As I attempt to synthesise a semesters worth of sociological theory alongside a semester of unwritten posts and scribbles from a notebook, do not lose heart. There will be a point to all of this.

The life of an anonymous, poorly-subscribed-to online lifestyle brand is a lonely one. The nature of living our creative existence online is a feature of modern living and of modern creativity, while we are offered all the tools a creative person could possibly imagine or wish for, we are also alone. Alienated from the means of creation and drowning in content. Meanwhile, in our lives we are increasingly connected, perhaps when we wouldn’t have been. Friends remain friends forever on facebook. As a child of a different age, one with dial-up internet, friends are a different concept to the ‘friends’ of today. They required effort and upkeep, they were solid groups and networks which would meet up – and fall out – in the flesh. Friendships online are committed to writing and code – if there is a disagreement it is publicly held. The meeting between two strangers becomes the networking of friends. The movement of community to society is committed to code. I’ve lived life through these empty platforms and I’ve learned that they do have the capacity to fundamentally alter relations for good and bad. Rather than harking back to the golden age – I’d like to explore the way we can fully use this one.

There are now innumerate sociological terms with which I’m able to think about my interactions – most of which I understand vaguely through sweetened, secondary texts. (I’ll drink down the black coffee of social theory soon as I’m able, world.) My own notions on social theories; the obvious link between the public sphere and social media, or economic primacy of political action as illustrated by Cambridge Analytica. (Hello, Cambridge Analytica.) Or, the fundamental questions I have regarding neo-liberal markets and products which deal in influence and attention – i.e. Facebook. are all elementary. And while all of these points could be articulated fully or until I notice a probable glaring oversight, they are not the scribbles from a cheap notebook which I have today deciphered.

The broad sociological trope which I’d like to roll out and blatantly misrepresent, is the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School specifically pertaining to the style and whimsy of Mr Hummels’ vast corpus. Adorno resists closure by writing in a fragmentary style, moreover his championing of autonomous art as a form of protest also speaks deeply to the Mr Hummels ethos. For example, as a young gun, I attempted to play the guitar and refused basic tips or lessons from my friends and family, preferring rather the innate sense of sound and feel. Jam sessions were filled with moments of accidental brilliance (and frustration). While that spirit of protest was useful, I now do not play the guitar. Through some miracle or disaster this logic has been carried through to my writing. The splurge of words I’ve spilled over pages satisfies something innate, yet re-reading this jibber-jabber I’ve been forced to accept that perhaps there is something to be said for the editing, careful thought and practice approach. (Also, I am aware that Adorno and Horkheimer probably didn’t just mean “shit out the art.”)
Other excellent points raised by Theo and Max; it’s the culture industry, stupid. Do I want any of the things I think I want? The subjectivity of the researcher – in this case – me. I do like the things I like, but why and how?
These all apply to my aim in this blog – a rational enlightenment of sorts – dominating all other humans and nature itself, so this is highly appropriate to my thinking. In the short term I’ve re-appraised how I consume media and I’ll write about things what I’ve consumed. In the long term, it will likely help bring about the Mr Hummels revolution.

The dichotomy between creator and producer is something which I would like to explore and something I’ve pondered myself. The injection of the media speedball – the internet – has turned me into a hyper-consumer of media. I’m sure Max and Theo would say that it inhibits my becoming… They’re probably right, consumption overtakes any creation and sets it aside for a future time and place, which is never realised if you are watching youtube videos of cats. I’d imagine sets it aside for a certain class, too. You will be assured of this by taking a stroll around the vacuous creative well of Fitzrovia. All it takes to be is spectacles and trousers. Sorry to all the trousers out there. Anyway, lately by sheer happenstance I’ve found myself sharing and being more and more engaged in this media. This positive vibe media.  As I have traveled through life, the same bleak, disconnected, modern existence which we all face, I’ve also been lucky to meet and share things with some amazing people, I just don’t bang on about it. (I know, I’m doing it now.) Whether this sharing is a result of the presence of social media is something I’d like to think about, specifically with people who are creators. Are they dicks? Are they critical? Am I a critical dick?  I’d like to discuss this with people( – perhaps a therapist?). It is true that conceptualizing the choices I’ve made in life in terms of social theory does quickly become a psychoanalytic session with myself playing the role of both therapist and patient. Reading Weber, for example-
“So, howabout the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, eh? That applies massively to the Scottish Borders, doesn’t it?!”
“I’ll say!”
“The psychological predispositions described in that bad boy really go some way to explaining my general attitude towards life.”
“Don’t I know it.”

Yet, learning that something my Dad has always loosely referred to as the ‘war-time ethic’, is really just the re-appropriated Protestant ethic is enlightening. (You weren’t even in the war, Dad.) This theory applies to the frugal life, devoid of enjoyment which is the unfortunate norm in the area of the world where I’m from. The creation of inner-loneliness – ethics of self-monitoring individualism and a calling – all frighten the bejesus out of me because they apply. I’m not picking a bone with instrumental rationality, or with capitalism necessarily – nor is this a psychoanalytic exercise. However, this idea may go someway to understanding why I chose a rational, science based course for my undergraduate degree. Or why I’d create a blog which I anonymously work on with ever increasing degrees of self-scrutiny, self-aggrandizement and fear of failure. It is perhaps a fact that by choosing to live out my creative life anonymously I have missed out on the sharing and caring which I am now experiencing in life. Perhaps this is a psychoanalytic exercise, Dad.

The theories I’ve discussed will form the rationale for next few pieces of writing on http://www.MrHummels.com which will instead revolve around my life online. They will specifically examine my consumption of media and hopefully make some attempt to resolve the issues discussed regarding creativity, living online and the digital community / society dichotomy which I feel has emerged. Hopefully I will do this with a few contributions, maybe even an interview(?!) and of course the usual garbled nonsense.
Whether any of this actually happens is subject to whims, I’m going on holiday in a week and I need to find a job. For now, be happy that it is over. Social theory is over…

Until September!

MrHummels

is confused.
x

 

P.S. That was the amalgamation of around three separate pieces of writing and 14 strands of thought which should have been written over the term but didn’t.

Things which I couldn’t shoehorn in;
– The family unit is more disparate than ever before and also more connected? Weird, huh.
– This summer will likely be one of violence and unrest. Ooohh.
–  Foucault’s biopower applies to cyclists in the UK in a big way.