January Series Reflections: John Varineau

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

John Varineau defined music as “the organization of sound and time to move the human soul.” His definition varies from the standard definition due to his addition of the “to move the human soul” bit. I think this addition is a very appropriate one as it makes an understated truth about music much more obvious. What piece of music hasn’t been created in an effort to influence humans? Even seemingly dull and annoying “on-hold” music was likely created and chosen in an effort to keep individuals waiting on the phone in an at least a somewhat pleasant state. One can even argue that “music” produced by birds and other animals was designed by God to help humans enjoy his creation.

With this universal “soul-moving” property of music in mind we can begin to think about how music has, is, and will continue to be used as a form of propaganda. After all, propaganda is essentially content distributed with a purpose of influencing individuals towards some idea or ideology. So then, why does Varineau believe that music is only abused when it is used as a part of propaganda? Isn’t all music suggesting and trying to influence individuals toward some idea or ideology? I think what Varineau may have not articulated clearly enough is that music falls into the realm of propaganda when it forcibly pushes its listeners to a specific idea or ideology. I think music in its purest form is something that is very open to interpretation. That isn’t to say that music shouldn’t have a message; however, it’s meaning should be something that listeners are allowed to come to on their own terms, not shoehorned into. Listeners should be free to critically and freely examine what they hear and come to a conclusion they find to be best (perhaps best in regards to a hybrid between rationality and creativity). Music when used correctly should foster creativity in its listeners, inviting them to join in a song/work’s movement.

With this in mind, Varineau’s idea of the misuse of music becomes to come into clearer focus. Misuse is just a less restrictive form of abuse. When we are given music in a controlled setting our minds often become limited by what they’re observing. Creativity is diminished and avenues that are available in an open environment begin to close, forcing us down just a few particular paths. Not just one path like propaganda’s abuse, but a number that has been reduced in comparison to the music’s original starting point. This isn’t to say though that all uses of music in movies, television shows, video games, etc. are all necessarily cases of negative misuse. Such environments can be beneficiary when they are thoughtfully and tastefully applied and used. Sometimes a completely open environment is too hard for us to work from. We may need a nudge in some direction and certain closed environments can offer an appropriate nudge that gives us an idea of purpose and direction without shoving us. Really then, the misuse of music becomes something of a grey area, up to personal interpretation as to whether or not such use is a positive or negative factor.

With these clarifications in mind I believe that we can begin to have a better understanding and grasp on how music should be created, cultivated and consumed. Music and art in general are most often at their best when they afford their audience a chance to explore and build upon the ideas and feelings that a work has exhibited. Through this practice we can all mutually participate in being human – creatively and rationally exploring and building thoughts and ideas.

January Series Reflections:

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

I’m not entirely sure what to think of Dr. Sherry Turkle’s presentation. After some reflection, it seems to me that her presentation’s main thesis, “technology is most seductive when its affordances meet out human vulnerabilities,” really is just another way of saying that technology – like other areas of life – is seductive when we’d expect it to be. Anything is most seductive to us when what it offers is something we lack; so, the fact that technology exhibits this same behavior really doesn’t tell us much about what makes technology unique. In fact, Turkle’s main thesis seems to say that technology isn’t so unique. She seems to be giving a stark warning against looking towards technology as a sort of god or savior that can save humanity from its own problems and mistakes. While this sort of warning has been issued frequently over the past decade, it was refreshing to hear Turkle’s own, insightful take on the topic.

While I mostly agree with Turkle’s overall claim that technology cannot solve all of humanity’s problems, I don’t agree with her stance on individuals’ privacy. In today’s world, Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that “privacy is no longer a social norm” seems to be a perfectly reasonable observation. I don’t think Zuckerberg was necessarily arguing that privacy shouldn’t be a social norm, which Turkle implied that he was. I’ll thus be addressing Turkles two questions given in response to his claim from the observational standpoint rather than the argumental one. After all, in today’s postmodern world who are we to be telling cultures what they should and shouldn’t be doing.

Turkle’s first question in response to Zuckerberg’s claim is, “What is intimacy without privacy?” True, there definitely is some level of privacy needed for a sense of intimacy to be had in most cases. However, Turkle seems to be taking a pretty extreme interpretation of Zuckerberg’s claim. She seems to be saying that a loss of privacy means that one no longer has control over any descriptive details of his or her own life. Privacy is then an “on or off” switch. You either have it or you don’t. Zuckerberg on the other hand seems to be taking a less extreme view of privacy, suggesting that a loss of privacy isn’t flipping a switch to “off,” but rather dialing a knob down a little. Sure some privacy is lost, but not every personal, descriptive detail. Taken with Turkle’s extreme interpretation of privacy, of course Zuckerberg’s claim comes across as absurd; however, when we reexamine what privacy is, we see that Zuckerberg’s claim accurately describes the social world we live in. We have lost full privacy because of modern social conventions like cell phones (the social norm is to have one and having one entails a loss of some privacy), but we haven’t lost total privacy as it’s not the social norm (or even possible) to broadcast all of our thoughts and feelings.

Intimacy can still be had in today’s social world. Is it as prevalent as it was in other times? Probably not; however, we can still be intimate with others if we choose to be, even in times when some level of privacy is seemingly compromised. Think of scenes from romantic comedies where two star-crossed individuals finally meet in a busy place and share an intimate moment. Sure, there are other people around that may be watching and listening, but the fact of the matter is that those other people don’t know what’s going on in the minds of the two individuals and the two individuals choose to have an intimate moment regardless of what level of privacy they have or don’t have. While such an example isn’t an actual case, it does seem to suggest that we find such intimacy, in situations where privacy may be compromised, plausible.

Turkle’s second question, “What is democracy without privacy?” also seems to fall rather flat. In a true, pure democracy everyone should be able to voice his or her own views and opinions without fear of retribution. A democracy works best when individuals are openly sharing ideas and thoughts in an effort to better the lives of others. A loss of privacy means backdoor, shady dealings that are done in private to benefit only an exclusive group of individuals. Sure, people shouldn’t be afraid of others attacking them for their ideals, but such an attack wouldn’t be allowed by a true, properly functioning democracy.

All in all, I found Turkle’s presentation informative and stimulating, even if I didn’t fully agree with all of her points. While I do not know what sort of faith Turkle has (if she has any), her message is one that Christians often need to be reminded of. Jesus, not ourselves or our technological creations, is the true savior and the ultimate way to fix the problems we face in this world.