This post is due by Tuesday, September 3 @ midnight. No credit given for late posts.
Read the assigned chapters above, and then:
1. Provide 3 SPECIFIC observations about Cars, Culture and Media you learned from EACH chapter of our book, using 2-3 sentences combining the book and your own IYOW analysis. (Yes, the Introduction counts.)
2. Finally, ask ONE specific question you have of Cars, Culture and Media after completing our reading.
On page 4, Seiler informs us that "individuals, according to the ideology of individualism, produce themselves; subjects by contrast, are produced through discursive practice..." He seems to be telling us that it is through the use of the automobile that American's have shaped their identity. This is different than their identity being defined by their use of the automobile. Instead, Seiler wants us to look at the inverse, that how we use cars has come to shape who we are, much more than the mere fact that we drive cars.
ReplyDeleteSeiler points out on page 13 that the "act of driving" it self is "compensation for apparent losses to the autonomy, privacy, and agency." Here he seems to be alluding to the fact that the freedom, or semblance of freedom, of provided by the car is the trade off for American's "transition to corporate capitalism," which is "an important tool for the preservation of hegemony." If Americans have to buy into a culture controlled by corporations, at least they are provided a sense of freedom- through the car.
Continuing in this thread on page 20, Seiler tells us that, "Emerson's individualist exhortations were well suited to a burgeoning market culture that weakened traditional forms of association and restrains on individual desire and ambition. Absent these centripetal forces, how could morality and society be maintained?" If the trend at the time was towards individualism, then he car is literally the vehicle for such a transformation, the lowest common denominator between individuals.
On Page 20, Seiler gives us the Emerson quote, "Self-reliance... is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." This I think ties back to the end of the introduction, where Seiler is speaking of "units of traffic;" as long as you can stay in the bubble of your car, you will be in the best position for society, because "the self reliant individual who preserves his solitude simultaneously generates social unity and harmony." It reminds me of comic book dots, there is only a larger picture through individual dots.
On page 23 Seiler points out that "Mobility is ostensibly a universal right" and "it's true goal is not mobility as such; it is access to people and facilities." If we were defined as a culture by other than cars, by say, great public transport, we would have less "mobility." Busses would not stop at specific houses to drop you off at a friends, nor would they go to all of the places you may need to shop. You would not be able to go where you choose, but only through the channels open to you.
Also on page 23, Seiler points out a contrast between the need to move and being "unsettled." It seems strange that Americans need to have mobility and freedom, but look down upon people like hobos or illegal immigrants, who are constantly on the move, and operating outside of the law, operate freely, unconstrained by no trespassing signs or a lack of seats. This seems to show that he freedom enjoyed by Americans isn't quite about being without limits.
I find the quote from M.H. James on page 49 to be particularly interesting. "He sets up his camp trailer, or his pup tent, or he parks his car in the Adirondacks or the Alleghenies... or he avails himself of a municipal camping site." The highways are not like that today, hemmed in by private property, and except for large nature reserves, such as Adirondack Park, or Pisgah national forest, roadside camping is a rarity.
"The state-issued driver's license... has become the basic means of authorizing and verifying not merely driving ability, but individual identity." I've never thought about my driver's license as playing such a central role to identity before. It seems strange that the thing that allows me to operate cars is so central to my identity. For example, it is used to get me onto planes, validate the use of my credit card, and even taking money out of my banking account. Strange that the essential item here is so closely linked to driving.
ReplyDeleteThe last few pages of chapter two reflect on the "paradox" between the hyper regulation of automobility and the freedom it promises. But I do not find it very surprising. I think the importance of this paradox is that these regulations allow us to have freedom, by organizing traffic patterns and standardizing roadways, which allows for less congestion and a greater ease of navigation.
With all the talk of freedom and the increasing regulations and centralized construction and oversight of roads, how were the first roads built? Could anyone with really go anywhere, could their own roads before such regulations?
Chapter 1+intro
ReplyDelete- Individualism is the driving force behind car culture in the U.S. on Pg 6, he states this view point of car culture should be called “American.” Cars have been a source of so much of what American culture is and has shaped how society views cars today.
- the freedom promised to those who used cars were utilized primarily by White middle/upper class men (pg19). People of Color and women did not have power in society and therefore the car culture of freedom and success, was not available to minority or underprivileged groups in the U.S.
- As the underprivileged and privileged clashed in society (pg29) the culture of individualism started to break down as well. People were split between working towards individual freedoms or working towards communal social justice.
Chapter 2
- Cars started loosing their “thrill” due to the lack of safety. (pg 39) The upkeep of cars and the amount of accidents that occurred changed how society viewed cars. Society pushed for cars to be more safe and dependable rather than cool and risky.
- While usually the car was associated with men and “ruggedness” (pg 50), White women started to take the wheel. I personally say this chapter focuses on the freedom of White women (although the author just says “women” generally, and tries to include women of color ((WOC)) at times) and how the car affects them, because Black women were oppressed in a lot of other ways, and the story of Black women’s freedom is not easily told through auto mobility. There are times in this chapter where he tries to be inclusive (pg 58), but the White feminists and suffrage movement of the 1920s that he cites was not at all inclusive of the WOC community, and therefore this early automobile/feminist freedom was mostly for White women.
- White women made automobiles “Fashionable.” (p 52) White women, instead of letting White men dominate the benefits of cars, they chose to also reap the benefits and use the automobile as a source of freedom to get outside the ever encapsulating home.
2. Finally, ask ONE specific question you have of Cars, Culture and Media after completing our reading.
When did the POC community in the U.S. adopt car culture?
Introduction
ReplyDeleteIn the introduction, Seiler claims his “central aim here is to describe the subjectivity—simply put, the way of being in and perceiving the world around us—organized and reinforced by driving” (Seiler 3). It’s baffling to realize how much of our world goes by inside cars, buses, planes, and trains, from watching trees and pastures roll by when visiting family friends and relatives as kids to rollin’ with the homies, blasting dubstep on the way to parties.
Seiler uses “American” as an adjective that describes not necessarily the nationality of somebody from the United States, but a cultural trait. Automobility is an American idea, in the same way that hamburgers and fries and rock n’ roll are distinctly American. He sums up this point when he says “the antonym of ‘American’ is not ‘foreign,’ but….’Un-American’.” (Seiler, pg 8).
Seiler expands on the American idea when he talks about the American subcultures surrounding cars and automibility, especially as responses to the “efficiency and regulation of postwar automobility (Seiler 9).” These various subcultures include the culture behind “hot rods and stock car” but also Latino low riders and Asian racing cars. Automobility has a distinctly American characteristic that delves deep into American subcultures and counter-cultures.
