Switzerland, England, Germany, and France enjoyed pretty much everything that America did, governments comprised of elected officials, high degrees of technological innovation, social and political stability, and a general existential sense that life is much more than just mere survival. On every tangible level, America and Europe were merely different translations on the same thing. Europe tends to pay higher taxes, but America pays in terms of reckless abuse by our less regulated corporate culture. What I’m saying is that amidst all of this, most Americans currently define America as great because of its history and not because of its present.

What America still is is a great idea. But what does that really mean anymore? Thanks I suppose to a combination of the human condition and the law of averages, America’s great idea of freedom and possibility has been compromised by an increasingly rigid class system where the rich enjoy freedom and the rest of us scrap for the few remaining crumbs. By turns the rigid class system of old Europe has largely deteriorated bringing the level of freedom and opportunity of its citizenry up to about equal with America. So in pure, present minded terms, America offers no real advantage.

I often get the argument that men and women have fought and died for this country, which is what makes America great. If there is a more appreciative person towards our armed services than me, I haven’t met them. I deeply value their service and commitment, but I think there is a philosophical misunderstanding here of what our veterans have done. They are defending our home, they aren’t necessarily defending the idea that we are just plain better. A home is absolutely a worthwhile thing to defend. We after all do value the things we have and would prefer that they weren’t taken away. But why does the fact that we are willing to defend the things we have make our things intrinsically better? All it means is that we like our things.

In a recent survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development the United States didn’t even crack the top ten in terms of happiest countries. Northern Europe grabbed the first three spots and Canada and New Zealand were the only ones in the top ten outside of Europe. Too subjective for you? How about this, America ranks 37th in quality of healthcare according to the World Health Organization, yet we spend the most on it. France, by the way is number one. The thing about this is, physical health is a massive determinant in terms of over all happiness and Americans are physically unhealthy. How about unemployment? Within the developed world, our numbers are mediocre at best. According to the IMF, in 2010 so far we are being beat by Austria, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and pretty much most industrialized countries. So that means as far as physical health and fiscal security, we are clearly not the best. By most quantifiable standards then, in 2010 America is not the best country to live in. As far as I can tell, we’re only holding on to the belief that we are because we have the most shit, although we don’t actually have it, we merely possess the most shit which was purchased on credit.

I’m not pointing all of this out to denigrate America. I really do just want the question answered, why if we’ve been led to believe it our whole lives, is America the best? A few years ago I spent time in Southern France and loved it. I desperately wanted to move there. When I told people this, I was crucified as an America hater. Slowly I began to convince myself that I was wrong, America was a better place to be. But as I look around and see how miserable we all are, as I battle financial setbacks due to corporate greed, a broken healthcare system, and a culture that created it, I’m starting to wonder if I was right the first time. We’re indoctrinated from our youth to believe that America is the best country on Earth, but I’ve yet to hear a good answer to support this. I really do invite any and all readers to post their comments. I want to know if and why you think America is the greatest country. I don’t doubt that I’m just missing something here, it wouldn’t be the first time, but I’ve yet to be swayed. So how about it, let’s get this discussion going.

Declaration Nation

Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:03:16 -0500

Despite my best efforts to get some reading done this morning at Starbucks before work, a peculiar brand of human theater two tables over couldn’t help but distract me. Those accustomed to trying to read in a public place know all too well what I’m talking about, that inescapable allure of social spectacle that can’t be beaten by the written word. On today’s menu was a generous helping of angry old men sprinkled with a dash of distractingly beautiful woman. For the angry old men, it was a debate--and I use the term very loosely--on health care. For the woman it was skin tight jeans, which momentarily stopped the debate. It was the nature of the argument between the old men though that got me thinking about the nature of dialogue in America, specifically the fact that we have none. The tight jeans just got me thinking that occasionally I really appreciate tight jeans.

It’s interesting that so much of the political theater of late has been pointed in the direction of a need for a national dialogue, as in Democrats and Republicans need to have a dialogue concerning the issues of America. Two philosophies in a collision of point/counterpoint, hoping that the end of the road will produce something towards enlightenment. Good luck with all that. If you really think about it, when has America ever been a place of dialogue? The whole country was founded on the Declaration of Independence for God’s sake, not the Suggestion of Independence. America doesn’t search for the answer, America just tells people what it thinks the answer is. It’s no surprise that a televised health care debate does nothing more than highlight a propensity to grandstand and yell at each other, facts be damned. The funny thing is that the old man summit at Starbucks today was like a mimetic creation of C-SPAN’s Healthopalooza last weak, only in golf wear.

