Speculations on why socially observable time has stopped

[gnosticheresy_2]

I made some comment and was agreed with by others here awhile back, that you cannot see any "progress" in fashion any longer. For the life of me, I cannot remember what thread it was. Anyways, enjoy. Good and poignant article here.

I think your comments were in a thread about the release of a collection of some thousands of hours of 9/11 news footage. Someone commented there how the people on the street in 2001 don't look at all dated. (of course the hauntology thread is all over this topic)

I'm trying to think of how denial of future realities might be a cause for the phenomenon, perceived or real, of a culture stuck in time. A collective hesitation to move forward, or in any real sense assess the present not solely as a function of the past - even an imagined past.

Not so much a collective hesitation, more that we are being deliberately held back.

[Burnt Hill]

I still disagree with the premise of the article.
What about the rise and acceptance of gay culture and marriage?
What about the acceptance and ongoing legalization of marijuana and its culture?
How about PT Cruisers, Mini-Coopers and Hummers? As much social and cultural influence as Gremlins, Dusters and Scamps?
I think there have been at least as much change in culture and society in the last 20 years as compared to any other 20 year stretch, guess it depends on where, and how you look.
Not to diminish lots of excellent points on how and why we are where we are at, as opposed to maybe where we should be.

[Project Willow]

I'm definitely pro-hair.

I think we covered this territory in the porn and/or misogyny threads. Is there a slippery slope between grotesque hair and ugly labia?
That's what I wonder.

[Simulist]

"Bah" right back at you.

Hair can be pretty -- on the right guy (as the second guy demonstrates). But that first guy looks... well, nasty.

But if you think that looks nice, then by all means... enjoy.

I'm just a nature boy, you know!

As one of the resident gay guys who likes middle-aged men, I feel I must interject. The problem with guy #1 isn't the hair, it's the fact that he's out-of-shape. An in-shape guy with hair on his back is quite all right with me (assuming handsome face, etc.) The boyfriend isn't quite to that level of, well, naturality, but he's on his way... though very in-shape. Alas, he does have piercings (which I totally eschew) but I'm used to it now.

I agree that the major problem with "Harry" in the photo is that he's out of shape.

Like, a lot.

And, Willow, I don't know if there is a "slippery slope" concerning "grotesque hair" or not, but it might be fair to say that there's a point where too much of just about anything is, well, just too much. (As for labias though... my relative inexperience with them demands that I recuse myself. )

[gnosticheresy_2]

I still disagree with the premise of the article.
What about the rise and acceptance of gay culture and marriage?

Irrelevant, a cultural shift that does nothing to challenge global hyper-capitalism, which is why its suppression is being left to second tier players who have personal or local economic/ cultural reasons for being against it. Whether it's allowed or not means nothing in terms of the dominant economic paradigm, therefore it means nothing at all.

What about the acceptance and ongoing legalization of marijuana and its culture?

Same as above.

How about PT Cruisers, Mini-Coopers and Hummers? As much social and cultural influence as Gremlins, Dusters and Scamps?
I think there have been at least as much change in culture and society in the last 20 years as compared to any other 20 year stretch, guess it depends on where, and how you look.

So this is cars, cars and more cars? Which are different to the cars, cars and more cars of yesteryear in which distinctive fashion?

[82_28]

I think it comes down to the lens we're given. What stands out to me at least, is that photos do not look as "dated" as they once did given the past twenty years VS when you see a photo of you as a kid in the early 70s or some shit and then go back from there. There became a time where all became included as far as style and it stayed put.

Perhaps it is the format of photo? Perhaps it's that most photos are viewed digitally these days and perpetually retrievable? Perhaps it's that we didn't see or were shown as many photos back when all of it was relegated to the lowly family photo album stuffed in mom's hope chest? I cannot tell. But that we can tell a difference says something and I don't think we're all going to die right away, but it is a canary in a coal mine as to how widespread this phenomenon is.

