Field of Dreams

Not too long ago we Americans became quite certain that our lifestyle represented the pinnacle of civilized progress and the best in scientific and technological advancement.  What we as a nation had achieved, so we thought, was a dream come true.  And it is this ‘American Dream’ that we have held out to (or perhaps thrust upon) the rest of the world as the genuine meaning of the ‘good life’ and the proper goal or end of human existence.   

After all, it was our economics, our politics, our science and technology that conceived of and articulated this ‘dream world’ to begin with… a world of personal automobiles in every garage, single family homes with private fenced yards, well designed and manicured suburbs, credit cards on demand, all the latest modern conveniences, electronic gadgets and games galore for children and adults alike.

So now that the world is facing multiple crises of global proportions – environmentally, ecologically, financially, economically, politically, psychologically and spiritually – where do we lay the blame?  Where do we look to better understand the roots of such crises? While pursuit of the American Dream may be initially fingered as a proximate cause of our global crisis, we were not alone in our reliance upon certain fundamental assumptions and values that made it all possible. Practically all civilized regimes, from ancient Mesopotamia to modern China, can share in the blame since all share basic presuppositions about the nature and exercise of power, the necessity for nation building, organizing for warfare, directing cultural progress, structuring and regulating economic activity.  

Barack Obama’s recent comments in the Russian capital during a two-day summit with President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin only serve confirm my above contention.  Speaking to graduates of the New Economic School in Moscow, he states, "The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game… Progress must be shared."  To clarify, the real issue is not whether the pursuit of power is a zero sum game; but simply, that it is a game invented by civilized nations for ensuring their (global) influence and measuring their progress.  The real import of his remark is in acknowledging pursuit of power as a cornerstone of nation-building, and that the progress of a nation or regime is measured through the exercise, consolidation and enhancement of economic and political influence or control.

Now, expanding the hegemonic power of America and its dream required not just ingenuity, but lots of industrial energy and productivity, a good deal of land-clearing, substantial pollution, gross dissipation of natural resources, incredible amounts of human labor, trillions upon trillions of dollars in public and private financing, political ‘wrangling’ and a good deal of social engineering and international exploitation.  In short, the American Dream not only set a new standard for what civilized people expected from life, but it also laid the foundation for exponential exploitation and abuse – of ourselves, our fellow humans, and our planet… a direct consequence of trying to manufacture, market and live the dream.  And yet, while we were destroying our planet in this quest, have we really made our personal lives better, more enriched, more satisfying and fulfilling?

Well, of course, the skeptical reader might proclaim, “America has the highest standard of living in the world, and we are an example to the rest of humanity… we are ‘that shining city on a hill’ that Ronald Reagan spoke about.  And we have achieved this status because America is the land of the free – the hope of the world!”  Since our founding this has been our national calling card.  And the beacon of lady liberty at the entrance to the New York harbor has been a symbol of that freedom and that dream around the world.

'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free…'

But what exactly have we come to understand by this word ‘freedom’?  What does it mean to American’s today?  And how has this quest for freedom realized itself in terms of America’s lifestyle and living the American Dream?  

Maybe it is free time that we have in such abundance here in America!  That must be it!  Well, come to think of it, this doesn’t appear to be the case since we seem to work almost 24/7 – more than any other people on the face of the earth.  We are slaves to the time clock, the electronic calendar, the blackberry and any other number of mobile devices marketed for our (read: society’s) benefit.  With all of this focus on the business of work and schedules, there appears to be very little ‘free time’ to call our own.  True, this compulsion – this apparent slavery to the clock – has made us the most productive and efficient people on earth.  But this very “efficiency implies the reification of time… a preoccupation with past and future.”  So where is there any opportunity for the fleeting present – for freedom from the clock – in which to enjoy the ‘good life’ and the fruits of our labors?  

Along with squandered planetary resources, the fleeting reality of the present moment has all but vanished from American consciousness and Western experience in general.  Many of us seem to live in a perpetual state of anticipation – waiting for our next promotion, a pink slip, or that vacation, a new car, getting the kids through college, retirement, or just waiting for our scientists and politicians (our specialists) to find solutions to our latest round of crises.

If one looks even cursorily at life in America today, and the direction of technological innovation supporting and directing our lifeways, it becomes clear that freedom for the American psyche is not freedom to live in the present; rather, with respect to time, we are and remain slaves of the future and the past.  We seem, rather, to be more concerned with freedom of movement, of place and location.  But, trains, planes and automobiles have given way to wireless networks, mobile devices and virtual communities.  

Our search for freedom, beginning with our ancestors’ move across the Atlantic from the Old World to the New, has led us to erect a world where we no longer need to be tied to any one place, no longer dependent upon a particular location or home; we are free to roam without anchor, without encumbrance, but also without real kinship or community.  And to keep in touch with other freely floating, almost disembodied, newly minted ‘friends’ and family we have virtual networks that give us the illusion of being connected and being stable.  But this is a false sense of connection, and a false stability – part of the illusion spun by our engineers and marketers – but it seems to provide a feeling of freedom that many of us have now come to pursue and enjoy today.  

But is it really freedom of mobility that we so cherish and believe we have achieved, or is it yet another, more compelling sense of ‘freedom’ that haunts us?  Is it perhaps freedom from personal identity, an attempt to escape our own embodiment, an almost pathological yearning for anonymity in an increasingly anonymous world that globalized, urban environments and virtual networks provide us with, so that we can be anyone we want to be or no one at all?  Is it perhaps a desire to escape our own flesh, our very selfhood?  Is the anonymity of wireless, urban virtuality merely a way of escaping that objectified sense of self, which reified linear historical time has created for us? Interestingly enough, it appears that the anonymity of the Internet and its social networking has provided us with a way to ‘make believe’ we are who we want to be; to be more, better, or other than who or what we actually are; maybe that is the freedom we covet.