The scene was a standard one for Orange County, a group of obnoxious men in their mid-fifties wearing golf shirts and chinos and yelling loudly at each other. Of course, this being Orange County, there was only one poor bastard arguing for the current health care bill (I should probably point out that he was in very Democratic T-shirt and jeans) with a bunch of country club gray hairs yelling at him. One of the points made, and this seemed like a fair one, was that if Obamacare gets passed, there’d be 30 million new people with health insurance, which means you’d have to share your doctor with 30 million people. No seriously, this is almost a direct quote. Apparently there is only one doctor in the contiguous 48, so get in line number 29,878,452, there’s going to be some waitin’ to do. Of course the rest of the argument was peppered with the usual fare, death panels, communism, mandatory abortions and all that. I would have laughed harder at these very loud gentleman had not they sounded exactly like the legislative branch of our government. The simple fact is that we Americans just can’t argue.

I should probably define what I mean by argue here. I’m going with COED definition #2, to give reasons or cite evidence in support of something. Essentially this is point/counterpoint, I make a statement, you use facts and evidence to counter that statement, then I use the same to counter your counter, etc., all the way until the stronger point emerges. This is what philosophers do, which is perhaps why so few in American Universities become philosophy majors anymore. I know, I was one and there were about three of us.

Americans tend to prefer just yelling out there unsupported opinions and move on. There’s a lot less heavy lifting involved this way, intellectually speaking. It should come as no surprise that we are famous for our orators and not so much for our philosophers. The problem is that with so much public debate erupting lately, this lack of philosophical dialogic has really become painfully apparent. I do often wonder though at our polemic inabilities. Why are we so programmed for vitriolic contretemps rather than measured debate? I suppose the fact that our first settlers were a fractured and deeply conservative religious group doesn’t help. Not to mention that, culturally speaking, there are a whole host of American symbols that suggest an aversion to polemics; the stoic cowboy, the blue collar Joe, the self made tycoon. Americans after all prefer James Dean to say, David Niven. Then there is the whole post WWII power grab that essentially instilled in us the idea of the American moral high ground. We just innately know what is right, or so we think. A nice enough delusion until two Americans think different things, then trouble starts brewing, which is what brings us to today.

I suppose in truth it is really a human condition more than just an American one. We naturally think we have the answers and people who disagree are just wrong. We’re also naturally a bit lazy and would prefer not to have to indulge in something so unglamorous as investigation to confirm that we are right. But I do think that American culture is more inclined towards this intellectual laziness than others. A quick glance at the last two hundred years of influential philosophers can confirm that. I know that in a country as large as ours we’ll never agree on things, but it would be nice to know that civility and reason could rule the day. I’m not ready to give up on the pipe dream of unity just yet though, after all, when the woman in tight jeans walked by the old men, the whole table went silent. Hell, if we men can unite under the banner of chauvinism, certainly there must be some hope for us, right?

The Religion of Celebrity

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:02:42 -0500

So after weeks of sitting on my to read pile, I’ve finally gotten to Chuck Klosterman’s new book of essays Eating The Dinasour. In his first piece “Something Instead of Nothing” he examines an interesting point which, I think helps shed light on our contemporary obsession with fame and celebrity. Essentially the piece asks the question, why do people, specifically celebrities, answer journalists questions, especially the personal ones? Klosterman picks up the thread on a couple of theories, but the main thrust is that it would just feel too weird for the interviewee not to answer. But the more I think about it, the more it occurrs to me that Klosterman is on to something here in terms of our culture’s newfound relationship between fame and self definition. Celebrity after all is America’s new favorite religion.

