4 ms·
I think a lot of the confusion about the article is that Curtis himself doesn't claim to understand what's really going on: """Computers, "financial engineerin
by Nimi 13y ago
I think a lot of the confusion about the article is that Curtis himself doesn't claim to understand what's really going on:
"""Computers, "financial engineering" and credit, social media, algorithms that predict what you want, NSA surveillance, giant new holding corporations called Master Limited Partnerships - all of these surround us and wrap us into a complicated modern web. Some of it is wonderful, other parts of it are threatening - while even more parts are just incomprehensible."""
For him, """It is as if the scandals are part of a giant jigsaw puzzle - and what we are waiting for is someone to come along and click those pieces together to give a clear, big picture of what is happening."""
(Like others, I also found the writing style very unclear, and I'm actually kind-of a fan of his).
What I think Curtis wants us to take from the piece is the suggestion of an overarching connection (possibly even a human-designed one) between these seemingly unconnected, aforementioned aspects of our lives.
The guiding theme for the article seems to be the effort to "... find an oblique angle that offers a bit more perspective" - the life of Tamara Mellon, her father, and great-uncle of her husband, affected by aspects of current finance practices, (the alleged precursor to) social media and/or surveillance, and corporations.
If I may add my personal opinion on this interpretation of Curtis' views: Nothing new here. Orwell and Huxley already warned us from the dangers of rising mass-surveillance and huge power structures, while people are kept docile with "Light Entertainment". I don't think there's anything more described in the article, but what a fascinating description it is.
- antocv 13y agoThere is something new here, Orwell and Huxley dont cut it. This is a kind of global apathy that neither Orwell nor Huxley deal with, (in my reading) Orwell explains power very well and how oppressive regimes control and guide our very lives, Huxley is about the same but from a different angle - instead of active oppression by more carrots in the form of entertainment. But where is this apathy coming from when facts are thrown in our faces about the misuse and abuse of democracy - in Orwells world it would be like an actor taking over the TVs and announcing even in double-speak so it cant be misread "You can make a change, its not all real, the power the state has depends only on YOU and YOU can take it right now, stop it all!" and the same for Huxley. The message is clear, we dont have to be oppressed - in fact the powers area afraid of us, we are masters of our own faith. That has happened, and yet nobody seems to give a shit. Its like neither Orwell nor Huxleys methods were really needed to drive society in certain directions. Its like the common people dont want to be in charge of their own lives, like we have nothing to live for, nothing to stand up for, nothing to accomplish. Then the question we now have then, what is it that would make us do things, what is capable of driving and changing society? What would the common man/woman in 2013 step up and stand for? Thats the piece that is missing.
- simplemath 13y agoFor me, Huxley hews much closer to reality - First Worlders are generally too comfortable, too preoccupied with the minutiae of getting on to really be fundamentally shaken by these ongoing revelations. "An army marches on its stomachs" comes to mind here - it will take many more people feeling a much more literal pinch before the tide rises enough to buoy dissent past this nascent malaise. 20-30 years from now, with automation having rendered entire classes of workers obsolete, with the resultant gains having been gobbled by the same actors who have dominated global commerce these last 30+ years - I think we'll find then what the end game really looks like. I doubt very much it will be appetizing to 99.999% of us.
- gglitch 13y agoIn my reading, Huxley depicts a society too sated and distracted to criticize the power structures they live in. The oppression is not one of force and fear, as in Orwell, but is equally demoralizing and incapacitating. Maybe even more incapacitating: in Orwell, Smith's resistance wells up from within; in Huxley, the introduction of an alien from another world is required to throw things into relief. In this sense, Curtis may be describing sort of a synthesis of the Orwellian and Huxleyan views, built on the mass media stupefaction of the populace to glamorize the roll out the surveillance state.
- derefr 13y ago> This is a kind of global apathy that neither Orwell nor Huxley deal with. I think this might be the other side of the "global politically-motivated violence is decreasing near-monotonically viewed over centuries" trend. Whoever could imagine a world power trying to engage in empire-building, in 2013? Governments just aren't scary, any longer, in that fundamental sense. And so their dual, revolutions, are also becoming increasingly rare.