Kunzru's "Raj, Bohemian" and thoughts on lifestyle and the self

There is an excellent story in this week's New Yorker (10 March 2008), "Raj, Bohemian" by Hari Kunzru, about an urban hipster who realizes that his "taste had been central to my identity" (114). As a result, he has no self other than the objects he acquires and the carefully considered acts (where to eat, what parties to go to, how to dress, etc.) he executes, which unwittingly become performance art pieces rather than natural maneuvers. So he is only living synthetically. He laments that "what I thought had been an expression of my innermost humanity was nothing but a cloud of life-style signals, available to anyone at the click of a mouse" (114).

This conclusion struck me because 1. the speaker realizes that he has no humanity left, he is just a pawn (chess metaphor!) in the capitalist system, but more importantly 2. it made me question the role of "the click[s] of a mouse" in my life and whether they fulfill some sort of genuine self-defining role (which I view positively; this positive view of one's essential self as somehow pure and good and something to be preserved and fostered may be problematic, but for my purposes here I will accept this view as a given), or whether they are merely "life-style signals" (which is a negative in this model). Let's examine three internet activities I frequently engage in to try and answer this question.

1. amazon.com - My frequent amazoning is an essential part of my book-buying addiction. So the question is, is this addiction an integral part of myself, or is it just a "life-style signal"? While the search for knowledge, which I still prefer to gain from books rather than via electronic means, is certainly an essential part of who I am, I love emitting the persona of a well-read intellectual. I would like to think that I can actually claim this description of myself, but I have to admit that aside from engaging in activities (e.g., getting my doctorate) that help me fit in to this description, I like to also have my chock-full, sagging, meticulously organized bookshelves visible to everyone to help enforce this claim. Books are valuable to me as decor, not just as sources of knowledge. This is why I never use libraries except for professional research, preferring to buy my books rather than rent them. So I have to say that my online book-buying is more of a "life-style signal" than a necessary expression of myself.

2. blogging - I think my reasons for blogging are fairly honorable - I do it to improve my writing, I'm not worried about whether or not I have a big (or any) audience (note my willingness to write often about sports, which nearly all of my friends disdain), and I do it to become a better writing teacher, since to be a good teacher you must also be a frequent practitioner in your field. So even though it may be fashionable to have a web presence, it is fair to say that I don't blog just to be hip or current.

3. facebook - While my initial ardor for facebook has cooled a bit in the past few days - I no longer feel a compulsion to check it every five minutes - I am still very much enthralled with it. I have to say that it was peer pressure which finally caused me to set up an account, not my own volition. So even though I genuinely enjoy facebook now, I can't escape that being a member is solidly in the "life-style signal" category.

Ergo, the majority of my internet activity is not motivated by an interest in self-definition and -improvement, but by attempts to appear cool. I will not deal with the question of what should be done about this state of affairs here, but it is interesting to note that the protagonist of Kunzru's story goes back to a "life-style signal" driven existence at the story's end because he cannot figure out how to escape this paradigm.

Facebook and the question of religion

I've been thinking over the past few days about what I should put in the "religion" field of my facebook profile, if anything. When I signed up, my initial impulse was to put "fuck religion," but I decided against that since I still have a few friends who are religious. Then I thought about "organized religion=terrorist philosophy," which I am currently leaning towards, but which again may offend some friends who I would like to keep. So I am not sure. I suppose that just leaving it blank would suffice, but there's a part of me that dislikes this option because it isn't interesting enough. So any suggestions would be appreciated.

The Times Square bombing

I was shocked when I heard on NPR this morning that the military recruiting station in Times Square was bombed last night, I thought I must have heard wrong or was still dreaming. I'm still flabbergasted - I can't believe someone rose above the apathy and decided to make that kind of '60s-esque political statement. I do not condone the violence of it, but at the same time it makes me wonder if real change could be on the horizon, if Americans will start caring enough again that this country has gotten ridiculously far away from its idealistic roots to begin to take (preferably nonviolent) action. Maybe if Obama is elected we will begin to head in the right direction.

