Thank you for penning and sharing this essay. This is a worthwhile contribution to the (now old) response to Apple's ad. As you have argued, it would miss the mark to simply oppose the ad, and thereby fail to see what it says about Apple and the broader trajectory of which it is a member. As Angelou says, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." Apple has told us quite clearly what it is; we only need to listen.
I would like to respond to the two consequences that Rosa points out. It seems to me that the first--the bottleneck--may be helpfully framed as a social political issue. As our lives are being increasingly mediated by the screen, it is well to remember that the screen is largely owned by private interests. If the iPad is though to replace all those vehicles of human creativity, this means that human creativity is being consigned over to the control of Apple's executive and shareholders. What you can and can't do, what violates the terms of service, what may or may not be forcibly and/or retroactively removed from your screen--none of this is up to the creative individual. Apple (and other large tech corporations) makes itself an unavoidable and unaccountable component of a meaningful human life. Aside from the narrowing of capacities determined by the technology of the screen itself, we would do well to remember that the capacities available to us will be chosen for us if human creativity is deposited exclusively into a device like the iPad.
The second consequence--that the screen reduces our experience of the world--seems to me a more contentious and ambiguous claim. I would not object to any of the examples that Rosa cites; the loss of smell, taste, and general embodied relation seem to me incontrovertible. But it is unclear that this loss is simply accidental or the callous oversight of technological capitalism. I think there is a good case to be made that it belongs to a broader modern project that has been at work since at least Descartes and Kant. In a certain sense, both thinkers understood the human being as subject standing before a calculable universe. (You gestured at this in your Control Group essay, to which I have been unable to respond.) To put the matter very briefly and perhaps cryptically: for the subject, the fundamental relationship to the world is not one of embodiedness, but rather of rational freedom. What matters is that the autonomous will is able to make its freedom concrete. It is very easy for this account of the human being to assume the body is an impediment to freedom, rather than the site of meaningful experience. If anything, we need to get over the body, rather than preserve its place. The iPad allows us to do that. "Playing the trumpet" is no longer the preserve of those with sufficient manual dexterity, but anyone with a creative will. In this view, what is lost is not something valuable, but obstacles to the concrete realization of freedom.
This is not, in the end, a position that I support and I, like you and Rosa, would insist on the body's importance and criticize Apple's Flattening. Nevertheless, I think it is important to acknowledge it. It seems to me that the Flattening is not an accident or corporate failure, but the next extension of the task of using technology to make freedom actual. Even if in practice it deprives us of something that leaves that freedom hollow.
Very nicely done. Will try to think of something smart to say later. Flat vs. Deep is promising. For now, I was probably the last American to see the Twin Towers fall, for complicated reasons involving babies and bicycles, I didn't see the footage until well into the evening, in a bar. I'm proud to report I've not seen the Apple ad yet, either. Curating the feed! Keep up the very good work.
I appreciate your level-headed response here, Jordan. Thanks for taking the time to think through the issues at hand. At this point the ad may almost be “old news” in internet years, but I think you’ve added meaningful comments to the discussion. Particularly, your thoughts on flattening and your drawing on Rosa to discuss the bottlenecking of experiences mediated through screens.
And thank you for including my essay at the end. It’s an honor to be listed among those names.
Patrick,
Thank you for penning and sharing this essay. This is a worthwhile contribution to the (now old) response to Apple's ad. As you have argued, it would miss the mark to simply oppose the ad, and thereby fail to see what it says about Apple and the broader trajectory of which it is a member. As Angelou says, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." Apple has told us quite clearly what it is; we only need to listen.
I would like to respond to the two consequences that Rosa points out. It seems to me that the first--the bottleneck--may be helpfully framed as a social political issue. As our lives are being increasingly mediated by the screen, it is well to remember that the screen is largely owned by private interests. If the iPad is though to replace all those vehicles of human creativity, this means that human creativity is being consigned over to the control of Apple's executive and shareholders. What you can and can't do, what violates the terms of service, what may or may not be forcibly and/or retroactively removed from your screen--none of this is up to the creative individual. Apple (and other large tech corporations) makes itself an unavoidable and unaccountable component of a meaningful human life. Aside from the narrowing of capacities determined by the technology of the screen itself, we would do well to remember that the capacities available to us will be chosen for us if human creativity is deposited exclusively into a device like the iPad.
The second consequence--that the screen reduces our experience of the world--seems to me a more contentious and ambiguous claim. I would not object to any of the examples that Rosa cites; the loss of smell, taste, and general embodied relation seem to me incontrovertible. But it is unclear that this loss is simply accidental or the callous oversight of technological capitalism. I think there is a good case to be made that it belongs to a broader modern project that has been at work since at least Descartes and Kant. In a certain sense, both thinkers understood the human being as subject standing before a calculable universe. (You gestured at this in your Control Group essay, to which I have been unable to respond.) To put the matter very briefly and perhaps cryptically: for the subject, the fundamental relationship to the world is not one of embodiedness, but rather of rational freedom. What matters is that the autonomous will is able to make its freedom concrete. It is very easy for this account of the human being to assume the body is an impediment to freedom, rather than the site of meaningful experience. If anything, we need to get over the body, rather than preserve its place. The iPad allows us to do that. "Playing the trumpet" is no longer the preserve of those with sufficient manual dexterity, but anyone with a creative will. In this view, what is lost is not something valuable, but obstacles to the concrete realization of freedom.
This is not, in the end, a position that I support and I, like you and Rosa, would insist on the body's importance and criticize Apple's Flattening. Nevertheless, I think it is important to acknowledge it. It seems to me that the Flattening is not an accident or corporate failure, but the next extension of the task of using technology to make freedom actual. Even if in practice it deprives us of something that leaves that freedom hollow.
Very nicely done. Will try to think of something smart to say later. Flat vs. Deep is promising. For now, I was probably the last American to see the Twin Towers fall, for complicated reasons involving babies and bicycles, I didn't see the footage until well into the evening, in a bar. I'm proud to report I've not seen the Apple ad yet, either. Curating the feed! Keep up the very good work.
Thanks, David. You're probably better for it—a well-curated feed is worth guarding!
I appreciate your level-headed response here, Jordan. Thanks for taking the time to think through the issues at hand. At this point the ad may almost be “old news” in internet years, but I think you’ve added meaningful comments to the discussion. Particularly, your thoughts on flattening and your drawing on Rosa to discuss the bottlenecking of experiences mediated through screens.
And thank you for including my essay at the end. It’s an honor to be listed among those names.
Thanks, Nate. Old news, indeed, but better late than not at all!