High Fidelity

High Fidelity by Nick Hornby

Rob is a thirty-five year old slacker that has just been ditched by his girlfriend Laura who has grown tired of Rob’s sulkiness. She runs off with Ian, a prick that used to live in the flat right above them. From the point when Laura leaves Rob, life is a downward spiral of too much thinking and too many “top five” lists. By the help of a friendly one-night stand (and some bottles of wine) Rob slowly gets his life back on track and desperately struggles to get back with Laura.

High Fidelity is an excellent book that deals with a range of interesting themes. For starters, there is the distinction theme. Rob eats, breathes and sleeps music. It is his passion and profession. His entire identity is based on his great taste of music. People who do not share his elevated taste are fools. A record collection containing Billy Joel, The Beatles and Tina Turner would whiplash him (they would not exactly squeeze into Rob’s list of Top Five Artists). To Rob, the important thing is not what you are like but what you like. So let me ask you, have you ever been to a party, glanced at the host’s movie collection and frowned on Göta Kanal 2? Have you ever been surprised that one of your mates is wearing white socks outside the gym? Even though I am exaggerating, I think it is quite easy to fall into the trap of feeling superior when your identification is based on taste. Because … if your taste is not that exquisite, but accessible to others … exactly who are you then? The construction of an identity is not only based on the things you like but also the things you do not like. This is why Rob is so condescending.

Another thing I like about High Fidelity is the way we get to share the narrator’s thoughts. This reminds me of the Swedish movie Vuxna människor. In that movie the main character "thinks out loud" in a way that a (male?) audience can identify with. As High Fidelity is about separation and reunification all the thinking in the book covers some things that painfully remind you of the break-up process of a relationship. What could I have done differently? Is she happy without me? Maybe the cruellest part is when Rob is lying in bed late at night and imagines how Laura is sleeping with her new boyfriend. We have all been there, have we not?

Obviously the book is about music and pop music in specific. Repeatedly, Rob is thinking of whether he likes pop music because he is unhappy, or if he is unhappy because he likes pop music. What do you think? Is pop music a form of consolidation or does it strengthen the bad mood you are in?

Along with Ben Elton and Bret Easton Ellis, Nick Hornby is probably my favourite author. Do you guys know of any similar writers?

Link: Some songs mentioned in the book (Spotify) 

The story of stuff

I have mixed feelings after having seen the video “The story of stuff” by Annie Leonard. A part of the video leaves me sad and without hope, another part makes me want to march the streets and convince people to start acting.

It is up to average Joe

Whose responsibility is it to turn this destructive trend? Is it up to the individual or the collective? What kind of difference could a single man’s efforts make in the long run when the rest of the world keeps polluting the planet?

Environmental problems are global. Therefore, they need to be discussed and solved by the world’s political leaders. Unfortunately, we have a system in which you will not win any selections by working for environmental friendly changes.

I was optimistic about the success of the Swedish party “Miljöpartiet”. Finally the environmental issues would be discussed in the way they deserve! But, what happened to this topic during the election rally? Unfortunately it seems like the destiny of our planet is sometimes trendy to talk about and sometimes not, possibly in the same way that feminism is debated from time to time.

I guess that part of the explanation why environmental issues are only periodically debated, is that the suggested actions for saving our planet will crush the life we live today. The mere thought of having to change our lifestyle is exhausting and I believe that people easily get fed up with environmental enthusiasts. The greatest advocators of a shift of living are blamed to be idealists. "And we all know that idealists are naive children that do not know how the world works", people might say.

It is our fault, the fault of the average Joe, that speaking for a greener world is a possible political suicide mission. It is up to us to change the climate of the world and the climate of the political world. Our weapon in this battle is our vote. We should not under-estimate the power of voting.

Though, I am afraid that it is a pity that the future of the world lies in our hands. Sometimes I think that people in general are too dumb, too egocentric and too short-sighted to avoid this planet from going under. Hopefully I am wrong. One thing is for sure and that is that the initiative for this change must come from the people themselves. I think you can compare this subject to a drug addict's chances of being helped. The initiative must come from the junkie, otherwise nothing will happen.

