Up in the Air about the Device Paradigm

A few weeks ago, Jen and I watched Jason Reitman's 2009 com-dram "Up in the Air." The plot centres on "corporate downsizing expert" Ryan Bingham (George Clooney). Bingham's firm hires him out to companies that are laying people off and want a third party to handle the face-to-face aspects of the process (i.e. Bingham fires people for a living). Bingham's favourite part of the job is that he spends 320 days a year flying around the country, renting cars and sleeping in hotels. One of his main goals in life is to collect 10 million airmiles and join the elite ranks of the 6 other people who have done it. It seems that the deeply emotional aspect of his job has left Bingham jaded and cynical. He can be compassionate and supportive when he is supposed to, but it is only an act. Moreover, Bingham is not ashamed that he has no close, emotional relationships in his life and gives motivational talks which promote the same unencumbered lifestyle to anyone who wants to get ahead in the business world. Bingham is quite satisfied with his transient, uncommitted and unconnected life.

Bingham's world gets even better when, in an airport lounge, he meets Alex Goran (Vira Farmiga), a forty-something businesswoman whose aspirations and outlook are very similar to his own. Goran ends up back at Bingham's hotel room and the two decide to swap schedules and continue the affair when their travels overlap. Goran assures Bingham that there are no rules and no expectations for their relationship :"I am the woman that you don't have to worry about."

Bingham is forced to take his firm's bright new employee, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), on his next business trip to show her the ropes. Bingham believes Keener is foolish because she took this job in order to be with her boyfriend. He can't understand why she would let a relationship determine her future. However, throughout the trip, Bingham develops a degree of respect for Keener. At the same time as Bingham begins to develop a friendship with Keener, his feelings for Goran begin to deepen. While he tries to play it off, it is obvious that the relationship is no longer just about sex. All of a sudden he finds himself more connected and more involved in her life than he ever wanted to be with anyone. Keener picks up what is going on and challenges him to be honest with himself and thus honest with Goran about his feelings for her.

This struggle challenges the very core of Bingham's soul as he chooses to abandon what he values and go after Goran. When he shows up at her house, however, he is stunned to find that she is married with two kids. Bingham turns to leave as her husband calls out 'who is it honey' and Goran responds 'its no one, just someone who lost their way.' Later, she calls Bingham to accost him for showing up at her house. Bingham, confused, says "I thought I was part of your life." "I thought we signed up for the same thing." Goran responds, "I thought our relationship was perfectly clear. You are an escape. You're a break from our normal lives. You're a parenthesis."

There are a number of themes in this film which raise important questions about how we understand and live out our relationships. Not just our relationships to other humans, but our relationship to technology and how it enhances or detracts from our human relationships. I want to examine how this film exemplifies the connection between technological dependence and human independence. First, however, I want to explain what I mean by technological dependence.

Since the Industrial Revolution, development of technological devices has accelerated exponentially. One implication of this acceleration is the proliferation of these devices. Each year, new, more sophisticated technology takes over tasks which were once done 'by hand.' The more these devices replace these tasks, the more old skills are lost and we become dependent upon the devices which replaced them (for example, few people are able to build a fire without a lighter or matches - a task which every schoolchild would have know not more than a century ago; even fewer people are able to hunt with a bow and arrow to provide meat).

When further technology is developed to replace additional tasks, it often assumes and depends on the existing technology. We are then dependent upon a technology which is itself dependent upon another technogogy (e.g. after tractors were invented, new plows came out which could not be pulled by horses. This meant that when a farmer had to buy a new plow, he no longer had the option of using horses, he had to buy a tractor too). This goes on and on, creating a web where newer and newer technology is increasingly dependent upon older technology.

Philosopher Albert Borgmann calls the resulting web of technology the Device Paradigm. Within the device paradigm, Borgmann contends, technological devices become part of a particular lifestyle. Each particular lifestyle is dependent upon a certain set of interdependent technology. Over time, these lifestyles become commodities. The devices which support these lifestyles, then, become part of the commodity and are marketed and sold as such. (The iPod is a good example of this.)

In "Up in the Air," Bingham has bought into a particular lifestyle. He is what we might call the "jet-setter." He loves travel and everything that comes with it. He enjoys being on one coast one day and the other the next. He relishes the respect he gets from airlines, car rental companies and hotels for his premium traveler status. He lives to earn more air-miles. Part of the lifestyle he has bough into requires him to be unencumbered by human relationships (which Bingham thinks is one of the keys to his success). He has very little contact with his family and no friends to speak of. His job revolves around cutting off relationships. A majority of his human contact is with people he has been hired to fire. He will never see these people again. He is assured that no one will ever miss him, be hurt by him, need him or look for him, he is completely free.

