The truth is out there?

Just watched an hour or so of Al Gore's current tv (229 on the Sky+ EPG.)

1. Video documentary of Pakistani and Indian people coming together as friends and family - pleading for their national governments to stop their nuclear ams race
2. Demonstration of ecologically-sound bicycle networks in East London
3. An project from teenagers in the UK to stamp out Marijuana growth and use amongst their peers
4. A video diary of an Iranian teenager visiting the wonders of America for the first time

Ah, the democracy of user generated content....

Are you infected?

For some reason, a big fat hardback book with a snappy pseudo-scientific title and some choice reviewer quotes seems necessarily authoritative.

Affluenza by Oliver James seems to be such a book. In this tome, Oliver (author of 'They F*** You Up') spends a year of his life interviewing people across the world - from New York to Beijing, from Moscow to Wellington. He argues that he has identified a 'contagious middle class virus causing depression, anxiety, addition and ennui'.

This virus (the Affluenza of the title) is 'obsessive, envious, keeping up with Joneses' - or in other words the human condition of seeking to better themselves by accumulating material possessions and experiences in order to feel better off than others. James argues that as we continually strive to achieve these 'virus goals' our motivations of 'being' are replaced by those of 'having'. And James links the intrinsic motivation 'being' to genuine happiness. Or rather, the motivation of 'having' to such ills as depression, anxiety and ultimately greater social problems such as drug abuse.

James proceeds to go around the world drawing on case studies of individuals to illustrate how the condition of late capitalism (post-post modernity, velocity age, anyone?) creates ever-increasing desires such as home-ownership and wider conspicuous-consumption that leads to the incubation and growth of the virus. These desires mean we are suckered in by advertising to buy more stuff so we work longer hours, relationships and communities suffer and children are uncared for properly.

Pretty bleak, isn't it? And nice to know that I'm somehow at fault due to my role in the evil advertising industry.

James goes on to suggest 'vaccines' for the virus. These start off as sensible psychologist's therapies: finding intrinsic motivations (i.e. I am a city trader because I am fascinated by numbers and the big fat bonuses are really just a bonus, honest); being beautiful rather than attractive (apparently Russian women are great at this); only consuming what you need; being authentic; enjoying motherhood (& fathers taking a greater child-caring role); educating children rather than brainwashing them. So far so Freud, Jung, etc.

But his finale is quite frankly amazing. He lays out a manifesto not dissimilar to the Socialists of the mid 20th century.

• Return all property to the state (having one estate agent, fixed prices and a lottery system if demand surpasses supply for specific property)
  
• Tax anyone earning over £100K / year at about 95% to equal out wages.
  
• Cut all defence budget and reallocate to paying one parent at national average wage to take the first couple of years off following childbirth
• Remove tests / exams from education and divorce syllabuses from the needs of industry - allowing children to discover their true talents
  
• Ban anyone attractive being in adverts. (seriously! who decides, the 'beauty police'?!)

So a lovely future where we're all doing stuff that we intrinsically love and getting paid enough for it, and living in a place that's just big enough for our needs. (worrying echoes of lebensraum?!).

What James fails to consider is the very nature of capitalism will necessarily create uneven development. Capital flows from places that don't suit the need to accumulate to places that do. Areas of growth and areas of destruction and deprivation. Even if the UK did seek to employ some of James' measures, the flow of capital (i.e money) away from the UK would be expedient and devastating. The only way in which James' measures could be employed would be on a global basis. Which is, of course, impractical.

It's a similar argument to that often postulated idea of agencies being paid for pitches - there will always be someone who waives the cost to gain an advantage...

So, in my opinion James has let himself down with the last couple of chapters. They rather smack of 'must finish book for publishers.... must have controversial conclusion'. His arguments are badly thought through compared to the elegant stories of the early part of the book. I can excuse him his methodology - qualitative stories that back up his opinion. Statistically invalid, and no doubt biased in the fieldwork, James is only using a storytelling technique that increasingly popular in authoritative, trans-disciplinary books (see Gladwell, Godin, Grant, Anderson, etc).