Role model or not?

I am a bit surprised that our political leader, Mr Reinfeldt, has chosen not to aim higher when it comes to environmental goals for the future. He says that we should put our money in countries which have not reached the same point of environmental awareness as Sweden. A certain amount of money will make a bigger difference in a country that is less developed than Sweden.

BUT, as Sweden is at the front of the environmental struggle, we should show the rest of the world that we will not be satisfied with the achievements so far. We have the technology to lift the bar a couple of notches. This may be hard to motivate from an economic point of view but as far as public opinion goes, it will possibly have a greater effect than donating the same kind of money to developing countries. We should of course do both but we must not step down from the number one position.

Avatar is a great movie

I am studying for a bachelor in civil and rock engineering. Without any doubt this type of activities represents a great threat to Mother Earth. We deplete the natural resources of this planet and leave hideous wounds wherever we are passing through. This is why I found the plot in Avatar so interesting. For those of you who have not seen Avatar I can tell you that it is about a mining company that has established its business on a planet called Pandora. As the company expands and explores other areas on the planet, the sacred place of the inhabitants is in danger. For the greedy company this is not a problem.  Avatar is not just a visually impressive movie. It also addresses some questions that a possible miner should keep in mind. I actually had a hard time to motivate how I could enter such a line of business. After some thinking I came to a crossroads - either you give up or you will make the best of the situation. We will always need minerals from the Earth’s crust. By trying to make this “surgical operation” as environmental friendly as possible, I will have a clear conscience and be able to sleep at night. 

Big Brother

I found the article Snoopy bosses really interesting, mainly because it offered a different perspective on the never-ending battle between integrity and safety. To this point I have always thought of the problem as a consequence of terrorist acts like 9/11. I have heard of the thousands of cameras in the streets of London, but I haven’t heard of bosses who filter e-mails.
 
I believe the article focuses on what we are willing to pay in order to keep up the productivity on a company. I can understand that employers need to limit the time we spend at work doing everything but to work. If I were the head of a company I most definitely wouldn’t like my staff to surf the web instead of doing the tasks I have given them.


In this way, I do believe that the employer has the right to control what the staff is doing at work. It’s quite simple, they should be working. They aren’t payed to surf the web or be engaged in private matters of any kind. But, and I would like to stress this, the control mustn’t expand into anything else but to make sure that they are working. Productivity and efficiency are the keywords. It’s a whole different ball game if the employer lets the monitoring also cover private information. Where to draw the line is hard to tell, and the mere fact that it’s hard to say is perhaps enough for denying the employer the right to monitor?


Even though I can identify with the employers in the article, I cannot but ask myself what kind of companies we are talking about. I mean, are there really companies out there whose boss is filtering the mail or observing the surfing habits of his or her staff? Maybe I’m being naive to think that this is something extraordinary. As the article points out, they are probably doing the monitoring without us knowing.


One thing that strikes me is that it would be a whole lot easier for the employers to completely shut down some web pages, instead of snooping while the staff is using these forbidden sites like Gmail or Facebook. If their access is restricted, there wouldn’t be any problem, would it?


The idea of panopticon


In the field of sociology there was a man called Michael Foucault that penetrated the subject of monitoring. His book Discipline and punish derives from the idea of “panopticon” which is a principle of surveillance that was invented by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century. The idea of panopticon is that the prisoners should feel observed. By having a surveillance tower in the middle of a circle-shaped prison, the prisoners couldn’t tell whether they were being observed or not. The guards could see the prisoners but not the other way around. The prisoners therefore had to act as if they were observed, that is playing it cool, without any fuss. Foucault takes the idea of panopticon and transfers it to our modern society. You can find panopticons in every part of our everyday lives, he alleges, in our homes and at work. As time passes, we eventually internalize the feeling of being controlled and become law-abiding citizens.


Surveillance may create law-abiding citizens but it is also blocking the free word. In a society where panopticons are to be found, one must choose his or her words carefully. If nobody dares to speak freely, we have a major threat to our democracy. In the long run, we have a situation in which not only behaviour is refrained but also thoughts. Self-censure is a fact. 