Chapter 1
ReplyDeleteSeiler describes one iteration of individualism where “the individual realized himself not through isolation and escape, but through action that effects some type of social amelioration” (Seiler 30). Earlier in the chapter he says that Darwin’s ideas on evolution were a source for a more selfish, egotistical individualism. The Dalai Lama poses the question why evolution focuses so much on competition, and not altruism as a catalyst for species improvement. In the same way, I wonder if altruism had been as equal a focus if this idea of a social individual might have prevailed.
Seiler identifies Taylorism and scientific management as one step on the way to expressive individualism and consumerism. According to Seiler, “the engineer regarded his proposed reduction of the laborer as an interchangeable machine part without much pathos” (Seiler, 26). This immediately brought to mind dystopian themes, particularly themes in Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984, where humanity itself functions as one machine, benefitting the people of the hierarchy utilizing the energy of a mass group of workers.
Towards the end of the chapter, Seiler describes one of the main elements of expressive individualism as “the individual’s need to express an inner self over against the dictates of society” (Seiler, 34). He then goes on to explain and consumerism and the ability to choose allow us to express our inner uniqueness. At first I had a problem with this, but the more I thought about it, I realized that I indeed express myself with pretty blatant consumerism: clothes, books, movies, and music shape and influence my inner self.
Chapter 2
At the very beginning of chapter two, Seiler tells us that when they first came out, automobiles were hated by the working class and poor, but mostly because they couldn’t get their hands on one (Seiler, 37-38). This reflects how I felt about the iPhone too, until I had one. It’s an interesting part of consumerist culture and my own personality—criticizing a product until you finally break down and get one when it’s been affordable for some time.
Seiler contrasts locomotives and automobiles on page 38: on long train rides, “the passenger enjoyed the privilege and endured the impotence of never being the engineer,” where the automobility provided power and control. It’s interesting to compare that to the mentality today, where driving can be a necessary monotony, especially on long road trips, while riding a train can be quite nice and leisurely. I know I enjoy watching the “imperial walkers” in the Port of Oakland as the sun sets right before the BART (subway) train rolls underground, relaxed in comfy cushioned seats.
As more people gained access to automobility, it re-opened the frontier for Americans, and literature at the time “emphasized the driver’s patriotic communion with America (Seiler 47). This concept seems to have carried through to today. Whenever friends of mine have toured parts of the country they come back with incredible stories and pictures. There’s something about having access to a nation so diverse not only in natural landscape but in cultures and people.
What prompts some cities to introduce more restrictive polices on automobility, promoting instead public transportation?
Introduction:
ReplyDelete- My first observation, more of a realization, or how one might describe it as an “ah ha” moment., was in the introductory paragraphs it quotes,” how the interstates built or ruined the nation, empowered or enslaved it’s population.” This quote perked this thought of connectivity, how the world essentially began with the automobile, the roads followed, paths led and connected every single home, person, office, space to eachother, one can always get from point A to point B, and because of that the world is connected, because of that the world can share and grow, because everyone everywhere is connected. I never acknowledge the importance of the highway, of this physically and metaphorically connection.
Observation number two revolves around the quote of “ components that make driving possible - practical, empowering, fun, salutary, and imperative,” this is automobility. Getting behind the wheel of a car means more than driving to a destination. It’s the physical drive, the emotional drive. The fulfillment and satisfaction of having control, but has this control driven us in a negative manner, does how each person drive reflect any inner identities.
Observation three, revolves around the quote, “the dominance of automobility even in the fashioning of distinctive “ethnopolitical identities.” This observation really struck me. People dress in certain manners, people act certain ways, befriend certain people, they essentially make so many life decisions to express who they are, or who they want to people to see them as. It’s curious and important to realize the choice of car accompanies this depiction of people, it completes there image. A car says a lot about a person, and their personality, and it’s interesting to decipher that.
Chapter one:
My firs observation is in regards to the quote, “Mobility is ostensibly a universal right: yet it has been and remains a prequisite of social, political, and economic power, insofar as its true goal is “not movement as such, it is access to people and facilities” 23 The car means more than just transportation, it’s accessibility, its being able to make connections, as stated above in my observations about connectivity. But then this must mean, as I’m sure we’ll delve deeper into it, that the cars began a division and an asset for some and a deficit for others.
I think the way this book really goes in to define and analyze individualism and what i’m gathering is that individualism is not necessary one expressing themselves in their own means, but more a response to the way society perceives them and the way they wish to be perceived, so in theory, “individuality was ‘an expression and confirmation of social life’. And thus “expressive individualism” goes hand in hand with “consumer culture,”so what does individualism even mean?” the rising consumer culture provided the resources for the construction and performance of a distinctive individual identity, a message sounded incessantly by an increasingly sophisticated advertising industry.”
Lastly, “its characteristics were mobility and choice; and its embodiment was the driver.” 35 I loved this quote for some reason, the car with it’s mobility, choice of exteriors, choice of types, embodied by the driver, displaying it’s prized possession. This individual expressing oneself through the vehicles. The driver has the opportunity for mobility anywhere, filled with endless choices, the opportunity of transporation meant a vast opportunity in the world, connection again.
Chapter Two:
ReplyDeleteI think my first observation from this chapter is the idea of how lower class distasted the invention of automobiles, as it began a stronger divide. hated by the working class - but perhaps a mere envy of possibility. It’s curious how with many things in life, you want to hate what you can’t have, but the irony I’m finding in this, is what we have now, is what we dont want. An environmental harmed by green house gas emissions coming from the vehicles that many wanted but couldn’t have. So what we want, isn’t always whats right or needed.
I find irony in observation, as the quote goes, “the first motorists in the US were Gilded Age elites, whose desire for display was fulfilled by staging exclusive races, and extravagant auto shows.” How are society is built through show, expressions of impressions, the desire to consume, and through that show their wealth in various forms, mainly materialistic modes. But in modern times, do we still oh and awe at the thought of these gas guzzlers, or do our heads turn when we notice an electric car plugged in at the local City Market, expression is huge. It’s always been, and will continue, but can we use expression to create change, to create excitement, can we shift from this Gilded Age elite car shows, to electric and plug-in-vehicles. I remember one time going to an all electric powered car shop and just being in absolute awe, while we respond similarly, its to a whole new cultural shift.
Lastly, “A boston Globe columnist echoes with the claim that “at the deepest level, our cars are a tangible expression of our most important values. Freedom. Choice. Privacy. Individualism. Self- Reliance” 42. I’m almost perplexed by this quote. So much about this quote really speaks to the idea of the car being a very individualistic concept. In you’re own car you can go where you want, on your own, at your own speed, we rely on this for empowerment. But the key shift that needs to occur for environmental sake, is cohesiveness, we cant be individuals anymore, we can’t go only where we want to go, public transit, car share, bike infrastructure, to make the changes we need in the transporation sector we need to let go of the values we have found in cars in the past.
