BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Science versus Cool

 
 
The Planet of Sound
16:03 / 19.04.02
From Rushkoff's blog:

"Cultural theorists may think we're in the age of "post-post-modernism," but our theologians are still simply contending with the impacts of Descartes, Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud. The most profound impact of modernity is that we can no longer base the authority of our religious testaments on history; our myths and our Gods are refuted by scientific reality. We lose our absolutes, and the sense of certainty they afforded us.


So in march the post-modernists, from James Joyce to MTV, who learn to play in the house of mirrors, creating compositions and world views out of relativities. Entirely less satisfying (feels more like a Slurpee than hot oatmeal that actually fills you). We cultural theorists tried to make sense out of this world of self-references as if it mattered.


What we ended up with was a culture of inside jokes, cynicism, and detachment. Detachment was considered "cool" and then "cool" itself was replaced by objectification. So all our kids walk around like models in a Calvin Klein catalogue; and actually getting photographed is the supreme honor. It means that you are single absolute -- the benchmark against which others will define themselves.


This whole Vanity Fair culture, beginning with Didion or Wolfe, and ending with Sedaris or Eggers, has run its course. We've grown sick of living in a vacuum and struggling to remain detached. It's no fun to read magazines through squinty, knowing smirks. We realize that detachment is a booby prize. We want to engage, meaningfully, in the stuff of life.


In comes science. And with it, comes good, old-fashioned, innocent awe. Science is not the force that corrupts our nature - it is the open-minded wonder that returns us to it. It is being welcomed back into the culture of narcissism because we've finally grown tired enough of ourselves to care about something real. We ache to let go of our postured pretentiousness and surrender to that sensation a kid gets at the Epcot Center or planetarium.


The jaw drops, the eyes widen, the mind opens."

I think this is rather short-sighted. What do you think?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:51 / 19.04.02
It's very, very old news.
 
 
SMS
22:09 / 19.04.02
It doesn't really apply to me. I've never found science more fascinating than people, as far as I can remember, despite my interest in science. I guess some people may have, at some point, tried to understand each other in the context of cynisism, darwinism, marxism, racism, and so on; and tried to relate to each other with detachment, fashion, wonder, laughter, cynicism, and so on...

We have always tried to use science as an underlying reinforcement for our views. Rushkoff seems to be saying that people are on the verge of using recent science itself as a vehicle for life. And it can be very exciting. Perhaps this is or was true. I haven't noticed. But he doesn't seem to suggest that this is more than a phase. Simply that it is the next phase.


I'm not sure how this is short-sighted.
 
 
Slim
03:05 / 22.04.02
*It is being welcomed back into the culture of narcissism because we've finally grown tired enough of ourselves to care about something real*

I will never grow tired of myself.
 
 
No star here laces
07:44 / 22.04.02
"it's very, very old news"

Well, I think this (above) is kind of what he's talking about...

I mean, yes, on one level the whole thing smacks of zeitgeist-losing sour grapes - Rushkoff losing the hunger to keep up with the media world and chucking it all in for the more sedate world of science.

On the other hand, I think he's on to something. Not in the sense of 'realising' that being self-referential and detached is tedious, of course many people have realised this before, and not in spotting that the age of irony has kind of burnt itself out by now (even market research trend forecasters spotted that one last year).

But in the sense of seeing how much people may cling to science in the next few years, I think he may be dead on.

PoS - I think your topic summary is way off the mark. Rushkoff isn't saying irony is at odds with science at all.

He's saying that spirituality begat religion, religion was killed by hedonism, hedonism begat the consumer society, consumer society led to the pose of ironic detachment whereby the same old crap got sold back to us but that was okay cos it came with a knowing wink. And now that the 90s culture of irony, over-referencing and yet more consumption has burnt itself out where do people go?

Without any meaningful form of spirituality, without any hope of political change, people do and will look to science for the way out. It's making demonstrable progress - human genome, cloning etc. and appears to offer plenty and bounty for all, and a solution for every problem.

Which tallies very nicely with Rushkoff's ennui, and a return to his roots...
 
 
Rage
08:12 / 22.04.02
"Where's that from?"
 
  
Add Your Reply