Keith Hart on Sun, 7 Nov 2004 22:17:05 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> The car park theory of American takeover |
I thought the car park theory was a good metaphor for the black hole that is public life in America. At the risk of descending to banal abstraction, I would put the main difference between the USA and EU down to the relative dominance of private property over public provision. This accounts at once for Americans' greater economic dynamism, work ethic, insecurity and religiosity. Europeans have not yet abandoned the welfare state and that allows them to be less productive and more secular. Put another way, they are still struggling to keep the idea of citizen equality alive, whereas the Americans never imagined that capitalism could be anything but unequal. Bowling for Columbine was a great success in Europe because it featured those gun-crazy Americans. What could be mnore conducive to insecurity than kids massacring their schoolmates? But I felt that Moore's analysis was weak. He wanted to attribute the violence to America's history of racism, whereas I would start with the system of private property that leaves individuals isolated and afraid. This insecurity attaches itself to many symbols, including fear of black people. One American dictionary's definition of fascism is "business-driven government linked to an aggressive nationalism". It is not hard to see how the Bush government's drive towards global corporate domination and lawlessness at home and abroad would find resonance in the desire of many Americans to escape from their own market dependence into the imagined integrity of religion, family and community. Precarious national finances, the threat of another great deflation and Asia's inexorable rise as the centre of world production all reinforce the downward spiral of economic insecurity, religious nostalgia, lawless violence and fascist politics. Compare the 1930s. The importance of the car in this cultural complex cannot be exaggerated. In the middle ages, only the aristocracy got to jump on a horse to go fast wherever they liked whenever they liked. The car democratizes that freedom, but it is socially and ecologically unsustainable. The rate of car ownership in rich countries the last time I looked was 400 per thousand, as against 16 per thousand among the rest. So the car is not a bad symbol for an unequal world in which privatization runs amok, creating a wasteland where the public interest used to be.. A former Tory minister of transport once said that he wanted everyone driving cars, since he personally couldn't stand the people you meet on public transport. He didn't say that the car and television were the two technologies Margaret Thatcher relied on to break up social democracy in Britain. Yes, there is some mileage to the car park theory. Indeed it is irrefutable, since it could never be put to the test of empirical evidence. Keith Hart # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net