Introduction:
ReplyDelete1) Cars: The first specific observation about cars that I found interesting was the discussion of car subcultures that were enforced in the 1960s. “… largely white and working-class “hot rod” or “stock car” enthusiasts and Chicano/Latino and African American “lowriders” as well as the more recent Asian-American “import street racer.” (p. 9). This quote partially ties in with culture too because each race was associated with a specific type of automobile. This is what was interesting about the quote. Today cars are mass produced and I never thought that a certain type of car would go with a certain race, because there are so many cars. But clearly back in the 60’s each race could be identified by the cars they took interest in and this just amazed me.
2) Culture: A specific observation about culture in the first section is right in the beginning of the book. The book discusses how no one really knows who had the first “car relic.” It comes down to what the actual definition of a car is. This was interesting in terms of culture because different countries will claim that they had the first “car” or car producing product. “French accounts tend toward engineer Joseph Cugnot’s 1769 steam powered wagon or inventor Edouard Delamare-Debouteville’s 1883 four-stroke engine; Americans may cite Oliver Evans’s 1789 patent for a steam vehicle…” (p. 2). Clearly each nation and culture wants its claim to fame in terms of the automobile, and because it hasn’t be clearly stated who possessed the first “car” each culture will stick to their claim that the car was created within their culture.
3) Media: Seiler gives a brief list of authors that produced “provocative accounts” of mobility’s origin. This was of particular interest because of the following quote: “The corollary is that the capacity of individuals and groups to move freely serves as an index of display. Moreover, such works help us see how experiences of mobility become textualized, and how textual forms have been affected by mobility.” (p. 11). This quote illustrates how mobility became such a large part of the media even in the past. It just demonstrates to me how small ideas can become so large, by having the media back it and spread the information.
Chapter 1:
1) Car: Finding a car example for this chapter was a bit more difficult for me. But at the end, one line sparked some curiosity. The paragraph building to the quote was discussing advertising and what type of people should be in the advertisements. “It was a social self, but it looked like a sovereign self. Its characteristics were mobility and choice; and its embodiment was the driver.” (p. 35). I chose this as my car observation because to me this is a piece of a definition of what a car is. It offers mobility, but is a choice, and the driver is what embodies the car. This was just very interesting!
2) Culture: Seiler begins to talk about possessive individualism in this chapter on page 18. This was observed a lot throughout the reading, and is a large part of American culture. Americans are known for their individualism, but this took that one step higher. We are all quick to possess certain objects such as homes, cars, and businesses, and therefore possessive individualism comes into play. I feel like cars express possessiveness of people and their individualism because public transportation is no longer utilized, and the person becomes an individual driver.
3) Media: Marx and Engels gave harsh critiques of individualism, and how this affects human nature (p. 24). With so many great authors, such as these two, publishing works about individualism and whether or not it was natural to the human body or created, it was curious to see the connection to the automobile. Many people now-a-days associate cars with individuality, and here these authors make people question whether or not individuality is actually worth it and what the perks are.
Chapter 2:
ReplyDelete1) Car: Cars were first originally disliked, and people were prejudice towards them. “…the car was identified as the focal point of an increasingly anxious and strident class politics, as well as an exacerbator of urban/rural tensions and a threat to public health.” (p. 37). The paragraph then goes on to discuss that these previous prejudices subside as people get their own cars. This was humorous because it happens so much today too. People are so against things they have not tried, but once they try it, they no longer hate it.
2) Culture: This was by far my favorite observation! Once women were allowed to drive, men understood that women were capable of such tasks. “Whatever perceived threats to the republic posed by women’s entry into the driver’s seat, by the 1920s women’s Automobility had been incorporated as an essential…” (p. 58). This was interesting because even in today’s culture some men critique women’s driving, and think that it’s still a man’s task. Some parts of culture never change, and this one was just humorous because the stereotypes of “all bad drivers are women drivers” are still floating around today.
3) Media: Within the section titled: Pioneering Automobility, ads are discussed for drivers (p. 47). Many ads were created by white elites and “emphasized the driver’s patriotic communion with America, and heralded the dynamic and sovereign driver as a national ideal.” This is similar to making women, car icons. Seeing successful elite driving a car made others want to follow in their footsteps and get a car to, not only to keep status up, but to be American (as defined back then).
Question:
Clearly the human race has come a long ways in its development of technology and Automobility. Will we be able to find a sustainable form of automobility that can go vast distances and not be outrageously priced?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. In colonial and early America, “mobility was a key practice by which the autonomous individual enacted his personal identity.” Those who had conditions of immobility, such as slaves and women, lacked the ideology of possessive individualism, which at the time could be equated to social status and independence.
2. Seiler recalls the thoughts of Ralph Waldo Emerson regarding individualism, and the “paradoxical belief that the self-reliant individual who preserves his solitude simultaneously generates social unity and harmony.” We associate our ability and freedom to move as an essential right, that accentuates our individualistic nature.
3. We associate citizenship with both owning and the essential practice of choosing. The act of choosing, “if the consumer was to be heroized, had to carry with it a political valence; it had to be represented as an exercise in sovereignty rather than the effect of manipulation.” Our choices are heavily influenced by advertisements that both influence and politicize our supposed “freedom of choice”.
Chapter 2
1. Seiler references Woodrow Wilson’s comments in 1906 that “nothing has spread socialistic feeling in this country more than the use of automobiles”. Automobiles accentuated the wealth divide between the classes, as wealthier citizens were the only to have access to the new technology, and lower socioeconomic classes could only witness such luxury.
2. The automobiles significant rise in popularity and numbers in the first decades of the 20th century can be attributed to its association to work. The public began to connect vehicles to the transportation of goods, and as a servant to aid in man’s daily tasks. The change in public perception was from “trifle to helpmeet, thereby ensuring its entrenchment in American life.”
3. The automobile still had critics, who along with Woodrow Wilson viewed the new (and affordable) Ford Model T and other vehicles as “an instrument for the display of blithe, arrogant, potentially destructive power” and nothing more than “insolent chariots”. This destructive power involved speed, which quickly became a marker of social power and distinction.
Question:
How does our citizenship continue to be influenced by cars and modes of transportation in the 21st century?
Introduction
ReplyDelete- James Flink’s assessment of automobility goes beyond just cars and roads, and includes the “emotional connotations” that Americans experience. Rather than thinking about just our cars and the roads they travel on, he includes the institutions and feelings that they create for the driver.
