Interrogating Trainwrecks

[leahbobet]

Something has struck me in the last few days about the whole Paris Hilton kerfuffle -- at least the part of it I've been privy to, which is the part on the internet. Someone will post about it, trying to interrogate the whole deal from a different perspective: feminist/anti-racist, or socialist/political, and within ten to fifteen comments people are just going at the original argument again, wrangling at the details of the dangers of DUI or what privileges money buys you in America. It's like the Argument that Ate Metatext. It's kind of amazing.

The effect is what ringwoodcomics just called: "hey everyone! you've now officially joined the circus while talking about all the reasons you're above it!" Some of the strongest positions on all ends of the issue are coming out under the I Don't Care But-- banner. And it has me thinking about what value we take -- not as a society, but personally, as a member of a society -- from this obsession over other people's trainwrecks.

What I think is part of it, at least? The social construction in one's own peer group of taking a position.

Think about what "I don't actually care about what (insert scornful expletive) does" communicates, not in its text, but in its subtext -- communicates about the speaker. The speaker is attempting to give the impression that they are "above" celebrity culture, which is pretty much low/popular culture at the moment. Therefore, having somehow not even paid attention to the whole kerfuffle through want of noticing (and come on, I don't have television or commercial radio in my life, I rarely read the news anymore, and live in a different country, and the details of the Paris Hilton fiasco have still managed to make their way into my life), they are both constructing themselves as Very Important Busy People With More Important Things to Think About (upper class) and People of Refined Taste Who Are Not Naturally Drawn to Low Entertainment (upper class). I could get into the whole idea of how the current economic class gap in the Western world and the traditional North American hesitance to admit it functions on a class basis means that one must apprehend class mobility in an indirect way (ie, tastes and image and not lots of money), but you guys can do the math there.

And that's not the only one: let's not think the Don't Care people are the only ones whose position sends an internal social message. There's the I Stand Against Drunk Driving stance (morally concerned, therefore classier than the upper class), or the This Is Punishing Women For Sexuality (feminist, progressive, rebellious, and if not you are the establishment) or the That Shows the Rich Kid (poorer people are the real people, and if not you are the establishment) or so forth.

These are all funhouse-mirror identities. Archetypes. What meaningless controversies allow us to do as a group culture is reshuffle which mirror we're standing in front of, rejig how our image will be warped upon projecting. There is a level on which bloodless celebrity controversy has nothing to do with Paris Hilton, O.J. Simpson, Anna Nicole Smith, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, et al, but with millions of peer groups redrawing their own borders and shuffling their pecking orders. This is how we play our own class games. Whoever can take a position that is for whatever reason most palatable to the group, most convincing of actual upper-class-ness in that group's terms gets to sit on top of the hierarchy until the next spat comes along.

I won't say that's all it is. Societies are made of people, and anything made of people quickly becomes complicated as shit. But...I find this kind of behaviour really interesting (even as I participate in it, she says, aware of what social response she is hoping for by sharing this train of thought publically). I wonder if the whole Internet Meritocracy idea is true -- that we will judge people by their words/deeds, in a more unbiased way -- then will this be its regulatory mechanism? Will we end up with a sharp upswing in controversies that, at the end of the day, don't really affect anyone's lives, almost like social gladatorial games to see who fights strongest?

Is social grouping by scandal, definitely present for millenia, the class-sorting mechanism of the future?

Comments

[blackaire.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. Just look at the internet--lolcats, LJ drama, Blogger drama, the celebrity gossip sites and their drama, political gossip sites, youtube drama...it's happening in microcosm already.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Heh, and the culture of whuffie -- yeah, I suppose it is. *g*

Break out the bread and circuses!

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

So what you're saying is, we all love to know what the famous apes are doing, but our immediate ape peer group scorns knowing anything about the famous apes. So we pretend not to care, all while caring very much and not really being able to avoid it?

I care about what happens to Paris Hilton. Wish I didn't, but I know better than to struggle against the celebrity-attention part of my brain. It's just an ape thing, in my opinion.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Well...yes, and more like "we all love to talk about the famous apes, but what position we take on their doings has more to do with how we want our ape peer group to perceive us than anything else".

I am not sure if I care or not. I mean, while I recognize that it has absolutely nothing to do with my life and I don't know enough about this person to form an opinion one way or another, it's narrative, y'know? And apes love to know how a story ends.

[david-de-beer.livejournal.com]

>I wonder if the whole Internet Meritocracy idea is true -- that we will judge people by their words/deeds, in a more unbiased way --

well, perhaps just a little biased...

very interesting post, will come back and read more thoroughly tomorrow when I have more time

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Heh, yes -- "more unbiased" versus "unbiased". I suspect the internets are the number one cause of punctuation snobbery in this generation. It's not hard to find ways to dismiss people without reading their content, even stripped down to text.

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

I've heard that "I don't care but...", but it isn't something that I've noticed myself or anyone I know do often. I think the popularity of scandals is mainly due to their being good for light conversation in a way that more serious topics aren't.
Also, no background knowledge is needed to form a an opinion about them.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Says something if this level of...the vindictive is "light conversation". Which...well, in and of itself is a social group activity. Venom gets directed at someone outside the group to reinforce membership in it.

And I've seen lots of people speak on subjects they have no background knowledge in. ;)