February 14, 2012
On Morozov's "The Death of the Cyberflâneur"
Evgeny Morozov's piece in the NYT's Sunday Review has received some critical attention.
First, over at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research, episode 3 of their podcast has an extensive and interesting discussion of the article.
Second, Jesse Darling in The New Inquiry:
In a recent article for the New York Times, Evgeny Morozov delivered a speculative eulogy for the “cyberflâneur” — who died, or perhaps failed to materialize, in the face of Facebook and Groupon and the totalizing influence of the “app paradigm.” Morozov even waxes lyrical about the golden days of the dial-up connection, as though remembering the swathe of the plough in the field. Where this all once was grass, he laments, the information superhighway now runs through the middle; pity the snotty Tumblr thug who will never know the wholesome pleasure of strolling endless dreaming fields of Euclidean space with his own handmade code as map and compass. There will be no strolling or loitering — either with or without intent — on Morozov’s Web. It’s a bleak place with no boardwalk, where wall-to-wall ads, targeted to our needs and desires, map the perimeter of task-based playbor zones, homogenous and incontravenable. Worst of all, “the tyranny of the social” will prevent us from enjoying seven-hour Bela Tarr flicks with our friends. The good times are gone.
This discourse of virtual antiquity is notable, since so much internet theory has been defined in part by a sense of newness and speculation. Old-school source texts even include several works of fiction (Gibson, Stephenson et al.). “Much of the excitement about the internet and virtual reality is generated by a sense of what it will become,” Nicholas Mirzoeff wrote in 2008, going on to describe Gibson’s hyperurban hyperrealities as “quintessentially modernist.” But 2008 was, like, years ago.
Like Gibson’s dystopias, Morozov’s lament — ironically enough — echoes the malaise of the very moderns to whom he refers, fretting as they did that the new urbanopolis would signal an end to slow pleasures and community spirit.Despite all that Cartesian stuff, the Moderns’ understanding of the self was essentially corporeal, and the spatial anxiety of modern urbanism appears as a crisis of embodiment, or personhood, in the flux of big-city time-space.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 02:07 PM | Permalink






















Comments
I read this and agree with the author. The internet was more fun when I started using it with Netscape in 1993. The commercialization of the internet is an abomination. I refuse to use Facebook, Twitter or any of these commercial social networking sites. I always use Adblocker Plus set to allow no advertizing.
Posted by: Nice Nihilst | Feb 14, 2012 3:58:10 PM
The objective of the author escapes me.
Posted by: Jacob | Feb 15, 2012 3:10:24 AM
In seeking an objective, you could start with his desire to defend one's right to solitary and private encounters with the wider world, as opposed to the enforced and mandatory public sociability built into the structural assumptions of institutions like Facebook. A resistance to living in an ambulatory (I'd say mobile, but it's too much of a pun) fishbowl.
The most telling example given is Zuckerberg's assumption that of course going to the movies with other people is always preferable to going alone, which is probably news to a significant number of cinéastes. While one is of course in a movie theatre with other people in any case, it makes a difference to be there, just as the 19th century flâneur was among the arcades, without anyone there knowing who you are. Among other things, you won't have to justify your love of Pasolini films (e.g.) to someone else whom you've dragged along who may not share your enthusiasm.
I will often go to artistic & cultural events by myself without first needing to see if anyone wants to go with me. While it's nice to share sometimes, of course, the thought of it being mandatory repulses me, and I don't need the approval of my social circles for what I like.
The Net's increasing tracking of us as consumers is the engine of this marginalization of privacy and anonymity.
Posted by: Kai Matthews | Feb 15, 2012 11:44:29 AM
I agree. It's really insidious the way people make their lives open books on commercial sites that regard them as nothing but consumer robots to be exploited. Instead of a blatantly commercial site like Facebook, why not develop a non-profit site run by it's members instead of Zuckerberg? Something alone the lines of Wikipedia. At the least, people can use Adblocker with the setting to allow no advertising. Even Orwell would never have imagined that people would become their own informers.
Posted by: Nice Nihilst | Feb 15, 2012 12:28:49 PM
Post a comment