Era Immersion Living

[LizzieMaine]

I would not go that far! While I do not like texting, it is still a human being, and most likely a loved one, who typed all that gibberish, hash tag, I don't understand what you just sent me! What does a semicolon and a exclamation mark mean? :eusa_doh:

How do you *know* that a person sent that text? How do you know that any one of us here isn't some sophisticated marketing robot, generating automated posts and responses to posts in order to gain insight on the spending habits of however many actual humans are here?

I'm being facetious, probably, but not far from possible reality. Ever get a "robo-call"?

If the futurists of the thirties imagined such a world, it was as a dystopia. Look how often the trope of the robot/artificial intelligence-destroying -or-dominating-its-human-creator turns up in the science fiction of that time, and right on down into our own time. The techno-uber-alles crowd might not fear that, but clearly it's still something that worries people.

 

[HudsonHawk]

How do you *know* that a person sent that text? How do you know that any one of us here isn't some sophisticated marketing robot, generating automated posts and responses to posts in order to gain insight on the spending habits of however many actual humans are here?

I'm being facetious, probably, but not far from possible reality. Ever get a "robo-call"?

If the futurists of the thirties imagined such a world, it was as a dystopia. Look how often the trope of the robot/artificial intelligence-destroying -or-dominating-its-human-creator turns up in the science fiction of that time, and right on down into our own time. The techno-uber-alles crowd might not fear that, but clearly it's still something that worries people.

Like Philip K. Dick repeatedly asked..."what does it mean to be human? What does it mean to not be human? What's the difference and why does it matter?"

 

[LizzieMaine]

At the 1939 World's Fair, "The World Of Tomorrow," Westinghouse had a big hit with Electro The Robot -- but they were very careful to show that he was being controlled by a man sitting on the stage giving him orders thru a microphone. Likewise, the many exhibits at other manufacturers' pavillions demonstrating various types of automatic equipment -- the rotary milking machine at the Borden's exhibit, the bread-baking line at the Wonder Bread building, the bottling works at the Coca-Cola exhibit, etc. etc. etc. -- all were very careful to show humans in control of the processes. Even the General Motors Futurama, which in retrospect seems the most dystopic of the "futures" presented at the Fair, with its emphasis on cars and endless highways, never went so far as to propose automated driverless vehicles.

Even the technology criticized most often for its "dehumanization," the Automat cafeterias, were very obviously attended by a human staff. You might have purchased your dish of beans from a compartment in a wall, but you clearly saw an attendant slide that plate of beans into the compartment from the other side, and you had to deal with an attendant when you turned in your dishes.

The fear of being displaced by technology was a very real thing in the Era, especially for the working class, who already had been made to feel disposable by the mass layoffs of the Depression. A typical American from 1939 transported to the present day would be, at first, amazed by the Wonders The Future Hath Wrought -- but that would wear off very quickly and be replaced by shock and fear. "No telephone operators? Self-service store checkouts? Self-driving cars? GET ME OUT OF HERE!"

A lot of people who didn't grow up in the computer age feel the same way. These Victorian folk may be a bit extreme, but they're reflecting a very deep and very honest sense that technology has outstripped the ability of human community to keep up. In that sense they're no different from the back-to-the-landers, the "modern homesteaders," the "Tightwad" movement, or those of us who prefer to stick to a greater or lesser extent with the technologies of the 1930s. The Chrismans may be a bit insufferably twee about it all, but if people would stop mocking them long enough to listen to what they're really saying, they might find that it makes a good bit of sense.

 

[tonyb]

Siri, anyone?

Speaking only to my own experience (but which I strongly suspect I share with billions of others), extended periods of isolation become torture. On those occasions when I find myself residing in a new locale (I've done that too many times in recent years) where I know few if any people, I look forward to going to the supermarket, say, as much to be in the company of fellow humans as to procure whatever I might find on the grocery shelves.

I've long speculated that the late-night eateries (Denny's, for instance) owe much of their trade to the human desire to take sustenance in the company of other people. In my single life I often made my way to the local hash houses to take in a meal and chat with the wait staff and the other patrons. I preferred the counter over a booth, mostly for that reason.

 

[ChiTownScion]

BTW, the first female grad of Baylor, and of any college in Texas, was Mary Gentry Kavanaugh in 1855. She would have been 103 sometime around 1935. You're not THAT old, are you?

Well, then, I cheerfully stand corrected.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Siri, anyone?