- Seiler’s statements on the term “American” are interesting as he attempts to differentiate between its use as a description of subjectivity and as a place of origin or situation. He states his intention to use the term as defined by the latter, without the presence of quotation marks.
- Seiler mentions on page nine that distinctive “ethnopolitical identities” illustrate the dominance of automobility in America. As Seiler states, different racial groups often have different interests in cars, whether it be ‘hotrods’ or ‘low-riders.’
Chapter 1
- Seiler mentions on page nineteen that racialized slavery and gendered dependency ensured the independence of free, white men. Therefore, the dawn of automobility had a much greater affect on white men in America.
- On page twenty-one, Seiler mentions Eric Leed’s analysis that travel is a demonstration of freedom and means autonomy. The opportunity for Americans to travel independently also leads to increased chances of autonomy.
- On page twenty-six, Seiler quotes Taylor’s statement that, “In the past, man had been first; in the future the system must be first.” Taylor stressed that contemporary life would place cooperation above individualism.
Chapter 2
- During Seiler’s discussion on how driving is a “lovely activity,” he quotes the Boston Globe’s claim that, “at the deepest level, our cars are a tangible expression of our most important values. Freedom. Choice. Privacy. Individualism. Self-reliance.” This reinforces how Americans are given the opportunity of autonomy through the use of private cars.
- Page forty-nine contains a long quote from M. H. James, in which he claims that before the car, America’s “greatness” was assumed and taken for granted. The car enabled the average American citizen to travel quickly enough to see most of the land at his disposal, something that never could have been achieved with a wagon.
- I found the juxtaposition of the car’s transformation from “toy to tool” and women’s struggle for suffrage to be interesting. Both the automobile and “New Womanhood” were in their infancy at the turn of the twentieth century, and both had the potential to become vital parts of society.
Seeing as how the United States were developed in conjunction with the automobile and road systems, how will our country adjust to an increasing need to lower our dependency on individual, petrol powered cars?
Introduction:
ReplyDelete• “…the act of driving and all of those components that make driving possible, practical, and empowering, fun, salutary, and imperative, and which together compose the entity called automobility.” P.4
There is a debate about when the first cars first surfaced, but Cotton Seiler says that the “automobile age” in the United States began around 1895, when the organization of the first automobile-manufacturer surfaced. Cars have been around for over 100 years give or take and made this term automobility possible and a prominent part of our culture still today.
• “In a sense, my aim with these two terms, “automobility” and “American,” is to collapse them into one another: to be American is to claim automobility as one’s habitat and habitus.” (p.9)
Automobility in this book is defined as the act of driving and all the elements that go into making driving possible, as well as the emotions that tie into it. Automobility brought this sense of freedom and privilege. The term “American” took on a different meaning that went beyond national identity and almost became more of a brand name or poster child for automobility, “to be American is to have Automobility.” This new belief system created a new cultural paradigm shift in the twentieth century.
• “One unanticipated result of the interstate highway era was the increasing superfluity of these guidebooks.” (p.15)
During this time period of the Cold War, a lot of propaganda arose around the Interstate Highway System as well as racial inequality. Books such as the “Travel guide” and “The Negro Motorist Green Book” surfaced to help direct black drivers to nondiscriminatory places to eat, sleep, and get assistance. These books became popular around 1936-1960’s and became a source of media or a way to display information to the public minority.
Chapter 1:
• “…a free American in pursuit of happiness… is mobile, is, has been, will be, in motion.” (p.22)
This statement goes back to what I read in the introduction about the connection between the terms “American” and “automobility.” To be free, in a way, is to be American. The ability to be able to move freely and go where you want to without restraint is part of what it means to be free. This whole mindset has dominated American culture.
• “This figure, featured in advertisements for a myriad of products from soap to clothing to automobiles, merged the expressive individual of the marketplace with the autonomous individual of republican political culture.”(p.35)
In the early 1900’s, a new consumer culture began and the idea of being able to choose the products you want to buy was a novel idea. Advertisements became more prominent trying to sell various products from dish soap to automobiles. These advertisements continued the ideas of mobility and the power of being able to choose and the consumer could be the driver.
• “Mobility is ostensibly a universal right; yet it has been and remains a perquisite of social, political, and economic power, insofar as its true goal is “not movement as such; it is access to people and facilities.” (p.23)
It’s amazing to me how much power it is not just socially, but politically and economically, to be able to do something as simple as being able to move. I think I take for granted the ability to be mobile and just hop in my car and be able to drive anywhere and see or do anything you want. It may be a universal right, but not everyone has that access.
Chapter 2:
ReplyDelete• “In the United States at the turn of the century, driving a car promised not only transportation, but transformation.” (p. 42)
Driving a car gave a person that freedom to go wherever you wanted to go any time anywhere. It was a mode of transportation, but driving a car also transformed you as a person, because not everyone had that freedom to just drive. Cars today even promise the same things and are still programmed into our culture.
• “The Joys of Automobility”: “there can be no question about the automobile’s virtues… as an instrument of personal freedom.” “On the road… we are transformed: winged, invincible—free.” (p. 42)
These were a few advertising slogans Cotton Seiler included in his book, that appeared after the 1920’s. Automobile advertisements have the same common themes that promise the consumer total freedom and possibilities on the open road. I find it interesting that advertisements still illustrate these themes.
• “As the car became a literal instrument of women’s deliverance from the spaces of domesticity, women used images of driving to conceive a more intrepid modern femininity, one that was politically significant” (p.51)
I thought it was interesting the transformation of cars becoming more “women friendly.” I thought it was interesting to look at examples of different advertisements in this time period to empower women drivers. I thought it was also interesting to read about the people who were against “woman drivers” and the trials and tribulations women had to deal with to just drive a car.
Question:
What is the next stage of automobility in the future and how can we use the media to manipulate our current car culture?
Intro
ReplyDeleteSeiler introduces the idea of automobiles and the interstate highway system as an agent of increased globalization and how it created a shift in the way Americans interpret the world. Having automobility and the feeling of freedom on the “open” road altered the way Americans viewed themselves and their environment around them. Pg.1
Seiler quotes historian John Burnham saying the gasoline tax, “stands as evidence that Americans are willing to pay for the infinite expansions of their automobility.” Automobiles became nothing less than imperative to the American life. People were and still are willing to pay anything to ensure their access to the highway and “freedom.” Pg.4
“Moreover, it asserts automobility as essential to shaping the dominant meanings of “America” and “American.” Automobiles and the doors they open up were so influential on people’s lives it actually shaped and defined what it means to be, “American.”