[slomo]

I think it comes down to the lens we're given. What stands out to me at least, is that photos do not look as "dated" as they once did given the past twenty years VS when you see a photo of you as a kid in the early 70s or some shit and then go back from there. There became a time where all became included as far as style and it stayed put.

Perhaps it is the format of photo? Perhaps it's that most photos are viewed digitally these days and perpetually retrievable? Perhaps it's that we didn't see or were shown as many photos back when all of it was relegated to the lowly family photo album stuffed in mom's hope chest? I cannot tell. But that we can tell a difference says something and I don't think we're all going to die right away, but it is a canary in a coal mine as to how widespread this phenomenon is.

Photorealistic technology was still in development when we were kids. From the 50s through the 70s there was a transition from B&W to color to more faithful/realistic color, not to mention the paper on which color photos were printed. When we look back at baby pictures from the 60s and 70s, we are looking back at old technology. Now that the technology of color printing is more-or-less established, it doesn't feel like we're looking back in time. The real difference from the 90s until now is the growth of mobile computing technology which, as others have commented, have in fact induced profound sociological changes.

[slomo]

I still disagree with the premise of the article.
What about the rise and acceptance of gay culture and marriage?

Irrelevant, a cultural shift that does nothing to challenge global hyper-capitalism, which is why its suppression is being left to second tier players who have personal or local economic/ cultural reasons for being against it. Whether it's allowed or not means nothing in terms of the dominant economic paradigm, therefore it means nothing at all.

It pains me to say it, but the acceptance of gays is actually dependent upon the dominant economic paradigm. Any meaningful gay experience depends on a critical mass of other self-identifying gays, which requires reasonably dense conurbation. That in turn requires concentration of wealth via processes that are ultimately imperialistic.

Don't get me wrong: as a gay guy, I'm glad my existence is not imperiled by lethal forms of homophobia in most Western locales. But as a peak-oil-aware proponent of relocalization, food sovereignty and the like, I worry about what will happen to gay rights in the post-petroleum age if/when urban life is no longer tenable for most people.

[Burnt Hill]

I still disagree with the premise of the article.
What about the rise and acceptance of gay culture and marriage?

Irrelevant, a cultural shift that does nothing to challenge global hyper-capitalism, which is why its suppression is being left to second tier players who have personal or local economic/ cultural reasons for being against it. Whether it's allowed or not means nothing in terms of the dominant economic paradigm, therefore it means nothing at all.

What about the acceptance and ongoing legalization of marijuana and its culture?

Same as above.

How about PT Cruisers, Mini-Coopers and Hummers? As much social and cultural influence as Gremlins, Dusters and Scamps?
I think there have been at least as much change in culture and society in the last 20 years as compared to any other 20 year stretch, guess it depends on where, and how you look.

So this is cars, cars and more cars? Which are different to the cars, cars and more cars of yesteryear in which distinctive fashion?

Are we discussing the same article gnosticheresy? The article says nothing of challenging global hypercapitalism or the dominant economic paradigm. The article itself uses the fashion of automobiles to make a point of culural distinction in the 80s'. I used them as a point of cultural and social distiction in the 2000s'. Now whether we should be using mass transit or alternately powered vehicles may be explained by the dominance of hypercapitalism and economic paradigms is another story, not the one presented by the piece. And in that context, i agree with you.
The rise and acceptance of gay and transgender looks different and is a cultural change from 20 years ago.
As is the ongoing acceptance of marijuana.
These are facts that challege the premise of the article, again regardless of how we got here.

[Burnt Hill]

In regards to the look and feel of photographs. Digitalization is a major change from 20 years ago and the look of digitalization, while different,
is being used to support stasis. I just wonder how "photographs" will look in 20 years from now? 3D and moving pictures on a card I imagine.