Speaking only to my own experience (but which I strongly suspect I share with billions of others), extended periods of isolation become torture. On those occasions when I find myself residing in a new locale (I've done that too many times in recent years) where I know few if any people, I look forward to going to the supermarket, say, as much to be in the company of fellow humans as to procure whatever I might find on the grocery shelves.

I've long speculated that the late-night eateries (Denny's, for instance) owe much of their trade to the human desire to take sustenance in the company of other people. In my single life I often made my way to the local hash houses to take in a meal and chat with the wait staff and the other patrons. I preferred the counter over a booth, mostly for that reason.

Exactly so. Human beings are social creatures, and derive pretty much our entire sense of identity from our interactions with the social group. Every single bit of who we are proceeds, in a very real way, from how we are perceived by others. Remove the human being from the social group, isolate him or her, and that identity will eventually crumble.

Techonology is no replacement for actual face to face interaction with real people in real surroundings. "Social Media" may have its uses -- but how healthy is a society where social interaction becomes a commodity requiring the use of gadgets and proprietary platforms that are, in essence, nothing more than sophisticated tools for marketing analysis, psychological manipulation, and advertising. When all your contact with friends happens on Facebook instead of in line at the post office or over the backyard fence or across the table at lunch, when all that contact is simply a commodity to be tracked, analyzed, marketed, and sold for the greater glory of capitalism, just how healthy is your society? Just how healthy are *you?*

When was the last time you had an actual face to face conversation, not just "hi, howarya?" but an actual conversation with your next-door neighbor? Or the plumber? Or the guy who fixes your car? Or a grocery clerk? Or a waitress in a coffee shop? Or the manager of your local movie theatre? Do you even know their names? That's what's meant by "community," and that's what technology has cost us. We've got all the virtual communities we can handle, even as the actual, genuine communities wither and die.

Think about that the next time you're walking down the street and you see a group of kids going by, each one with eyes fixed to their phone. It's not just a matter of "hmph, kids today." It isn't even just a matter of "what kind of society are these kids going to have to live in?" It's a question of "what have we, our own selves, let society become?"

 

[tonyb]

You know how any phenomenon's time has come and gone when someone decides to make a shrine to it?

In Seattle, there's a city Department of Neighborhoods, whose mission is to "build community." Its very existence speaks to the futility of that mission. In a city where you can procure "organic" foodstuffs and attire of just about any description, you can't find an organic neighborhood.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You know how any phenomenon's time has come and gone when someone decides to make a shrine to it?

In Seattle, there's a city Department of Neighborhoods, whose mission is to "build community." Its very existence speaks to the futility of that mission. In a city where you can procure "organic" foodstuffs and attire of just about any description, you can't find an organic neighborhood.

And that, not saggy pants or flip-flops or trucker caps at the supper table, is what's deeply wrong with the twenty-first century.

 

[AmateisGal]

I'm having a discussion with someone who finds it deeply troubling that *anyone* tries to admire things of another era that are a direct result of oppression.

"Romanticizing reality" is their issue.

I have a problem with this. I fully admit to sometimes romanticizing the 1940s - I sometimes freely pick and choose what I admire about that generation and forget the bad aspects of it like segregation, etc. But we live in an era now that has just as many problems as back then (sweatshops producing cheap American goods, anyone?). However, my friend's issue is that we can fight the oppression in the here and now.

Here's my thing, though: what is so wrong with pulling certain aspects from the past into your present life that you enjoy? What is so wrong with wanting to live as a Victorian couple in every way that you can?

 

[tonyb]

... Human beings are social creatures, and derive pretty much our entire sense of identity from our interactions with the social group. Every single bit of who we are proceeds, in a very real way, from how we are perceived by others. Remove the human being from the social group, isolate him or her, and that identity will eventually crumble.

...

Indeed.

People who claim to be immune to what others think of them are delusional and/or sociopathic. The biggest part of our individual identities is largely a reflection of what the rest of our world tells us we are.

Take that as one very good reason to seek out the company of people inclined to think well of you. This is not to say a person should surround him- or herself exclusively with likeminded others, but that that person keep company with those who wish him or her well. A person is much more receptive to constructive criticism when it comes from people he or she trusts has his or her best interests at heart.

 

[Fading Fast]

I'm having a discussion with someone who finds it deeply troubling that *anyone* tries to admire things of another era that are a direct result of oppression.

"Romanticizing reality" is their issue.

I have a problem with this. I fully admit to sometimes romanticizing the 1940s - I sometimes freely pick and choose what I admire about that generation and forget the bad aspects of it like segregation, etc. But we live in an era now that has just as many problems as back then (sweatshops producing cheap American goods, anyone?). However, my friend's issue is that we can fight the oppression in the here and now.

