The Ipod World, Essay Example

Introduction

The author (Sullivan, 2005) states that as a part of an iPad generation, “we become masters of our own interests, more connected to people like us over the Internet, more instantly in touch with anything”. While this is true, it is important to state that being able to choose our own music and select the blogs to follow is a part of people’s journey towards self-discovery. America and the United Kingdom are individualistic societies: there are good and bad aspects of this. The author of the current review would like to argue that individualism indeed empowers people in the society, and they do establish connections, even though they are “living in their own bubble”. They relate to stories they are interested in, they communicate through social media, and share their insights, photos, and videos with those who have a common interest. The iPod world does not only separate people, but also builds communities online and offline.

Review of the Article and Related Issues

Compared with collectivism, individualism has several benefits. Leibbrandt, Greenzy, and List (2013) confirm that competitiveness is more important for people living in an invididualistic society. This means that the main driving force of the economy lies in personal achievements of individuals. O’Neill (2013) directly states that the Prime Minister David Cameron is wrong when he states that individualism of today’s society leads to selfishness. However, he states that group thinking is still present in today’s societies that are labelled individualistic. The author (O’Neill, 2013) goes further than that, though. He states that “modern society is hostile to the expression of individual thought, too. We’ve pathologised certain ways of thinking, adopting that old Soviet tactic of depicting thoughts that fall outside of the mainstream as mental illnesses”. While there are certainly some restrictions to individualism, it is important to note that today it is not the state that defines “norms” of thoughts and choices, but it is groups that have the greatest influence.

Returning to Sullivan’s (2005) article about the iPod crowd: it is true that people are not communicating with each other in traditional ways as much as they used to. Technology has helped people create their own experiences. An iPod is not just a device any more: it is a customizable tool to create our own surroundings, to match our mood and to relax. We can now choose to watch TV on demand. School trips are not the same any more, either. There is no chatter on the coach, as everyone listens to their own music or plays their own games that they downloaded on their smart phones. While this ability to create our own experiences is limiting interpersonal communication, it also empowers people to become more creative, to research issues, and to be involved in debates. Of course, online.

The author (Sullivan, 2005) is right that we fail to hear conversations when commuting to work or school. This can be a good thing or a bad one. Some people might claim that we are now disconnected with the outside world, and – as Sullivan concludes – move along like robots. Listening to music can, however, help us understand ourselves better. We reduce the distractions that come in our way, and can focus on what is more important for us. When thinking over my next presentation in class, for example, I like shutting out the outside world and rehearse in my head. There is nothing that distracts my line of thoughts. There are no crying babies to be heard, or announcements that I have heard a million times. By living in an iPod society, we can determine what is important in our lives and what is not. We can – for a while – live according to our preferences. We choose to listen to a Rock band instead of people having a small chat on the bus. And we can choose Rock over Pop or Hip Hop.

Conclusion

Today, people do not want to be told which music they should listen to or which program they should watch. They have a choice. Likewise, they have a choice to better themselves, too. When the author (Sullivan, 2005) states that Americans are beginning to narrowcast their own lives. You get your news from your favorite blogs, the ones that won’t challenge your own view of the world”, he claims that people’s ability to see clearly is reduced by the spread of technological inventions. I do not agree with the statement. The iPod world is not the end of the society. Indeed, it is simply redrawing the rules of where conversations, connections, and communities are made. They are less likely to be created in the physical world, and more likely to be present in the world wide web. The strength of online communities is invaluable. Looking at a latest issue: the “Ice Bucket Challenge”: it was completely held in the social media. While it was supported by radio and TV coverage, people could nominate others to take part. They did not have to be in the same town, either. Communities and interpersonal connections were strengthened: just on a different level. In a virtual world, which represents each person’s individual values and preferences.

References

Leibbrandt, A., Gneezy, U. & List, J. (2013) Rise and fall of competitiveness in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 110. No. 23.

O’Neill, B. (2013) In defense of individualism. The Spectator. 22 June 2013. Retrieved from http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8940211/in-defence-of-individualism/

Sullivan, A. (2005) iPod world. The end of society? The Sunday Times. February 20, 2005.