Chapter 1
“…the denial of personhood to women and nonwhite people revealed individualism to be practicable only by a small minority.” If you could drive and reach individualism it was a sign of power and privelige, it meant you weren’t restricted to immobility. Pg.19
“Taylorism sought to increase productivity through precise delineation, measurements, surveillance, and enforcement of workers activities.” Taylorism turned men into machines. They were deprived of their automobility therefor depriving them of their individualism. Pg.26
After this we see a shift to greater consumption and back to people striving for individualism again. “Independence could be reclaimed in practices that evoke the hardships and “ruggedness” of the pioneer past; automobility could be retrieved through act of consumption.” People could gain and feel that same control through consumption. Pg.27
Chapter 2
“The rhetorical affinity with advertising is not surprising … funded directly or indirectly by the automobile or petroleum industry, to reaffirm automobility at a time in which social, economic and political costs appear intolerably high.” Here we see a big roll the media and advertising played in Americas love with the automobile. They influenced Americans to think the pros of owning a car are greater than the cons. Pg.42
Now that more people can afford cars and have reached automobility, speed became important. “The elites deployed speed as a marker of social power and distinction, both on public roads and in organized races.” They continued to find ways to use cars as a symbol of power. Pg.43
“Early 20th century popular culture, art and political philosophy also celebrated the car as a force-manipulator of the self…” The car entered into every aspect of our lives. It’s in our art, literature, attitudes, fashion and our ideas. The car stated to emerge in every feature of our culture.
Question:
Now that we have let automobiles become so imperative to our lives, how do we tackle the issues of resource depletion and the need for more efficient travel without asking people to give up their freedom on the open road?
Introduction:
ReplyDeleteCars: I found the early history of cars, or "primitive self-propelled vehicles", as Seiler calls them, to be quite interesting. I always thought it was universally known and accepted that Henry Ford invented the automobile. However, on page 2, it is said that there are different accounts based on what is considered an automobile and also based on nationalism. One example given is the Frenchman Joseph Cugnot and his 1769 steam powered wagon. Vehicles and the desire for transportation goes much further back than I thought.
Culture: This book is about automobility in America, so defining the term "American" seems to be important. On page 8, Seiler says American "describes a condition of amenability to a regime of control that characterizes its particular compulsions as 'freedom'". Earlier in the introduction, the author explains that his study "sees the interstates and the practices of automobility as the products of a highly specific conception of what it means to be modern and free". Freedom and modernity identify both Americans and cars.
Media: On page 10 it is outlined what the author considers media. He lists government documents, middlebrow print media, driver's manuals and guidebooks, automotive trade magazines, philosophy, advertising, cultural criticism, scholarship in the humanities and social sciences, industrial and commercial films, highway engineering studies, photographs, literary works, and popular music.
Chapter 1:
Cars: Sometimes a car seems to be its own entity, and for me it is easy to forget that people play a huge part in the assembly and production of vehicles. This was especially true during the days of Taylorism, when the assembly line was implemented. Taylorization made automobilty possible through the exploitative use of human labor.
Culture: On page 22, Seiler quotes James Oliver Robertson, explaining that "a free American in pursuit of happiness…is mobile, is, has been, will be, in motion". Seiler goes on to say that mobility is a universal right, but it is still dependent on social political and economic power. This makes me think about resources that are thought to be "universal", like clean water, air, and food. These things are seen as universal only to the privileged groups of people that have access to them, to others, they are luxuries or fantasies.
Media: The end of the chapter discusses an "increasingly sophisticated advertising industry". Seiler notes that the 1920s gave way to a media that brought attention to class status, gender identity, and agency. To buy a car meant to be a citizen of the republic. It's amazing how long these thoughts have held up, and today the media is stronger than ever in convincing people that consumption equals happiness and well-being.
Chapter 2:
ReplyDeleteCars: The shear rise in the production of cars is astounding. The start of this chapter states that in 1900 there were about 8,000 registered cars in the United States. 1910 saw a jump to 458,000. In 1929 it was at 23.1 million! Moving forward to today, we are at around 300 million registered cars. This makes me think of material waste, labor, natural resource extraction, and a whole lot of other things. Do we need this many automobiles?
Culture: Cars were first seen by "early pioneers" as mechanisms for transportation. In other words, they were seen for their function, to get from one place to another. However, cars were quickly turned into vehicles for the affirmation of self, class, and social prowess. American culture tends to do this with many things--we see a product, person, or something else for what it is, but make it into something that it isn't in order make ourselves feel better.
Media: Seeing the ways advertisements catered to women in particular was interesting. Advertisements crafted women drivers as strong, independent, stylish, adventurous. Women were already strong and respectable by nature, but in many ways it took an event or product, like the automobile, to make men realize that.
Question: While reading these chapters I kept wondering the same thing. What if the automobile was invented in a different year? Or by a different person? Or in a different country? I know that "what if" question aren't necessarily helpful because they don't provide much room for an answer, but with cars being so integrated into culture and media, it may be interesting to think of how a small change could have shaped the world differently. Kind of a "butterfly effect" concept.
In the introduction of “Republic of Drivers” I learned that automobility is in fact a word, and not just one used by Professor Williams (even though Microsoft word underlines it in red). Its definition encompasses everything that can be associated with a personal vehicle, ranging from emotions elicited from driving fast, to the power and gender dynamics that become apparent via automobiles. (page 4). This definition exposed many of the implicit feelings surrounding cars that I’ve subconsciously known, but have never taken the time to contemplate; If someone asked me at age 16 what it meant to have my license, I would have responded that I could now get myself from point “a” to point “b” using a car, even though I intuitively knew that I would be entering into a whole new world of freedom.
ReplyDeletePage 9 of the intro refers to how automobility shaped what it means to be “American”, and not the other way around - cars were a vehicle (literally and figuratively) to enforce hegemonic ideals of masculinity and therefore what it meant to be American. With this emboldened patriotism partially cultivated by the automobile, Americans could [forcefully] instill their lifestyle upon others (those being both foreigners and domestic non-white males). (9)
I find the relationship between Taylorism and the production of cars, specifically ford vehicles in the early 1900’s, to be extremely interesting and oxymoronic. (page 26). Seiler states that Taylorism in the labor market lead to work dissatisfaction, and a mindless, malleable workforce of proletarians, as assembly lines did not afford employees any chance to demonstrate skill or creativity. This work style would have quite literally been slavery, if it weren’t for the decent wages paid to employees, which allowed them to stifle their discontent through material pleasures. The ford factory work style is therefore oxymoronic because the servile workers were producing a product that would in turn bring them various form of liberation.
To me, Croly’s individualism discussed on page 30 is not only more appealing from an employee welfare perspective than taylorism, but will also better foster innovation. Briefly, it states that through individualism, society will be bettered and advanced. Taylorism allowed for the rapid production of a few products, but individualism allows for healthy product differentiation and a type or natural selection.
