Thursday, January 24, 2008

5,000 Square Feet and an SUV

Since World War II, the assumption of American hegemony has never been much in doubt.

-The Times
That quotation will come as a surprise to a lot of old cold warriors, whose bread and butter was precisely "doubt" about American hegemony in the face of "expansionist" Soviet Communism. Well, one doesn't read the Times for history. The notion of a post-Soviet Pax Americana, even a short-lived one, is as ludicrous as it is popular--which is to say, very. There was the first Gulf War and the sanctions régime that followed; there were the Balkan conflicts; there was Rwanda; there was Somalia; there were the first World Trade Center bombings, the USS Cold, the rise of the Taliban/Mujahadeen in Afghanistan; near-war between India and Pakistan; a coup in Pakistan; Chechnya. Some Pax, eh?

It turns out that the United States is not immune fom the tidal forces of history nor exempt from consequences for its own decisions. Yet at the heart of it is a gross misconception:
Some of those interviewed, like Raymond E. Dixon, a Kansas City computer programmer, said they were confident their children would not enjoy the same standard of living they had, calling it a reversal of the American dream.
This notion that the never-ending growth in the square footage of the average American home, the increase in the number of cars and acres per family, and the multiplication of electronic tchotchkes, euphemized as "standard of living," constitute The American Dream has always struck me mostly as a farce. My father, his parents, and his four brothers grew up in one half of a brick duplex in Pittsburgh. The other half was shared by a family with two parents, twelve children and an in-house grandmother, and yet the quality of that life was in almost every way superior to the atomized inanity of the three-car-garage subdivision years later. Hell, even that shitty old duplex was made with real brick and real plaster, had real wood trim, a real porch, walls more than four inches thick. They lived their lives embedded in a neighborhood in a community. They knew people, and not just bland coworkers and some fellow churchgoers who spend a few hours a week together in a converted big box off some highway interchange. The increased standard of living whose passing is now bemoaned by our newspaper-quoted "voters" is marked mostly by an increase in personal misery and isolation. The literature and film of suburban anomie is cliché, and there's too much of it--but it reached that stage for a reason. The suburbs and exurbs are anomic. They represent a failed economic model for the nation, and they more significantly represent a failed human ideal for our society.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

So now your forebears golden cramped lives have given way to its opposite: gimme my fuckin space, gimme some fuckin room.
I love my fuckin space.

yerfunny said...

thank you for making my morning.

Keifus said...

Oh now, there's a generation of yokels going on just the same way about how life sure was sweeter back on Pappy's farm, when the nebbirs helped one another out an' such. Although the sanitized middle sure does suck.

"Multiplication of electronic tchotchkes." As you're no doubt aware, the arc of progress is usually correlated to the size of TV screens, although people get hung up on microwaves now and then. Why, some people live in apartments with enormous televisions, sometimes even with furniture, and still have the nerve to say they can't make ends meet. (And yet soma is against the law.)

I'm trying to parse that excerpted sentence around "assumption" (I get a kick out of applying definition 5). Maybe he means presumption? We sure went through a lot of trouble to demonstrate that axiom... In thirty years, when I'm presumably reading "we all knew the Arab menace wasn't an existential threat," I'm wondering if I will lament decades of murderous policy, or if I will sadly agree? I guess it's a matter of who's "we."

Anonymous said...

bravo, motherfucker. but i think the isolation you discuss has migrated to cities that once were comprised of neighborhoods and communities and such. the culprit is the cellular phone. if you've been to manhattan lately (and good god, i hope you haven't), you would have noticed that three out of five people walking on the sidewalk are talking to someone they already know, someone who isn't there. the street-level interaction that your father and mine were raised on is no longer necessary. now you can talk to the people who love you, and ONLY the people who love you.

bravomotherfucker said...

Anonymous- are you trying to tell us that you need someone to LOVE? Cause you can move up here to the Bronx and get some of that "street level interaction" any time (on the warm nights) you like.

And BTW: if you haven't noticed-it's 4 out of 5 people talking on their cell phones in Manhattan. And 1 out of those 4 is talking to someone who is supposed to love them but actually despises the very sound of her voice. Or she may just be calling in sick.

And BTW2: 4 out 5 stats are complete bullshit pulled out of someones ass.

Prof. George Edward Challenger said...