Free books

Today and tomorrow is the Northern Illinois University English Department's book fair, which means that instructors such as myself get to persuade publisher reps to give us free books that we will supposedly consider using in the courses we teach. Of course at least two-thirds of the books we (instructors) request copies of are really for our personal use, we have no intention of considering them for course usage. But this common-knowledge fact is part of the dance - they throw books at us, and if we think they are quick enough to do so we seriously consider using one of their books (of the half-dozen or so they've given us).

Most of the publisher reps know their role in the dance and play it well, but the guy from W.W. Norton is a notorious miser. This is especially vexing because Norton has the best books - I would actually consider teaching with some of them, but he often won't give out examination copies even if they are legitimate requests. One must be at one's persuasive best to score off of him.

But aside from the evil Norton guy, the book fair is wonderful. It is always in early March, so it feels like a harbinger of spring.

More thoughts on facebook

I am completely in love with facebook so far. I am now at the point where I feel angry at my friends who aren't on it. Come on people, get with the program! This may not be an especially helpful attitude. We'll see whether this enamored state will last, or whether I am simply in a honeymoon phase. Stay tuned ...

Creating a digital self

Well, I finally broke down and joined facebook last night. I feel very ambivalent about this - on the one hand, I want to cling to my love of all things analog (especially books, which it is obvious that no one under the age of 25 reads anymore if my students are any indication, they wouldn't recognize a book if I smacked them in the head with it), but on the other hand, I realize I should probably get further education in the digital realm if I want to be marketable - C.R.E.A.M. So I went ahead and joined. (This blog is also a part of this new digitizing campaign.)

So far it is really cool to see the kind of connections I've been able to make - I could very easily get addicted, it has been a huge time-suck already. But I'm also feeling cyber-shy now, like these connections are too much intimacy with too many people all at once, even though because it's electronic intimacy it's not really intimacy at all. Lo, I am like a sheep without a shepherd in the world of facebook. Whither shall I go?

Mets by the Numbers and baseball cards

I began reading Jon Springer and Matthew Silverman's Mets by the Numbers yesterday, which is a print version of the excellent website http://www.mbtn.net. The book is also quite good. My favorite feature of it so far, however (I've read through #17), is not the writing, but the reproductions of Topps baseball cards from throughout Mets history. All of the cards have photos with visible uniform numbers. Tom Seaver, David Wright, Keith Hernandez, and Darryl Strawberry have cards on the cover, but lesser lights are also represented, e.g., Bobby Valentine (as a player, p. 3), Tim Teufel (p. 56), Felix Millan (my favorite '70s Met aside from Seaver and Lee Mazzilli, p. 89), Kevin McReynolds (p. 115), Hank Webb (p. 150), and so on. My only complaint about this feature is that the 1990 set - by far the ugliest Topps set ever - is represented seven times: Gary Carter (p. 39), Todd Hundley (p. 46), Bob Ojeda (p. 99), Howard Johnson (p. 104), Kevin Elster (p. 110), Frank Viola (p. 139), and Jeff Innis (p. 200). All of these players were with the Mets for multiple seasons, you would think that their uniform numbers would be visible on at least one of each of their cards from other years. But maybe not. Anyway, thank God the card reproductions are in black-and-white, because if they were in color the hellacious color combos of the 1990 set would give some readers seizures.

The book's card reproductions make me nostalgic for my childhood, when I spent virtually all of my allowance during the summer on baseball cards, much to the chagrin of my parents, who thought I should save money instead. I began collecting in 1987 because I wanted cards of the Mets' 1986 championship team. Back then a wax pack of 15 Topps cards and a stick of gum cost 45 cents (I never liked Fleer or Donruss; in 1991 I bought Score instead of Topps, probably because my eyes were still traumatized from the aforementioned 1990 Topps set). One time (1989) I bought an entire box of wax packs, and it only cost $14. Now, you're lucky to find a pack on sale for less than $2, and you get fewer cards (12? I'm not even sure anymore) and no gum. Also, you used to be able to buy baseball cards everywhere, and now they are very hard to find. Not even Wal-Mart sells them. This saddens me - baseball cards were my introduction to baseball literature, they were how I grew to love the game itself (not just the Mets), but now a generation of children are growing up without this resource.