Chapter 2 brings up the changing concepts of both masculinity and femininity as they both relate to automobility; in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s driving was considered an effeminate bourgeois fad (52), a necessary stepping stone to a more mobile USA (40), and the fulfillment of reckless endangerment for men, typically by scorching (45,46). Women, who in 1914 were portrayed in the media as wanting to drive fast, also took up this lattermost activity. The 1920’s, however, saw a regression in their status: automobiles were considered a tool that could lighten their domestic workload… I am not sure which is more fluid, automobility or gender norms…
Question: What happened to the electric and steam powered cars that Seiler refers to on page 52? Could they not compete (until very recently, obviously) solely because of their inability to travel long distances without recharging?
Introduction
ReplyDeleteOn page 9, Seiler writes about the further removal of legitimacy of an illegal's attempted nationalization by refusal to grant them access to a license required for mobility, the iconic drivers license. The refuted ability to the country's road system additionally removes their access to more "American" ideologies,as stated on page 7, pushing them farther outside of our social constructs. As Seiler quotes the definition of automobility as "the configuration of people, machines, landscape, urban geography, and culture"(5), he leaves out the group of people mentioned above in that flowing landscape. The people without access, due to cultural boundaries, are left to flounder outside of the landscapes and configuration of people who aren't classified as second rate citizens.
Chapter One
On page 18, Seiler continues this description of American values speaking of "freedom" and "liberty" afforded to the individual. These freedoms were removed from nearly all non-white males throughout the history of the United States. On page 23, a description of the systematic removal of women's driving rights is detailed along side poor and minority access. As social, political, and economic power all belonged to the white male, so too did the power of mobility. Following this was a distinct attempt to remove the "initiative and judgement and freedom of movement" (27) from the workplace. This attitude gave rise to a "factory of men" where workers were trained to lack ingenuity but specialize in speed.
Chapter Two
The social response to the start of widespread automobile usage varied heavily. Many viewed it as an affront on their way of life calling it raucous, showy and full of "rich, reckless, daredevil young men"(37). Immediately following this remark, automobile purchases increased, creating "two great divisions of the civilized human race" (38). This new growth of the automobile industry obviously relates heavily with a new advertising campaign based on selling cars. This fledgling business venture attempted to sell these new modes of transportation as utility devices, rather than objects of class and power. That being said, the industry had a hard time fighting a different battle: convincing the public that a car was in reach of their pocket books. As the automobile was initially produced for the wealthy, bringing it down to the layman was a fight of its own. WIth "the perfection of the assembly line"(38), the cost had been lowered, but cars were still viewed as for the recklessly rich.
When did mass land transit of goods begin to overtake or rival train transport?
Introduction:
ReplyDeleteThe reading starts with an interesting description of what exactly cars, and in this case specifically an American highway, represent in our society: modernity and freedom. The term automobility came from this idea that cars gave us the opportunity to be individuals and create a certain power specific to oneself and the power of decisions. This word was one that began to surface in other aspects of our culture, specifically the governmental and economic, and gradually became the center of conversations and change making. I found it to be especially eye-opening when Seiler explains how automobility was a reaction to capitalism, and further created the image of what being American is- freedom and the individual ideas and power.
Chapter One:
Again describing modern Americanism, chapter one begins with a detailed discussion of economic autonomy and our ideologies of “freedom, liberty and self-determination”. Basically, as Alexis de Tocqueville put it, with this new mobile freedom we decided to “stand alone” and really work and think solely for our individual selves, as the American way tells us that we should have the right to. Personally, the most interesting and ah-ha moments were when Emerson was discussed- I particularly related with his ideas because it truly made sense in terms of modern cars and culture. He references being an individual for, as Seiler puts it, “both engaging and escaping contemporary life” and then goes on to say that it “enforces conformity at the very moment it extols individuality”. These two thoughts truly got me thinking about cars and my personal experiences. Later in the chapter it is discussed how the fundamental thinking of the individual had to be re-sculpted in order to incorporate the future success of consumerism and citizen cooperation (pg. 31), guaranteeing freedom but working with society to progress as a whole.
Chapter Two:
I think its interesting and particular to the American-way that there were automobile resistors, but the dislike only came out of a place of jealousy. However, once the car became more affordable and those who were, at first, too poor to own one, there were less “haters”. Next came the importance of the speed of the car, and exactly how it made the driver feel. The speed of the car increased as the technology did, and our need-for-speed developed as a way of boosting status and having that initial feeling of being able to travel individually faster than ever before- it is referred to as a “drug” and “intensifier” on page 44. Lastly, the section starting on page 60 discussing the legalities of driving truly surprised me. This powerful machine was created and given right over to eager consumers to use as they pleased, without a thought to where/ how they would be operated and if their use would be abused. Taking seven years from the first death via personal motor vehicle to determine that they were relatively dangerous and a source of accidents is just a little bit curious.
Question: When was it decided that an operator had to be of a certain age to drive a motor vehicle, and how did that go over with the public?
"Automobility" ON, Cars posse - rev it up! - Dr. W
ReplyDeleteChapter1/Introduction
ReplyDelete1. page 9 “ The various car subcultures in the United States that date at least to the 1960s, such as largely white and working class “hot rod” or “stock car” enthusiasts and Chicano/Latino and African American “lowriders” , as well as the more recent Asian American “import street racer” culture, illustrate the dominance of auto mobility even in the fashioning of distinctive “ethno political identities.” I like this quote because it further proves the stereotypes that go along with car culture. It is a sign of class and accomplishment, I know- buying a first car is a sign of making it in America. But even the car you buy matter. The style, the model, the color, all factors can speak to the socio-political-economic-gender-racial standing of the individual.
2. page 22 “The historian James Oliver Robertson describes a similar linkage in American culture in his assertion that a free American in pursuit of happiness… is mobile, is, has been, will be, in motion; as does sociologist Gerald L. Houseman, who argues that “ the intrinsic relationship between movement and persona freedom is verified by historical experience which ranges from feudalism to the contrasting conditions of black and white settlement in America, from Horatio Alger dreams of maximum mobility, social as well as physical, to the hopeless finality of Dachu.” We have based so much of our pride and liberties in car cultures, and it is because of the inherent desire for independence. Now that we have had a taste of the car culture, something that provides and amplifies the “high” of being (young, wild, and) free, can we go back? Will the sweet taste of freedom, ever be as good? Or will it be a different, unique satisfaction that can come from a life without vehicles.