The truth of the matter, however, may be quite the opposite.  The disembodied virtuality of a wireless and networked world may only provide one with the illusion of anonymity and the promise of an unidentifiable freedom to be.  In fact, it may instead lead to a real loss of freedom, to greater public identifiability, and the possibility of being singled out in a wholly networked and connected global village.  In this event, not only does it make us slaves to the new media, but it also increases our vulnerability to the state, the perennial political and social forces of manipulation, monitoring and control.  Where then is our freedom, and what then of our dream?

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this entry.
Comments

  • 7/12/2009 7:10 AM Yodood wrote:
    An awfully lot of maybes here Sandy. The assumption that relations before the internet were more real and less anonymous belies the fact that our history is strewn with misunderstandings in the form of ruptured attempts to make life long weddings of individual partners, insulary patriots and intolerant parishioners to supplement and thereby falsify inadequate personal identity or growth.

    The failing seems to be one of abandonment of reliance upon the genius of our natural spontaneity in favor of prescribed, proscribed behavior for our personal sense of worth and well being; the endless, unremitting failure of the man riding a camel in search of a camel.

    Modern anonymity may be the solution to rather than the failure of the collective to foster the full development of individual, unique human potential out of the searchlight scrutiny of the ever burgeoning thought police.
    Reply to this
  • 7/12/2009 8:00 AM kultur wrote:
    Yodood - not sure I grasp the direction of your criticism; also, the theme of the article is broader than your remarks on anonymity might indicate. Help me understand where you are going here.

    sandy
    Reply to this
    1. 7/14/2009 9:12 AM Yodood wrote:
      Why do you propose that the horizontal, person to person communication offered by the internet is a tool by which powers that formerly propagandized the people with vertically dispensed lies will "lead to a real loss of freedom, to greater public identifiability, and the possibility of being singled out in a wholly networked and connected global village"?
      I feel that the plethora of information sources will etch the full difference between objective reality and the diversity of individual versions, between experience and hearsay, in the minds of former sheeple. The anonymity of which I speak results from the dissolution of the fan clubs formed about identifiable propagandists, to return to a healthier diversity of thought.
      Reply to this
  • 7/18/2009 7:25 PM kultur wrote:
    Yodood

    If 'freedom' today is looked for in the experience of 'living virtually' on the web; and if it is a freedom associated with the 'anonymity'of being 'virtual; then I propose, the individual is living an illusion of freedom. Because, the entire networking paradigm is capable of finding any individual, anytime, by anybody or agency with the technical know-how and tools to find them.

    Fine, horizontal communication from a myriad of sources is good, but I do not see what that has to do with freedom... except of association... but even that is an illusion because we really do not know anything about those with whom we are 'freely associating'. Just look at that TV program that captures sexual preditors over the internet... buyer beware.
    Reply to this
    1. 7/18/2009 9:49 PM Yodood wrote:
      Sandy, not really touting the internet as a solution so much as being a portal through which one may discover the relative value of experience versus information. As Magritte said, "this (painting of a pipe) is not a pipe." The wisdom gained by such discrimination leads to the freedom and anonymity of which I speak.
      Reply to this
  • 7/19/2009 3:33 PM troutsky wrote:
    I don't think I have ever heard of "freedom to be anonymous"proposed. I have always believed it was choice and opportunity that people wished to remain un-coerced, but in that regard as well there seems to be a disparity between illusion and reality.

    I find people yearning for true community (while maintaining autonomy)and the internet and other communication technologies seem a mixed blessing in this regard.Those who have given up on self-direction or self-government have been helped along this road by religion and other paternalistic institutions but a desire to be anonymous seems more pathological.

    on a separate note, have you ever heard of Andrew Levine? I stumbled into his book Rethinking Liberal Equality and find it fascinating, articulating well much of what I have been struggling to say about distributive justice.
    Reply to this
  • 7/20/2009 11:27 AM kultur wrote:
    Let's begin with Levine. I briefly looked at the opening pages, and I certainly like his concept of a state supported right not to work. Having said that, I am not much on John Rawls and the whole problematic of Justice.

    Briefly on your reflections on the article:

    "but a desire to be anonymous seems more pathological"

    Yes, it is pathological... that is my point; and that is the nature of urban industrialized (now digital) society, increasingly.

    But, what I suggest briefly is that we are not really searching for freedom of choice anymore; we seem rather (pathologically)to be seeking the freedom that comes with being anonymous. This is our warped view of freedom today; and we incorrectly believe it also provides us with power, a power to act without consequences. But that is not the case; 1) the power is an illusion; 2) there are consequences
    Reply to this
  • 7/26/2009 3:50 PM D Jones wrote:
    Amazing to me how people remain separated from and oblivious to those consequences. It's all I can do to keep my anger "managed" sometimes.

    Levine carries on past A Theory of Justice into some radical territory, academic perhaps but interesting to me and possibly important for the synthesis we are all working on.
    Reply to this
  • 3/13/2010 10:46 AM Ana wrote:
    Many of us are dreaming of different things. Likewise, because of experiencing a global crisis, people thinking of what is the best way on how we can get out of this situation. We didn't hold our future, but we can change our lives.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.