Mobile Privatization
“The old civic, state, and national groupings have become unworkable. Nothing can be further from the spirit of the new technology than ‘a place for everything and everything in its place.’ You can’t go home again.”
— Marshal McLuhan
In 1974, Raymond Williams coined the term “mobile privatization” to describe the paradoxical trend he observed of an increasingly mobile population who valued home-centered private living. Nearly 40 years later, I believe that this idea is perhaps even more relevant now than it was during William’s life time.
Increased mobility, the first element of Williams’s term, was evident in many legacies the of modern era including the rise of the motor car and the growth of cities. This trend of the individual becoming less tied to place has continued on both macro (worldwide urbanization, growing global migration) and micro scales (lengthy commutes, including by air; international travel as leisure pursuit). If we consider virtual mobility in addition to physical mobility, it is impossible to ignore the huge influence of the Internet. It has transformed our ability to move through the “global village”, an idea born out of preceding media technologies such as the television. Combined with the mobile phone, wireless networking, video conferencing and similar technologies, through the Internet we can now connect to anywhere from anywhere in a way never before possible.
One could argue that our lives are now less home-centered than they were when Williams was writing. That may be true, but I would claim that privatization has become even more prevalent. Our private space is now comprised of much more than just our domestic space. We are increasingly mediating our personal space and social interactions through technology—customizing our surroundings to suit our desires. Perhaps our understanding of the term “home” needs to be broadened?
Personal listening devices—first the walkman, and then the iPod—have become ubiquitous, allowing us to tailor our experiences. Individuals can choose their own soundtracks in shared spaces. The mobile phone allows us to choose who we converse with, instead of engaging with those physically nearby. As a result of the prevalence of these devices, we have created a shared language of social signals around their use. Headphones and mobile phones have become our on-the-move “DO NOT DISTURB” signs, communicating our personal boundaries in public spaces. (I explored this idea further in my project Personal Perimeters)
This selectivity in who we interact with manifests itself most clearly through social networking. In this new virtual frontier, managing who sees us and how we are perceived is now a part of daily life. We have profiles and pages—virtual homes—which others visit to communicate with us, and to “know” us through our likes, status updates and tweets.
It could be argued that through social networks we are exposed to a much larger community, but since we are very much in control of who we engage with, I believe this effect is minimized. The social network has also had an effect beyond our virtual lives. Cities were once were places of knowledge transfer and learning where individuals mixed with others with a variety of views and opinions. Now, as we increasingly engage through social media, our mediated experience of the city limits our interactions primarily to those we share things in common with. (This idea was explored at a recent symposium entitled “The Metroplois of Me” moderated by Tim Durfee and Ben Hooker )
Mobile privatization is still a strong social trend in the twenty-first century. For me, it is fascinating to imagine how these technological and cultural changes will continue to unfold. What will the idea of ‘home’ look like in twenty years? Will it still be recognizable? As our world becomes increasingly connected, how fragmented will our experience of it be? In an progressively virtual world, how disconnected from physical place might we become?
(Source: johnryanjournal)