3. “Inasmuch as capitalism has depended on the availability of a large pool of labor willing to move across distances small and great, mobility has been extolled culturally as a salutary and enriching characteristic. Indeed capitalism communicates its ethos using tropes of motion, as in capitalist who “hustles” for profit and cultivates the image of himself as a “mover” (an image that Benjamin Franklin pointed out as a form of capital.)” capitalism and car culture are connected at the core… can one survive without the other? Do we need them to survive? What would an alternative worls look like? I realize this is all VERY far out there idealized thinking, but it is fun to imagine a world in which these two controlling cultures don’t dominate.
My discussion questions are those put forth in my IYOW analysis:
Can we effectively go back to a culture/society without cars having a dominating presence? I realize the circumstances of the physical and economic infrastructure, but I am questioning the social perspective. Will we be able to feel just as free and happy and accomplished without cars? The have helped define and amplify our end goal of freedom, and I wonder if we will ever feel the same with an alternate form of mobility
Intro
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Seiler’s thoughts on page 2, “This study sees the interstates and the practices of automobility as the products of a highly specific conception of what it means to be modern and free.” I, like many others, was very excited to get my driver’s license because of the sense of freedom that comes with it. The thought of being on the highway and being able to go just about anywhere you want definitely means something to the average person.
I wonder what has led to the stereotyping of racial groups and automobile choice. The discussion on page 9 typecasts each racial group with a certain style of car. What is it about each culture that has led to the belief or even following of the stereotype? Is it an assumption on the part of the white individual or just a cultural fad that each group holds?
The discussion about women’s driving abilities being questioned from the outset of automobility shocked me a little bit. I thought that was a construct of a more modern prejudice not something that has been around since the advent of the automobile. But in retrospect, with the way women were discounted in the early 20th century, it makes more sense.
Chapter 1
Page 19: “In colonial America and the early republic…the denial of personhood to women and nonwhite people revealed individualism to be practicable by only a small minority.” This is something I never connected the dots to figure out. Yes, I learned about the things women and nonwhites have had to go through but I had never really made the connection that not only were rights like voting denied to the groups but the right to be an individual.
Page 21: Eric Leed “The voluntariness of departure, the freedom implicit in the indeterminacies of mobility, the pleasure of travel free from necessity, the notion the travel signifies autonomy and is a means for demonstrating what one “really” is independent of one context or set of defining associations – remain the characteristics of the modern conception of travel.” As I said before, one of pleasures of driving is having autonomy on your decisions whether it be to get off the exit and go to your destination or drive past to go get lost. The freedom that comes with being behind the wheel of a car is one of the main reasons I believe that the automobile industry grew so quickly.
Page 35: “Here consumption offered a direct link to republican citizenship, understood as a material stake in the stability of the current order.” Consumerism has played a major part in our society for a long time. I take the quote as meaning that to have a place in the current order, you need to consume. This is sadly true, as silly as it is; one might be looked down on if they don’t have the “latest and greatest” or at least are striving for it. The current culture rewards and encourages consumerism in a time when we need to cut consumption for the greater good.
Chapter 2
ReplyDeletePage 37: Harper’s Weekly “There is a new expensive toy in the world, which is handy and amusing, and which the well-to-do will proceed to experiment with, while their less opulent brethren congratulate themselves in being able to go without it without inconvenience or serious regret.” This sentiment has been said about many other “new toys” initially only available to the well-off but then when production costs go down, most that were happy they didn’t need it, end up buying it. People want what they can’t have, even if they feign disinterest.
Page 41: “Without denying the importance of consumption and ownership…I content that the crucial practice is driving…Superseding the automobile’s utility or its induction of workers into “industrial democracy” were driving’s sensation of agency, self-determination, entitlement, privacy, sovereignty, transgression, and speed; these were instrumental in establishing automobility as a public good and thereby ensuring its growth as an apparatus.” The car provides so much more than a mode of transport as evidenced above. These things come with a car but at least I didn’t really think about it like that.
Page 46: “In a sense, rail travel set the same restrictions on the enterprise of travel as Taylorism imposed on the process of work. A man on a train…is a man in a straightjacket.” The rigidity of rail travel definitely plays against the notion of freedom that one would like when they travel. When I travel, I use it as a time to escape the mundane normality of everyday life. Going to class, doing homework, going to bed is very scheduled and so is rail travel, but with the automobile, you run on your own schedule and go where you want.
What caused certain racial groups to drive the way they do or drive the cars they do? i.e. Asians with street racing cars
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteINTRO:
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the introduction there is a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Everything good is on the highway". This to me relates to the question of escapism vs. freedom- is there a difference on the open road? Furthermore if its all good on the highway, than I am curious to see how the author will remodel the citizen in chapter 5 and why he would want to anyway.
I agree and like his point that driving on the open road is like the renewal of American Individual Masculinity. Nostalgia of manifest destiny is almost unavoidable on any form of road trip I have personally ever taken.
The introduction raised a lot of good informational points and questions that I hope will be further explored in detail. I am especially interested what the negative context of the Sovereign individual is, considering that is a huge contribution to the American identity.
ONE:
This chapter brought into light the flaws of Taylorism. In specific how it has diminished American's mobile and individualistic traits into more oppressed and conformed individual. This raised the question of productivity. Certainly there has to be some level of oppression in the work force, or there can be nor productivity, right?
The author rebuttals this argument with the point that the possessive individual is self propelling. The self-determined character progresses not like the masses, but in a manner that has coined the term "unashamed individualist". No one likes Hoover.
TWO:
Okay so now America is fueled by this more antistreotype character whose mobility and choice inspired the masses to function the same way. Great. How the eff does this relate to the auto?
This chapter notes the role that the automobile used to assume: a new expensive toy. So the automobile too were just a product of Taylorization- a conformist product faceted to entertain the wealthy.It was primarily an object of entertainment rather than mobility. The need for speed eventually became too desired by people of the 20th century middle and lower class, and the auto was downgraded from toy to an item of modest transportation. Now road trips, camping, and fast food (some of America's most iconic pastimes) were much more accessible thanks to the modern auto. Women can't drive.
The second half of chapter two divulges into the sexuality of the auto, is it seen as a more masculine or feminine commodity? Seiler seems to lean towards a more masculine example, however he also argues that the arousal that the auto has generated can be in comparison with other destructive pleasures. Therefore REGULATION was necessary, and the auto's role continued to transform into a more constrained figure.
The first two chapters of Cotten Seiler's Republic of drivers I found to be very dense, but it really got me thinking about the auto's significance in society.
Introduction
ReplyDelete- Seiler mentions how USA was forced to reexamine American individualism during each distinct era of automobility. I find this really interesting, this makes me think that humans see human qualities in the car.
- Seiler talks about how different symbolic meanings of automobility apply to men and women. The male automobility pertains to types of freedom, the female automobility pertains to domestic tasks.