[kelley]

i agree with the statement that we, as a culture, or more to the point, as a species, are being deliberately held back. the retrenchments of the past thirty years are predicated on concepts of scarcity that might not apply to the value of ideas that widespread digitalization makes possible. the status quo has fiercely resisted the implications of this change in the representational order, and how it may manifest itself in structurally transformative ways that aren't simply driven by the easy commodification of technological progress.

some of the reading i did this summer after discovering mark fisher's popularization of 'hauntology' mentioned in the companion thread noted here included a remarkable little book called 'the quadruple object' by the writer graham harman, who extrapolates on questions of existence common to husserl and heidegger, with an emphasis on explicating the four-fold structure of the latter's thought. this is difficult to synthesize, but harman insists upon a cognitive breakthrough that must come from the crossing of dualistic pairs. given the metaphysical representation of being under question, these terms may include presence / absence, which could describe our common material condition, and pattern / randomness, indicative of information systems, or binary notation in general. it's not impossible to diagram these pairs onto a greimas square or a klein four-group, with diagonal or orthogonal axes occupied by the related pairs of interpretive / chaotic, intentional / existential, and actual / virtual, etc.

the common thread linking the ontological rendering of the phenomena / sign enigma remains, as long as we continue to have bodies, a substantive one. like all representation, binary notation is a lie, and its relationship to mathematical truth and the displacement of nature is, despite its seamless appearance, wholly unsettled. yet its potential in giving rise to what can be thought, or to what is possible, through or by or of the expression of an excluded other, is what makes these questions, at least for me, endlessly fascinating and utterly compelling.

[Nordic]

Something that someone upthread said made me think that perhaps people are so scared of the future, thanks to global warming, peak oil, economic collapse and everything else that they're subconsciously clinging to the status quo. Change will mean, well, CHANGE, and thay's pretty terrifying these days.

[Gnomad]

Don't get me wrong: as a gay guy, I'm glad my existence is not imperiled by lethal forms of homophobia in most Western locales. But as a peak-oil-aware proponent of relocalization, food sovereignty and the like, I worry about what will happen to gay rights in the post-petroleum age if/when urban life is no longer tenable for most people.

That is certainly true - you can see and feel it here too, a small country - you can only comfortably be open in the large cities. Out in the countryside, it is all about what kind of neighbors luck let you have. And still, a year ago some young guys made a gas attack on the Gay Pride parade, even thou we have had a female president who used to be the head of the association for sexual and gender equality, and the mood in general in society has moved very far from what it used to be (homosexuality was still classed as a disease up until 1981). The backlash from the attack brought out some interesting stuff about christian politicians, for example...

[kelley]

Change will mean, well, CHANGE, and thay's pretty terrifying these days.

workers of the world, unite. you've much, much more to lose than just your chains. change. chains. change. chains. change.

[gnosticheresy_2]

Are we discussing the same article gnosticheresy? The article says nothing of challenging global hypercapitalism or the dominant economic paradigm. The article itself uses the fashion of automobiles to make a point of culural distinction in the 80s'. I used them as a point of cultural and social distiction in the 2000s'. Now whether we should be using mass transit or alternately powered vehicles may be explained by the dominance of hypercapitalism and economic paradigms is another story, not the one presented by the piece. And in that context, i agree with you.
The rise and acceptance of gay and transgender looks different and is a cultural change from 20 years ago.
As is the ongoing acceptance of marijuana.
These are facts that challege the premise of the article, again regardless of how we got here.

Yes we are. The gay dollar is the same as every other dollar. The dollar spent with your local legal weed dealer is exactly the same as the dollar you spend anywhere else. The cultural shifts you cite don't change the nature of the dollars, and that's the only thing thing that matters. If gay marriage in any way challenged hyper-capitalism its proponents would be in rounded up and put in camps. It doesn't therefore it's tolerated. Or it's tolerated therefore it doesn't. Either way it's irrelevant, same as marijuana acceptance, dying your hair a funny colour or reading strange alt conspiracy websites.

Culture is in stasis for a reason. And it's not because everyone has a fucking iPhone.