However, the fallout between Goran and Bingham shows him that he had deceived himself about his lack of need for human relationships. He does not want his life to 'be a parenthesis' or an 'escape.' He does not want to be transient and unconnected. He wants to need and wants to be needed.

Bingham's unencumbered lifestyle was enabled and perpetuated by the existence of technology. Without cars, airplanes, cellphones, email and sundry other technologies, Bingham's lifestyle would be impossible. All these technologies worked together to give him the life he wanted. Moreover, technology enabled Bingham to continue telling himself that he didn't need human relationships.

However, if he had not had that luxury, he would have been forced into regular human relationships. He would be forced to see the same people day in and day out in his neighbourhood, his office building, the supermarket, etc. He would be forced to participate in community, depend on others and be responsible for his actions. Along the way he might make some friends or even fall in love. He also might get hurt but at least his life would be more than a parenthesis.

I'm no Luddite. I think technology is useful and helpful. However, technology is always a loss as well as a gain. The tasks replaced by technology were often tasks that required human interaction. As we continue to develop and appropriate technology, let us be aware of the losses that come along with it (especially the human ones) and take steps to meet those needs in other ways.

What is a parade of liberty and why would one march in it?

I must begin by admitting that I am a bit of a hipster. I have tried to deny it for some time, I have even tried to show overt contempt for all of hipsterdom, but I am afraid I must own up to my true identity. My name is Ben, and I am a hipster. I find that I like things which are obscure, ironic and odd. Thus the title of my blog. It comes from the first line of the fifth verse of a semi-obscure Bob Dylan song called "Abandoned Love." The lyric is: "I march in the parade of liberty/but as long as I love you I'm not free." The song, originally meant to be included on "Blood on the Tracks" (1975), was released on Dylan's boxed-set Biograph (which, incidentally, was the first boxed-set ever made). It is a beautiful poem about the author's struggle to leave a woman he still cares for in order to maintain what he believes is freedom (and thus abandon not only her love for him, but his love for her).
What does all that have to do with my blog? Not much. I love the song, but I also just love the poetry of the line and what it communicates on its own. This is perhaps where my hipsterness stops (going by popular definitions of hipster). I like things which are obscure, ironic and odd not because I want to belittle others for not knowing what I'm talking about, but because I feel the obscure, the ironic and the odd communicate truths in ways which often get past the 'normal' and make us think in ways which we wouldn't ordinarily think.
The phrase "Marching in the parade of liberty" gets me thinking about the concept of liberty in ways which I have heretofore missed. The words 'marching' and 'parade' imply movement. We often think of liberty (or, the related ideal of happiness) as static; a thing which we can get or a place that we can be. However, to the degree that Dylan's poetic genius is on to something, liberty seems to be a participation in something which is anything but static. Parades are loud, dynamic and energetic. The first thing that comes to mind is a marching band. Sharp, crisp high notes from the horns sound out over the loud booming of the bass drum, the taps of the snare drums and the low rumble of the tuba. At the same time the band moves forward, led by a troop of energetic baton-twirlers.
However, dynamic does not mean chaotic. Parades are carefully coordinated to make sure everyone knows their place and is doing the right thing at the right time. Marching bands are drilled like military troops. They learn how to coordinate the movements of their particular instruments with their own bodies and with the band as a whole. Moreover, they are led by a conductor who keeps both the music and the formation in time. Thus, liberty is not the ability to do whatever one wants. It is knowing one's task and performing it properly within the dynamic whole. Knowing where to be and what to do gives one the liberty to be in the place and do the thing which they have been equipped to do.
It seems to me that this dynamic-yet-orderly understanding of how to participate in liberty illustrates certain aspects of the Church. St. Paul says that true freedom is found only in Christ. When we are baptized, we are made members of Christ's body, the Church. Through Christ, the Church (and each of its members) participates in the Trinity. The Trinity is participation itself as it is fundamentally the dynamic relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Moreover, in our baptism, we are given the Holy Spirit. The Spirit guides us into further truth and moves us forward in our sanctification. These images imply movement and growth. The Christian is not the same yesterday as he will be tomorrow.
At the same time, the Church is ordered. Scripture (and the early Church) lays out instructions for proper Church government led by Bishops, priests and deacons. Additionally, as St. Paul points out, every member of the Church has his or her own 'gifting' which is meant to work together with the gifts of others to build up the whole Church. The Church functions best when each person performs the role for which they've been created.
To the degree that this is true, the Christian "marches in the parade of liberty" by fully participating in the dynamically ordered life of the Church. Perhaps if we were guided by this, and not by the enlightenment values of self-autonomy and 'free-choice,' our broken and bruised Church would once again join together to fill the air with praises to God Almighty.