Here's my thing, though: what is so wrong with pulling certain aspects from the past into your present life that you enjoy? What is so wrong with wanting to live as a Victorian couple in every way that you can?

What I bolded of yours above. IMHO, absolutely nothing wrong with it as long as you also know the full history and keep the real history separate from your romanticized view.

That is what I do. I will sometimes daydream about living in the '30s or '40s. In my daydream no one smokes, I'm not worried about the diseases that haven't been cured and segregation and other oppression (women, homosexuals) is not part of it. It's a completely fake world, but so what, I know it and can enjoy the style, the things in the culture that I do like, the vibe of the time that I appreciate.

I also enjoy music and movies from the era - so what, they exist, I watch and listen to them and enjoy them. I love historic train rides as well. I know the challenges and downside of the era, but I can pick and choose to enjoy and experience some aspect of that era anyway.

But I also know the real history better than, based on all those surveys one sees, most college educated Americans who can't put the Civil War in the right decade or tell you who was fighting whom in WWI.

Enjoy your romanticizing, your daydreaming and those aspects of the era you can experience. My God, if you can get some fun, a little pleasure out of life by just fantasizing - go for it. The world offers us enough struggles and challenges when we aren't daydreaming.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Here's another piece in reply to the original article written by Sarah Chrisman
Vox's Victorians

What I don't understand about this Slate article, a slue of similar vitriolic items that have appeared since the initial piece was posted on Vox, is why do people care so much? I understand that many assume the Chrismans, and folks like them, are aloof, snobbish elitists. But isn't that the perception of all people with niche interests? And for that matter, how is what they're doing that much different from people who live "off the grid"? Sure, some quotes in her piece sound iffy (specifically, "saw value in older ways of looking at the world" and "always admired Victorian ideals"), because certain aspects of Victorian ideals/ways of looking at the world are pretty repugnant to modern values. But, there's no indication at all that these folks think, for example, it's right and proper for one group of people to subjugate another because of divinely gifted superiority. And even if they did believe such things, so what? They seem to be happy and aren't hurting anyone.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm having a discussion with someone who finds it deeply troubling that *anyone* tries to admire things of another era that are a direct result of oppression.

"Romanticizing reality" is their issue.

I have a problem with this. I fully admit to sometimes romanticizing the 1940s - I sometimes freely pick and choose what I admire about that generation and forget the bad aspects of it like segregation, etc. But we live in an era now that has just as many problems as back then (sweatshops producing cheap American goods, anyone?). However, my friend's issue is that we can fight the oppression in the here and now.

Here's my thing, though: what is so wrong with pulling certain aspects from the past into your present life that you enjoy? What is so wrong with wanting to live as a Victorian couple in every way that you can?

You can't win an argument with people like that, so it's not worth bothering to try. I've pointed out to such people that a great many Americans in the Era fought long and hard against the oppressive conditions of the time -- the Civil Rights and women's movements of the fifties and sixties were direct outgrowths of the radical movements of the thirties -- and it's their memory that I honor, not the memory of the oppressors and the plutocrats that they fought. But they're usually so busy congratulating themselves on their own enlightenment, and their heads are usually so far up their own backsides, that they can't hear a word I say. So the best thing to do is to call to mind my dear old 1940s International Longshoremen's Union member aunt, and, as she herself would have done, tell them they can kiss my ***.

I don't romanticize the Era at all -- I'm well aware of its shortcomings, and in fact I find those flaws more fascinating than the snappy clothes and the snazzy cars, because they reveal that, in any Era, there are decent people who are willing to put their lives on the line for what's right. The activists of the Era didn't write blogs or sign Choose.org petitions, or sit around stroking their beards in coffeehouses. They fought, and bled, and some of them died for the rights people today take for granted. Are all these beard-stroking snark-artists willing to do the same?

 

[AmateisGal]

You can't win an argument with people like that, so it's not worth bothering to try. I've pointed out to such people that a great many Americans in the Era fought long and hard against the oppressive conditions of the time -- the Civil Rights and women's movements of the fifties and sixties were direct outgrowths of the radical movements of the thirties -- and it's their memory that I honor, not the memory of the oppressors and the plutocrats that they fought. But they're usually so busy congratulating themselves on their own enlightenment, and their heads are usually so far up their own backsides, that they can't hear a word I say. So the best thing to do is to call to mind my dear old 1940s International Longshoremen's Union member aunt, and, as she herself would have done, tell them they can kiss my ***.