- Seiler will describe in the book how some people view the interstate highway system as a subtle form of Republican propaganda. The idea is that the 'trapped' American citizen operates something fast and easily controllable in order to feel free.
Chapter One
- Most of this chapter involves Taylorism, a theory of work employed in the late 19th & early 20th century where the laborer is viewed more like a cog in a larger machine than an individual capable of free will. Seiler goes on to mention some opinions of Taylorism, all of which were either cynical or critical of individualism. I was struck by this idea - some people believed that individualism & self-posession only exist when some can't have it.
- Many critiques of Taylorism argued that it "reduced men to women." Some men could have felt degraded in this way and took to the highway, a gendered zone that Seiler believes to be male.
- Seiler argues that Taylorism made automobility possible and necessary in the US. The political scientist Char Miller observed that Taylorism led to a new kind of secret self, defined emotions and desires, not by actions. It seems that Taylorism made automibility possible and necessary because it provided individual solitude, freedom, and distraction from aspects of the laborer's life that were confining and repetitive.
Chapter Two
- This Phil Patton quote was included: "the values of the frontier by making moving a permanent state of mind." Now people are more free to move around but less acquainted with many of their surroundings and have more responsibility.
- Seiler talks about the New Womanhood. Women started to see the aspects of freedom provided by automibobility and began to embrance a modern femininity.
- This chapter has a lot to do with how auto mobility became permanent in the US. Cars were fun, utilitarian, and provided feelings of freedom.
Question
Are we done with dinstinct eras of automobility that alter the personality of the individual in the US or could there be more in the future?
Introduction
ReplyDeleteOn page 4 Seiler talks about how cars are the leading factor in the “individualism” movement. The automobile allows numerous personal and individual choices, physically, economically, and politically, further driving the individualist society in America. He is making the reference that cars can shape who we are as an individual and a culture entirely.
Although ideas and models of different forms of automobiles had been thought of and seen in different places in the world America took the automobile and created its own personality for it. It is a “spectral form of civilization which the American’s have invented” (9). We took the automobile and applied it to everyday life rapidly, making it an integral part of society.
Also on page nine he mentions how the automobile has created subcultures in America just based on the style and engine and how they generally relate to a specific ethnic group. Some examples of this range from “ largely white and working-class “hot rod” or “stock car” to Chicano/Latino and African American “low-riders” and even more recently the Asian American “import street racer” culture. These culture represent certain driving styles and the excessiveness of the power and speeds that can be reached by the automobile.
Chapter 1
Seiler talks about how the automobile gives Americans the feeling of “standing alone” and how the automobile allows a certain amount of physical and emotional freedom. At the same time as having that “stand alone” mentality, drivers shared a social unity and understanding of that same feeling, further promoting individualism.
One thing that stuck out to me was on page 23, which stated “ mobility is ostensibly a universal right; yet it has become and remains a prerequisite of social, political, and economic power.” Although the automobile was viewed as a commodity everyone had it was still something that is subject to individual well-being.
One last thing that stuck out to me in the chapter was the terms Taylorism and scientific management. I knew that assembly line were very planned out and exact but I never understood how strict the management was about the order and operations of the workers, “you will exactly as this man tells you to-morrow, from morning till night… Do you understand that?” In this manner “initiative and judgment and freedom of movement are eliminated” (27).
Chapter 2
The first thing I noticed in this chapter was when Laird had observed that “’apparently automakers did not feel the need to prove that automobility was exciting.’ In fact, their hardship lay in proving that it was mundane” (39). This reminded me in class how we talked about when we were little how godlike and amazing it was that our parents were driving a car. It shows the humans innate desire to go fast be behind the wheel.
On page 41 Seiler talks about the “masculine consumer identity,” which I thought was interesting to compare to today’s consumer identities. Although women drive cars immensely more than they did in the early 1900’s I still feel that the market is generally directed and advertised towards the masculine side of the consumer identities.
The last point I found interesting was on page 58. Here Seiler talks about how owning an automobile puts women and people of color on the same social equity of white males. This again reflects how an automobile physically represents ones social status and well-being. Owning an automobile “affirmed their fitness for citizenship and legal equity with men.
Question: How does a certain car type reflect ones ethnic background and social well being?
Introduction:
ReplyDeleteOn page three Seiler describes the changing role of the automobile through the 20th century. He divides into key parts like its penetration of politics and culture from the original mass production through the 20’s, and then later its “high modernist moment in the 1950’s.” The automobiles cultural versatility and adaptability are in my opinion key factors in its present cultural relevance.
His primary focus is describing subjectivity and the relevance of driving to it. Subjectivity displays characteristics of the individual. We stress the idea of the individual throughout our society through politics and culture and the individual key ability to be free. The idea of freedom and mobility is later elaborated on.
On page 12 after introducing the idea of the individual and mobility Seiler briefly mentions increased security and restrictions in the modern era. This is certainly cultural shift and a new path for the automobile.
Chapter 1
A main theme in this chapter is the automobile and the autonomous individual. This idea stems from liberal beliefs of liberty and freedom coupled with ability to be mobile and the clear disparity between this and the immobile times of feudalism. Mobility certainly is a liberating factor. It grants one the ability to vote with his/her feet.
On page 24 the stagnation or even decline of the autonomous individual is described. According to Seiler this occurred in the post-Civil War period of a strong federal government and concentrated wealth in the hands of the few. This is culturally relevant in that many of the social norms that we hold dear, like our rights, almost ceased to develop if not for the creation of the automobile.
On page 35 media is introduced with the term, “the sovereign consumer.” This describes the view that freedom is the ability to choose between various products. This is a warped in view because, as Seiler illustrates, the products in which consumers choose between are fixed and finite.
Chapter 2
The chapter starts with Seiler stating the massive increase in the number of automobiles on the road between the year 1900 and 1929. The author attributes this gain to a decrease in prices and an increase in knowledge of the automobile, in other words advertising through media. Essentially through industrializing the production and informing the public of its affordability the automobile’s demand surged.
On page 42 the notion of self-improvement is provided. This draws upon the underlying theme of freedom, meaning that the car is required for the modern person to properly utilize their right to freedom. I found it interesting in Lomasky’s quote how used the word self-directing, when it dawned upon me that previously one rode a horse, which more or less followed where the rider directed them but did not negate the fact that it (the horse) can still be stubborn thus the individual was less autonomous.
This chapter also brings up women’s struggle to partake in the freedom of the automobile. Their struggle is described as constant negotiation. The car was utilized though not with ease, as a tool of liberation for women. I find this incredibly believable because it did give women the ability to leave the household. It explain why nations like Saudi Arabia deny women the right to drive, perhaps in fear of this liberation.