There's a really good PBS special, it may be by Burns, on New York. I think fittingly called, New York. About four or five DVDs into it it talks about the impact Robert Moses had on the city and how his plan to move cars, rather than people, around New York by creating a highway system linking Long Island with the city and circumnavigating and bisecting Manhattan destroyed the old neighborhoods and set the stage for the anomie of suburban life.

At the end of the segment, you want to dig Moses up so you can kill him again.

Prof.

stephanie g said...

Maybe I'm a misanthropic bitch but everything about the destruction of community seems pretty good to me. Why would I want people all up in my business on a daily basis? If I have a yearning for human interaction there are places for that.

Anonymous said...

proud bronx resident,

you'll notice that i said "manhattan", and not "new york city". you'll also notice that "people who love you" was pretty obviously facetious.
you're right that i've pulled 3 out of 5 straight out of my ass, but you are hopelessly wrong if you think living in the bronx will protect you from the hyper-gentrification that's demolished manhattan. in fact, you're probably getting that snowball rolling yourself.

TGGP said...

I'm gonna have to go with stephanie g here. I love the 'burbs, though I'm sympathetic to the Kevin Carson argument against them. So do a lot of people, and that's why they keep moving to them (you can always say "fuck people's revealed preference, they don't know what's really good for them!" like Robert Lindsay). I look forward to your next piece on "retro-culture" in Chronicles Magazine though.

This thread at Distributed Republic seems relevant.

bravomotherfucker BX! said...

BX! to anonymouster

Oh yes; my parents and me got that snowball rolling back in 71 when we moved there. It's been a long roll but you know how slow gentrification is sometimes. The newbies are coming but not like in Brooklyns. No condos...yet.
But don't you worry your little anonymous self. This city ebbs and flows and before too long, decay will set back in, the majority of you suburbanistas will go home, Gaps will burn, cop payrolls will decrease, the graffiti task force will disband and we can get back to painting fucking trains again! Mmmmm the smell of Krylon at 3 AM in the bitter cold just gives me chills. BTS mo.

And: "people who love you"- wait a minute; you were being facetious because I took you seriously.

Mr.Fundamental said...

it is easy to be the monk in the country. a monk in the city is a different affair.

whatever! no suburbia, no Eminem.

White America, I could be one of your kids!

er, maybe that was exurbia.

that said, development as such follows a pattern. you should sit down sometime and read a Township Ordinance. I dare ya. use based zoning has splayed the legs of America real wide.

all we are is sprawl from Europe.

flight from what, I ask, flight from fucking what? I'll never get this friggin voice out of my head. so we might as well buck up and try liking one another. of course, this is the internet, so um, don't look at me to start the trend. oh, and something about history not being as smoove and reassuring as we would like it to be when we use it as an ideal case.

my grandmother used to play the numbers in Trenton! she knew the guy that ran them. that was cool to learn.

if anything, Monsieur is looking for a rise from the choir: he said nothing about his mother's side.

SteveB said...

To be fair, that Times article does have some pretty harrowing tales to tell:

John Brackney, president of the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce, and a former commissioner in suburban Arapahoe County, recalled being mocked when he wore one of his old campaign shirts to the neighborhood pool last summer. “Oh, you’re wearing a Republican shirt,” someone said.

“That wouldn’t have happened eight years ago,” Mr. Brackney observed.


Dude was mocked. At the pool. Someone came right up to him and said, “Oh, you’re wearing a Republican shirt," just like that. Can you believe that shit? Wouldn't have happened eight years ago, that's for damn sure.

ddelruss said...

I notice it's you saying the standard of living was higher in that crowded duplex, not your father and definitely not his parents. Wood trim may be desirable, but sleeping 4 to a double bed will wear on you.

Also, it is perfectly possible to know people now, whether you are in a city or in the hated suburbs. It takes a smigeon or courtesy and/or courage to introduce yourself, but people are perfectly approachable and friendly wherever you are. At least that's my experience in and outside of Washington, DC.

If the suburbs are so terrible, why do people keep choosing them? I hear this all the time - city folk just don't "get it", and that's fine, and it's definitely funny. You know some people just don't want to fight 20 minutes for a parking spot every time they get "home" (usually a box of strangers - "gosh I wish they'd stop running around, I can hardly sleep!").

In my opinion, modern isolation has a lot more to do with 1 and 2 child families. It's not the larger spaces, it's the paucity of people in them.