What is the definition of a good book?

Well, I finished it. It made me think. I'm now writing about it. I suggest these behaviours are the result of 'a good book'. A look at the reviews on Amazon shows very polarised opinions. (but then again, that is the fallacy of Amazon reviews - few people write a review or rate something if they are ambivalent about it).

I like (most of) his thinking. We are often obsessed with material stuff at the expense of genuine happiness. I've noticed that I've changed some of my behaviours in the last few weeks as a result of reading the book (that iTube is only something I want - not what I need...)

But in the meantime, I must go online to look at those ISA deals I was seeing on the TV - I must buy a new and bigger flat next year.

Rubbish designs

Rubbish. Every UK household produces over 1 tonne of it annually. And the stuff in our rubbish bins could power 5,000 hours of television every year. (does Audi TV have that much content?)

Ethical consumerism seems to be all the rage at the moment. Blogging ahoy after Channel 4's attack on Global Warming.... Gordon Brown has started getting the tube, and UK political parties square up to a 'green-off'. (I'm sure their intentions are genuine, and not a ruse to reel in the floating voter. Not that I'm cynical or anything...)

Enough about politics, let's talk design!

Enlightened sections of the design industry are considering and incorporating social and environment externalities into sustainable design solutions. They're thinking: 'What is the true 'cost' from cradle to cradle?' (In other words the energy and resources used and the social impact to make something, distribute and sell it, use it - and recycle it to make something new.)

Today I went to the [re]design exhibition at the Bluebird Cafe in London. This exhibition shows work from 17 innovative British designers who are bringing sustainability into contemporary design. Chairs made of old plastic and supermarket cardboard, a bench made from old Euro bins, trainers made from old rubber and clothes, blinds made from old signs (my favourite), lamps made from old bottles. All made using sustainable processes.

A really fascinating piece was a bench made of old supermarket cardboard packaging from a chap called Jason Ifkahar. It seems he actually has an arrangement with Sainsbury's to use their waste in his designs, and they're looking for ways in which production levels could be increased.

Now, I haven't heard Sainsbury's talking about this - but this seems to be really positive CSR from an organisation doing something proactive, innovative and actually quite cool.

(Rather than green-washing a tired loyalty scheme, like some other supermarkets we could mention)

Beautiful research

Promised myself that I wouldn't do too much signposting, but this is amazing.
It's an interactive display of research on the ideal home and housing - from Japan. It encourages feedback and comments, and has some lovely new-age music (reminiscent of Future Sound of London).

Shame the actual research isn't too interesting...

No more dull research debriefs?

Herd Abstinence

With the public smoking ban in force in July, over 2M people are going to try and give up smoking today for national no smoking day

Current stats say that about 85K people normally quit on this day each year, so this represents a massive increase in people who are going to try.

Stats for Ireland, seem to show a decrease in respiratory illness and some evidence for decreased cigarette sales.

But there is little evidence of the Government planning for a decrease in tax revenue from tobacco sales over the next few years. (but if anyone knows differently, please correct me!)

So top-down legislation is what was required all along? Or is the timing perfect that legislation has met a powerful group or herd mentality to quit? Or will people will find clever little work arounds (like your favourite pub becoming members only, or possible installing one of these)

Will we actually become a healthier nation?

I won't hold my breath. I'm off to rehab, thank you very much.

Weak Links

Just picked up a(nother) new report from the US on WOM. Check it out and download here.

I picked up this comment on the report from Dani Marino, who talks about a concept called Social Persuaders and Influencers or SPIs. SPIs are people with large, active and many social networks. They have persuasive power and they love to talk about products and services. And they are 10% of the market...

As with a lot of stuff on WOM, there does seem to be an obsession with finding those important broadcasting types. Or social connectors as Gladwell calls them.

