While watching “Hypernormalization”,
a documentary by Adam Curtis, I will admit to at first paying little attention
and experiencing moments of boredom and distraction. In that moment within the
first half hour of this film I was the quintessential child of technology he
later describes. I, out of ignorance, have not been involved in the world of
politics and activism in world issues until these recent past two years. Up
until the age of eighteen I had this perspective that since the world did not
care about my voice why should I care about it? Recently, and especially after
watching this piece, I realize that I was wrong. I was a victim of this “fake
world” that Curtis describes. I may not have had a political voice yet, but
much of my time could have been spent widening my world view and opening my
mind beyond what social media sites allowed me to see (as Curtis describes, we
are isolated within a bubble of a static, pre-existing world view due to the
filters utilized within these sites). Curtis describes this condition I was in
within his film. He describes members of a fake world utilizing cyberspace to
distract from the real world issues; individuals that are victims of the
constant flux of politics that is now run more by corporations than people. He
shows several examples that embody this new form of politics ranging from Trump’s
flip flopping rhetoric, to the Western depiction of the leader of Lybia, to the
Russian funding – while under the control of Putin- of nearly every political group. This constant
confusion and constant fear create a society that is too distracted to revolt
or make a real change in were the world is going. Curtis even addresses the
point that, even though this cyberspace environment has had the opportunity to
bring people together to try and begin a change, the unchanging world we’ve
been so long a part of seeps its way in by means of no ideas of a new society after
the revolt.
This film, after
much thought, has lead me to question much of the way our world is set up as
well as how I feel I should, as opposed to actually do, view this world I live
in. I want to make a difference, I do, but it also brings into question how
much of my own happiness I am willing to sacrifice to make this difference. Do
I sacrifice my only dream of being happy within my own life to create a
difference in the world, or do I continue to live in blissful ignorance,
concerned only with my values and needs and well-being, allowing this system to
continue? Would making a difference even really mean sacrificing happiness, or
is my idea of that merely a manifestation of this world I have been raised in?
And if I were to decide to “make a difference” how much of a difference would
that difference even be? Can my sole voice even mean anything or effect
anything if one of the main ways of spreading that is through a system that
only allows other who agree with my view to be reached by it? Is it a bad thing
to participate in a social construct that you oppose? Does that make your voice
invalid? For example, I have always been relatively opposed to the way University
learning is run today. From the inequality of funding to certain programmes,
despite everyone paying the same ludicrous amounts of money in order to even
participate, to the fact that the University system is run solely out of an
idea of profit rather than the enrichment of the human mind of every student.
The University does not care if I actually learn to go on to actually apply
that learning in a career that applies to subjects that I had learned. In
short, after graduation, after they have acquired their money from me, I no
longer matter to the university. Despite this view of mine, however, I still
plan to participate, even up to the level of graduate school because I am
equally aware that in our culture, a college degree gives you worth, despite it
being only a piece of paper saying I learned something in a classroom as
opposed to somewhere else. Does this personal fact of a “if you can’t beat
them, join them” mentality make me another product of this world that Curtis
describes, or is a simple awareness of it make and individual different enough?
However, I will
say there is one particular flaw in Curtis’ film that I noticed. He uses
diction that points out that he may disfavor rhetoric that hides truth. He
shows the negativity that comes from lying while in power for benefit that
suits it at the time. With this in mind you would think that he would want to
expose all truth in relation to his topic of living in a fake world. In
contrast, he shows a bias towards liberal views and I believe this results in
his lack of addressing the corruption within the Clinton administration. I am
myself a liberal as well and did support Hillary Clinton within the previous
elections. I am still, regardless, going to play devil’s advocate. In a film
toting about how certain things are hidden from us and we are stuck within
isolated bubbles allowing us to only see what we want to, I do believe he
should touch on the corruption that does arise within liberal parties from time
to time. Even if it is just for a moment, bringing up possible counter
arguments to his points and attempting to refute them would possibly make his
arguments about politics even more powerful than they already are.
No comments:
Post a Comment