I don't romanticize the Era at all -- I'm well aware of its shortcomings, and in fact I find those flaws more fascinating than the snappy clothes and the snazzy cars, because they reveal that, in any Era, there are decent people who are willing to put their lives on the line for what's right. The activists of the Era didn't write blogs or sign Choose.org petitions, or sit around stroking their beards in coffeehouses. They fought, and bled, and some of them died for the rights people today take for granted. Are all these beard-stroking snark-artists willing to do the same?

Lizzie, I love what you wrote. Thank you. I didn't continue the discussion because I knew it would be fruitless with this person.

 

[AmateisGal]

What I bolded of yours above. IMHO, absolutely nothing wrong with it as long as you also know the full history and keep the real history separate from your romanticized view.

That is what I do. I will sometimes daydream about living in the '30s or '40s. In my daydream no one smokes, I'm not worried about the diseases that haven't been cured and segregation and other oppression (women, homosexuals) is not part of it. It's a completely fake world, but so what, I know it and can enjoy the style, the things in the culture that I do like, the vibe of the time that I appreciate.

I also enjoy music and movies from the era - so what, they exist, I watch and listen to them and enjoy them. I love historic train rides as well. I know the challenges and downside of the era, but I can pick and choose to enjoy and experience some aspect of that era anyway.

But I also know the real history better than, based on all those surveys one sees, most college educated Americans who can't put the Civil War in the right decade or tell you who was fighting whom in WWI.

Enjoy your romanticizing, your daydreaming and those aspects of the era you can experience. My God, if you can get some fun, a little pleasure out of life by just fantasizing - go for it. The world offers us enough struggles and challenges when we aren't daydreaming.

Yes to all of this. Thank you.

 

[LizzieMaine]

An excellent bit of commentary on the Internet's current hissy fit.

The Victorian Couple is Right, the World Is A Cruel Place

 

[Guttersnipe]

An excellent bit of commentary on the Internet's current hissy fit.

The Victorian Couple is Right, the World Is A Cruel Place

The author seems to go back and forth on whether the fact they choose to live differently "entitles" them to claim bullying as an issue. She points out that suppressing ones passions is unpleasant, but doesn't seem to grasp that eccentric personality traits are often fixed and unchangeable. My gut tells me, the Chrismans are idiosyncratic individuals who couldn't assimilate with with mainstream culture or the dominate norms even in the didn't party like it's 1899...

...unfortunately, the black swans of this world always have tough time.

 

[LizzieMaine]

True -- but that's not to say that any era didn't have its share of them. The author Havelock Ellis, an early 20th Century researcher into human sexuality, documented one particular case history that I always found amusing, because it happened in the town of Coopers Mills, Maine -- about twenty minutes drive from where I live. Back around the mid-1890s, it seems, there was a retired Army officer living in a small house in Coopers Mills with his wife, a gentleman Ellis refers to only as "Commander James Robbins," who was known as "a prominent man in his community, a citizen generally esteemed as a man of integrity and intelligence," with "a brilliant war record."

But, Ellis reports, Commander Robbins, this epitome of the hearty Victorian bourgeoisie, had a hobby. It seemed his favorite thing in the world to do was to go about his daily errands wearing corsets, a long skirt, petticoats, and a pair of "women's no. 6 shoes." "There is no woman in Coopers Mills who owns so many dresses of excellent material as does the commander of the Coopers Mills Post.. Almost every morning Mr. Robbins in his print gown is seen sweeping off the piazza amd whisking about the kitchen. For afternoon, his gowns are elaborate. Some of them are made by Mr. Robbins, and some are fashioned by local dressmakers. One cashmere dress is quite a favorite, amd this is frequently worn by Mr. Robbins when he promenades to the orchard." And on and on. Ellis adds that, in addition to this ladylike garb, the good Commander is well known for his long, curly hair, his impressive moustache "that possibly owes a colour to art" and his deep, rich voice.

Now, I doubt that that any professional Victorian has ever heard of Commander Robbins, but he did exist, and by Ellis's account -- which he takes more or less verbatim from a newspaper in Lewiston -- he was a well-loved and respected figure in his town. While Ellis does note that similar cases where the individuals involved were "less robust and jovial than Commander Robbins" the outcome was "sometimes pathetic," the fact remains he seemed to get along just fine in his time and place. And I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that if the Commander's great-grandson were to follow his ancestor's ways in Coopers Mills today, the response would likely be quite hostile.

