« PREVIOUS ENTRY
Wood that works
NEXT ENTRY »
Courtney’s high-tech Love

Remember “identity politics”? Back in the 80s, it was one of the intellectual hallmarks of the left, because it espoused one simple but powerful philosophical idea: That one’s background — ethnic, national, gender, etc. — informed a heck of a lot of one’s experiences, and thus one’s attitudes towards society and life. It isn’t a terribly new idea; hell, half of The Republic is devoted to Socrates intellectually bitchslapping people based on the inherent limits of their subjectivity and personal experiences.
Nonetheless, by the early 90s, identity politics got an incredibly bad name. Partly it was the fault of pointy-headed left-wing pundits, who used it to shout down people whose arguments they didn’t like. But partly it was right-wing backlash: Conservatives didn’t like all these emerging discussions of racism or sexism or poverty, and went on the counterattack by arguing insistently that one’s identity just didn’t matter. If you were successful, it was because you deserved it. If you weren’t, it’s because you sucked. Identity politics, claimed the right, was an intellectual abomination. It ignored people’s individuality.
Yet the thing is, back in the 90s, the free-market right became obsessed with its own style of identity politics: Demographics. Marketers began carving up the public into increasingly smaller cohorts, convinced that if they could just know enough basic points about your background — age, gender, zip code, education — they could figure out exactly what you’d want to buy. They had your ticket punched. Who cared about your actual personality? A person was nothing more than a set of tick-boxes filled in by a telephone survey profiler. It was Irshad Manji (the writer who’s currently author of a cool book about the fate of Islam in the modern age) who first made this point in a conversation with me. “Demographics,” she said, “is the conservative version of identity politics.”
Just like left-wing identity politics, demographics is an powerful and useful idea that becomes incredibly creepy when taken to its logical extreme by bug-eyed converts. This occurred to me recently while surfing the marketing section of MSN, where its salesforce has assembled a few “personae” in which they try to explain the different people who use the service. There’s nothing unique about their categories — they’re pretty standard-issue marketing-speak — but they do remind you of how weirdly smug demographics can be. There’s this weirdly high-school vibe to it all. It’s like listening to some self-satisfied Queen Bee cheerleader reel off all the categories into which she’s slotted the people around her: Punk, emo, b-boy, preppy.
Check out MSN’s list of characters. That woman in the picture above? It’s “Marie”, who is “age 33-44”, and “a married mom trying to juggle the demands of her family, along with handling her part time business.”
(Thanks to the Plasticbag blog for this one!)
I'm Clive Thompson, a writer on science, technology, and culture. This blog collects bits of offbeat research I'm running into, and musings thereon.
Currently, I'm a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a columnist for Wired magazine. I also write for Fast Company and Wired magazine's web site, among other places. Email or AOL IM me (pomeranian99) to say hi or send in something strange!
The “Milky Way Transit Authority” map
Should automobile software be open-sourced?
My Bookforum review of Jaron Lanier’s “You Are Not A Gadget”
Molecular secrets of the “iron-plated snail”
» visit the Collision Detection archives
January 31, 2010 » 07:29 PM
V. A. To me death seems to be an evil.
M. What, to those who are already dead? or to those who must die?
A. To both.
M. It is a misery, then, because an evil?
A. Certainly.
M. Then those who have already died, and those who have still got to die, are both miserable?
A. So it appears to me.
M. Then all are miserable?
A. Every one.
January 24, 2010 » 03:22 PM
One of the more interesting trends is family, which came in at number five. Specifically, discussion about family, moms, dads, daughters, etc. jumped during 2009. With Facebook users getting older, this isn’t a big surprise. However, the fact that the mention of “kids” jumped by a factor of five this year is rather dramatic. It’s tough to know what this means, though. (via Facebook Unveils Most-Mentioned Topics of 2009
)
January 15, 2010 » 01:36 PM
BEYOND AWESOME. They are announcing a recall of the Plush Uterus “due to a potential choking hazard for children”. To apply for it, “Please send an email to the address below with the subject line, ‘UTERUS OPT OUT’”.
January 14, 2010 » 10:04 PM
“To order, please TYPE “YES” IN CHECKBOX BELOW TO AGREE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS PLUSH MUST BE KEPT AWAY FROM KIDS (it is a sex organ, after all). If it is not checked, WE WILL NOT SEND THE UTERUS.” (via @ibogost)
January 11, 2010 » 01:45 PM
I watched Space: 1999 back in the day, but I swear to god I do not remember this scene.
» see all of my photos on Flickr
ECHO
Erik Weissengruber
Vespaboy
Terri Senft
Tom Igoe
El Rey Del Art
Morgan Noel
Maura Johnston
Cori Eckert
Heather Gold
Andrew Hearst
Chris Allbritton
Bret Dawson
Michele Tepper
Sharyn November
Gail Jaitin
Barnaby Marshall
Frankly, I'd Rather Not
The Shifted Librarian
Ryan Bigge
Nick Denton
Howard Sherman's Nuggets
Serial Deviant
Ellen McDermott
Jeff Liu
Marc Kelsey
Chris Shieh
Iron Monkey
Diversions
Rob Toole
Donut Rock City
Ross Judson
Idle Words
J-Walk Blog
The Antic Muse
Tribblescape
Little Things
Jeff Heer
Abstract Dynamics
Snark Market
Plastic Bag
Sensory Impact
Incoming Signals
MemeFirst
MemoryCard
Majikthise
Ludonauts
Boing Boing
Slashdot
Atrios
Smart Mobs
Plastic
Ludology.org
The Feature
Gizmodo
game girl
Mindjack
Techdirt Wireless News
Corante Gaming blog
Corante Social Software blog
ECHO
SciTech Daily
Arts and Letters Daily
Textually.org
BlogPulse
Robots.net
Alan Reiter's Wireless Data Weblog
Brad DeLong
Viral Marketing Blog
Gameblogs
Slashdot Games