Find them, seed your message into and across their social networks and watch the dollars roll in. That'll be WOM wrapped up. Bring on the YouTube, Myspace, Tribe, MOG, Rateitall and Faceparty seeding campaigns with clever and humourous content! 7% positive buzz and 1% growth or so the LSE tell me.

But it seems to me, that people forget a few key things:

• Messages at best travel in a superficial way - instantly consumed and disposed of. ideas on the other hand have a chance of sticking - although they will probably be re-appropriated and become out of the control of the initial originator
• And as a proper reading of network theory will tell you (including the tipping point): For stuff to travel the receivers in the network / community have to be receptive. it is not enough to have loads of SPIs / broadcasters (or whatever we call them) chatting. People have to listen and want to take on or act on a dissipated idea. For an idea to travel through communities knowledge of the way in which information is exchanged within those communities is critical for success.

To have a chance of planning for an idea to spread socially requires a deeper understanding of linguistics, semiotics and ritual - within and across different communities.

It means understanding the weak links in a community and across communities as well as the so-called strong links of the SPIs / broadcasters (that everyone else is probably bombarding with rubbish viral messages anyway)

This Blog is not taking place

It seems that the spectacle of this blog is already much more important than the reality of it....

People have been talking about it for a while. I've been talking about it for, oh, nearly a year.

And now, as it goes through a difficult birth (and premature - thanks Doug), it's already undergone a few christenings, changes of clothes and is having a pre-school identity crisis - defined by the spectacle of what others think it ought to be, before it has uttered it's first few words to become a reality.

So why these mixed metaphors? Well, I read with great sadness at the passing away of one my heroes last week - Jean Baudrillard. Controversial in his writing, he is perhaps most infamously known for his writings on the first Gulf War (it won't take place, it is not taking place, it did not take place) and essays on the twin towers 9/11, where he described the horrors as 'a fusion of history, symbolism and dark fantasy - the mother of all events'.

I'm not going to deconstruct his arguments, primarily as they have been examined beforehand by excellent scholars more qualified than I. However it seems strange to me that I picked up the 'Gulf War did not take place' only a few weeks ago, and he then goes and dies.

I had decided to re-read this book, not because of a particular interest in the Gulf War, but because recent thought on brands (e.g. Grant's view on brands as molecules of real, authentic ideas) seemingly goes against Baudrillard's central thought that the spectacle (i.e. people's perceptions, influenced by media commentary) is becoming more important than the reality (i.e. what is really going on).

[Ok - Baudrillard's argument on the Gulf War, was that it was entirely constructed through the media for the purposes of both the West and Sadaam; the 'war' was won before it started and did not involve proper conflict - so how could it be called a war?; and it took place mainly on CNN rather than in the Gulf]

So, in our 21st century, Internet-dominant, convergent world, Baudrillard is surely wrong. We are no longer at the mercy of what the behemoth media companies want to tell us about the world as spectacle. We can check out real-time live feeds and blogs for the 'reality' - as we have seen in blogs from the front line for the Iraqi 'war'.

But as Henry Jenkins has succinctly argued, our culture is necessarily an interplay between the large media players and those who wish to participate. And listening to Al Gore on the radio this morning, Current TV, (for all of it's 'democratic' intentions of participatory culture and user generated content), has a 'review panel' of people who decide what is interesting / acceptable for popular consumption. Democratic??

However, surely the best measure of what is interesting / acceptable / influential / authoritative on the Internet and in the blogosphere is the number of links / downloads and views. In other words, popularity.

Does popularity mean reality and truth???!

I think it is dangerous to be swept away by the fantasy that the democratization of the Internet has opened up reality for everyone and swept spectacle under the carpet.

The spectacle has pulled off its greatest trick (again) by convincing the world that it doesn't exist.

I hope Jean is smiling.

Why the post is always late

Ok.

So holding page whilst I sort out some content. Apologies to anyone coming here from a link wondering who / what I am...