Tolerance and even acceptance of eccentricity were not unknown in the Victorian Era, the Golden Era, or any other time. And as you note, they're by no means universal in ours. I suspect, for whatever it's worth, that while Mrs. Chirsman might at first be shocked to her core if she could meet Commander Robbins in person, but I bet after half an hour of conversation they'd find they have much more in common than they think.

 

[AmateisGal]

An excellent bit of commentary on the Internet's current hissy fit.

The Victorian Couple is Right, the World Is A Cruel Place

This was very good.

 

[blakegriplingph]

Techonology is no replacement for actual face to face interaction with real people in real surroundings. "Social Media" may have its uses -- but how healthy is a society where social interaction becomes a commodity requiring the use of gadgets and proprietary platforms that are, in essence, nothing more than sophisticated tools for marketing analysis, psychological manipulation, and advertising. When all your contact with friends happens on Facebook instead of in line at the post office or over the backyard fence or across the table at lunch, when all that contact is simply a commodity to be tracked, analyzed, marketed, and sold for the greater glory of capitalism, just how healthy is your society? Just how healthy are *you?*

When was the last time you had an actual face to face conversation, not just "hi, howarya?" but an actual conversation with your next-door neighbor? Or the plumber? Or the guy who fixes your car? Or a grocery clerk? Or a waitress in a coffee shop? Or the manager of your local movie theatre? Do you even know their names? That's what's meant by "community," and that's what technology has cost us. We've got all the virtual communities we can handle, even as the actual, genuine communities wither and die.

Think about that the next time you're walking down the street and you see a group of kids going by, each one with eyes fixed to their phone. It's not just a matter of "hmph, kids today." It isn't even just a matter of "what kind of society are these kids going to have to live in?" It's a question of "what have we, our own selves, let society become?"

In my case I mainly, and I repeat mainly use Facebook to talk to like-minded friends and my other contacts; it just irks me that there came to the point where teachers here would use FB as part of their students' exams or projects, for one, using "likes" to gauge their grades like when I was coaxed by my folks to solicit clicks for a certain project my cousin was doing.

I'm having a discussion with someone who finds it deeply troubling that *anyone* tries to admire things of another era that are a direct result of oppression.

"Romanticizing reality" is their issue.

I have a problem with this. I fully admit to sometimes romanticizing the 1940s - I sometimes freely pick and choose what I admire about that generation and forget the bad aspects of it like segregation, etc. But we live in an era now that has just as many problems as back then (sweatshops producing cheap American goods, anyone?). However, my friend's issue is that we can fight the oppression in the here and now.

Here's my thing, though: what is so wrong with pulling certain aspects from the past into your present life that you enjoy? What is so wrong with wanting to live as a Victorian couple in every way that you can?

You got that right. I may not exactly agree with the Chrismans' views on things, but while some of the critics did express some points over their chosen vocation, it isn't right to reduce them to fodder for ridicule and scorn either. There's a proper way to express criticism, and I'm afraid Facebook and other social sites are becoming vectors for mud-slinging - I can attest to that pretty much, when Filipinos on Facebook made an immature lot of themselves as they childishly reacted to a Thai troll's angry rant.

What I don't understand about this Slate article, a slue of similar vitriolic items that have appeared since the initial piece was posted on Vox, is why do people care so much? I understand that many assume the Chrismans, and folks like them, are aloof, snobbish elitists. But isn't that the perception of all people with niche interests? And for that matter, how is what they're doing that much different from people who live "off the grid"? Sure, some quotes in her piece sound iffy (specifically, "saw value in older ways of looking at the world" and "always admired Victorian ideals"), because certain aspects of Victorian ideals/ways of looking at the world are pretty repugnant to modern values. But, there's no indication at all that these folks think, for example, it's right and proper for one group of people to subjugate another because of divinely gifted superiority. And even if they did believe such things, so what? They seem to be happy and aren't hurting anyone.

Why does this remind me of the so-called "PC Master Race" versus "Console Peasant" argument? It may be tongue in cheek, but to me it sounds just as condescending as those who pick on Sarah and Gabe for their nonconformist views. Or those who view boys playing with American Girl dolls as gays.

The accusation that the couple is rigid about their ways may parallel with how Richard Stallman views open-source and proprietary software in a black and white way, eschewing the latter as locking down on users' rights while preferring to go "libre libre libre", down to the point where he would shun the likes of Intel for having proprietary firmware on their chips. Then again to assume that the Chrismans are the RMSes of IRL society would be too much, as even they mentioned that they're not here to shove their lifestyle down everyone's throats.