I think that before we understand why the process of being interviewed helps define our culture’s aching desperation for fame it is important to first understand our relationship to fame. Celebrity has pretty much always been around in some form or another, dictated only by the form of media that exists at the time. In ancient Greece, a celebrity would only be known to those within the confines of word of mouth. Thanks to newspapers, and then radio, TV, and eventually internet, the power of celebrity has known only upward momentum. But it has been in the last decade or so that the nature of celebrity and our relationship to it has changed dramatically. The best example is with movie stars. Early on, they were products of a studio system that attempted to create untouchable gods on Mt. Olympus. While the studio system faded, this nature of celebrity remained more less in tact for close to a century. Movie stars, rock stars, they were just different from us, somehow more deserving of interviews and photographs because of their exotic lives. We average Americans, whether rich or poor, toiled away in anonymity, because that’s just the way things were. All of this, as we now know, wasn’t meant to last. By the turn of the 21st century, celebrity became our newest form of entitlement.

The day that everything changed was May 21, 1992. This was the first broadcast of MTV’s The Real World and, thanks to Mary-Ellis Bunim’s brain child, everything about celebrity and our relationship to it would be forever altered. While the point I’m about to make is that reality TV changed our relationship with celebrity, it’s not for the reason that you think. Most of the focus of reality TV’s popularity has been on exhibitionism and our latent look at me desires, but it’s more complicated than that. What The Real World really did to change our cultural landscape was to introduce the video confessional, that point in the show when the featured players sit alone on camera and explain themselves, their feelings, and what put them in a particular situation. Every reality show now has them and they often serve as the crux of the narrative. But what is a video confessional really but a small example of an interview. These are, as Klosterman examines in his essay, people answering questions that they are under no obligation to answer. This, I think, is the very key to our current cultural understanding, or more aptly misunderstanding, of self worth. Answering questions in an interview allows us to, potentially, be understood and, as Klosterman points out, possibly understand ourselves. Fame is really the only opportunity to share our own brand of brain vomit with the rest of the world. That or, of course, the less glamorous avenue of blogging.

Self worth, you know the shallow, unfulfilling kind that tends to define western culture, had for most of the 20th century been tied up with money and career success. If you rose through the ranks to an important position within your own particular industry, thus earning a bigger paycheck, thus owning a bigger house, then you were just plain rich with self worth. You didn’t just keep up with the Joneses, you kicked them in the nuts and spit in their eye. As deeply unfulfilling as this is, it is what essentially defined the American dream for close to a century. With the introduction of reality TV however, and of course the internet, achieving celebrity has become more accessible, which meant it shot right to the top of the self worth wish list. Before, with celebrity, you always had to do something that required work or talent or both. But with reality TV, you could have a litter of kids and a reverse mullet and suddenly you’re splashed across the glossies. Accomplishment quickly took a back seat to recognition. If two people are walking down the street and one has created some miracle drug and the other is unaccomplished but is recognizable to everyone else on the street, then who’s going to have the whole my life is validated upper hand. Sadly, as our culture demonstrates time and again, the recognizable one. Fame has become the primary achievement in the battle for finding self worth.

How though do interviews and video confessionals help define this new paradigm? It is because of their very nature. Interviews create a forced sense of intimacy, a chance to speak in a way that you wouldn’t speak with your friends. I don’t know about other people, but if I sat around with my friends discussing my accomplishments or my reactions to personal situations or my take on the world for the entire conversation, they’d not be my friends for very long. Interviews are by their nature solipsistic for the interviewee, an opportunity to contemplate themselves and offer explanations in order to seek understanding. An interview means that people are interested in you and if they are interested, then on some level they must care, on some level they may even love you. I’m not saying it’s healthy, I’m just saying it’s there. If we can come to be understood by way of interview/confessional, then there is the possibility that we can bridge the chasm that separates us as human beings. I think that ultimately the lure of celebrity lies in the truly misguided notion that it is the cure for loneliness. Celebrity is really nothing more than wanting to be the popular kid in high school, and if you weren’t the popular kid, then you assume that being one means you are loved which means you are no longer marooned by the inherent aloneness of your own self. This kind of makes it easier to see why when many people attain celebrity they go off the rails.

I think that ultimately religion is a search for something that will make us feel less alone. As humans, it’s hard for us to accept that we can only experience life as ourselves, meaning no one else will truly understand our own personal experience. Chasing money, success, and celebrity just happens to be the most popular religion at the moment. We see these people who are famous, and who often seem to like being famous, and we assume that this must be the tonic, this must be the cure for our aloneness. And now that celebrity is so much more attainable than in the past, it has opened the flood gates. The question is, how many Parises or Snookies are we going to have to live through before we realize that fame isn’t the cure.