A counterbalance to Big Brother


In Sweden there is a man called Pär Ström that writes passionately about these issues. He is a counterbalance to every tendency towards a Big Brother society. One of the first things he declares is that we have the right to privacy. Period. And we don’t need to prove ourselves right when saying this. The second thing he issues is that information can be misused or end up in the wrong place and thus jeopardize people’s political sympathies, their place of living or their possible health problems. Even if this information won’t reach the wrong kind of people, the risk of this happening will make people avoid certain words on Google or avoid sending e-mails to certain people or buying certain things.


Another problem for our democracy, Pär Ström continues, is that when we have a situation with massive monitoring, the channels for incoming information to the media will no longer be safe. People with important information will think twice before going to the press, as their identity may be unveiled by hackers.


Pär Ström moves on by asking some rhetorical questions. What if the society of tomorrow isn’t as nice as the society of today? What if Hitler had access to the huge amount of information that some companies have today – he would find every single Jew within seconds.


Finally, Ström mentions a problem he calls a shift of purpose. When we collect information, there is a risk that the collected information will be used in another context in the future.


Blame technology


Sometimes I think the development of technology is enough for us to accept profound reforms and when these reforms turn out bad we blame technology. ”Hey, the technology is here, face the facts!”, we might say. But only because technology has made some things possible, we shouldn’t accept them without any reflection, should we?


Recently I heard of Chinese parents who attach small GPS-transmitters to their kids’ cellphones. In this way they can keep track of their little offsprings. Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Or? Can it be misused? Analogous to this, do we really need ICA to know exactly what we consume? Isn’t it scary when a personalized news letter hits your inbox filled with groceries that are particularly price worthy just for you? I sometimes burst out ”How did they know that I like to eat air-dried ham in the morning?”.


For what price are we giving them this information? So we get to get special offers? Is it worth it? I don’t know. It feels a bit creepy though. Not to mention what Google knows about me. I like their user-friendly applications but I don’t like to think about what they know of my surfing habits. And by the way, Facebook knows the names of all my friends... Hopefully there won’t come a day when Google or Facebook decide to sell this information to another company with less regulations when it comes to personal integrity.


VPN services


To be anonymous on the web is a rising request I presume. Everywhere you go, you leave digital traces. All of these can be linked to your IP number. With knowledge of your IP number it’s possible to track you down geographically. Because of this, a new kind of service has come to see the light of day. The name of the service is VPN which is short for virtual private network and it will disguise your IP address and make you impossible to localize. Today, most of the customers of the companies that are selling these services are probably looking for a way to hide when downloading copyrighted material. But, as our society is becoming more and more ”Orwellian”, the need to hide from snoopy bosses will grow stronger.


I believe the urge for hiding is greater among young people. Not only because they are overrepresented in statistics of downloads, but also because they are grown up with computers. To a larger extent than older people, generation Y has a considerable share of their life on the web. For them, digital integrity is crucial.


Conclusion


I think the tolerance of being surveyed depends on the situation. My personal opinion is that I’m willing to accept my boss to monitor me at work. Why? Well, because I can respect his or her will to make sure that I’m working. Though, I do think that this monitoring has its limits. I wouldn’t like my boss to filter my e-mail or looking at my Facebook account. In this case I would prefer if he or she shut these sites down.


Public monitoring for preventing crimes is different I think. Even though precautionary measure would save lives, I wouldn’t embrace a development into a society that could be taken from Kallocain (the book by Karin Boye). Without any doubts, 9/11 has brought these matters to a head. The paranoia for being attacked by terrorists has somehow made surveillance legitimated. Over a night, the idea of panopticon spread to all parts of our society. I think this is wrong. A sociologist called Zygmunt Bauman once wrote that ”security always calls for the sacrifice of freedom, while freedom can only be expanded at the expense of security” (Bauman 2001, 20). Maybe the issue of freedom and security is a zero-sum game and that’s why we should pay notice of all the little ”improvements” that people with power try to slip into our system. Next thing you know, it’s 1984.