the commercial TV on demand of TIM – whose testimonial is Pif – provides an opportunity to reflect upon the tendency to send messages inviting you to ‘escape from freedom’, of which Erich Fromm spoke over seventy years ago. The model enhanced by this and other advertising, in fact, is a globalized and interconnected world, where there is no need to choose, where everything is achievable with the technology and, therefore, in which to be free would result in giving up the same freedom and the liability arising therefrom. But is it really that “fantastic” everything?
Browsing the Internet I checked out not to be the only one who was impressed by the close of the TV spot on demand of the TIM, given the short monologue by an ecstatic Pif. The conductor and the Sicilian filmmaker fact enhances the extraordinary novelties della’sconfinata galaxy ‘of content offered by this new type of television, concluding with this significant sentence: “New technologies are giving us the freedom of not having to choose. How cool is that? “
Of course it is an advertising slogan, but I think we would be naive not to understand the message it conveys, which is social, cultural and political. It ‘s true, it is a sentence thrown out without apparent ideological purposes, however, must be superficial or distracted to not get the sense of less explicit, which goes far beyond the advertising of a television network. The campaign was designed and built by the Italian section of the prestigious agency Leagas Delaney, whose motto is: “The thought that transforms. The change that inspires. “
But on what kind of ‘thought’ inspires expressions like that spoken by Pif I think it is worthwhile to reflect at least a bit ‘, starting from the commercial context. The heart of the message, in fact, is that TIM offers a service able to satisfy “millions” of Italian passions. “Thanks alleconnessioni -there is explained – we can enter into a television universe without limits. Today there is a tv that combines all the tv. ” The big news is that this ‘boundless’ galaxy of content can be enjoyed “wherever and whenever you want.” Highlighted words basically emphasize two concepts: the first is the huge size of user requests for that service (which is ‘limitless’ just because ‘unlimited’); the second is that the solution to this is the offer of a network of ‘connections’, thanks to the use of a technology that overcomes differences and distances, ‘combining’ in itself not only all the TV mode, but basically all people.
It ‘worth noting is the use of astronomical metaphor (universe, galaxy …), reinforced by consistent images with this context, is the claim that this providential invention is now materializing a prospect so far only futuristic ( “today … today’s all …”). The other key words of the spot pose also highlight the ” speed of the connection and its use ‘everywhere’ makes us comfortable.
I think no coincidence that the sum of these three characteristics (speed, total , usability) fits perfectly with the standardized concept of ‘progress’, understood as the goal of development achieved above all by a constant technological evolution. Nor is it accidental that from the spot emergence of a universalist perspective, inspired, as the perfection of the cosmos, to the forced synthesis of single thought, to the globalized economy model and the elimination of diversity as a quick solution to every conflict.
After all the great masters of political fiction – dall’Huxley the Brave new world all’Orwell 1984 – had prophesied there with incredible intuition what would become our “new world”, ruled by the dictatorship of technology and a ‘doublethink’ that mystifies the reality, presenting slavery as freedom and war as peace. Just then use an Internet search engine to find that, at least in the Anglo-Saxon world, expressions such as “Freedom to Choose not” are not new. Not to mention the great thinkers who have often pointed out that freedom is a risk that today many would prefer not to run.
A classic example is that of Erich Fromm, who more than seventy years ago observed that ” the man believed to want freedom. In fact it has a great fear. Because? Because freedom forces him to make decisions, and decisions involving risks [...] Modern man, freed from the constraints of pre-individualistic society, which at the same time gave him security and limited, has not achieved freedom in the sense positive realization of his being: that is, the expression of his emotional and sensual intellectual potential. While avendogli brought independence and rationality, freedom has made him isolated and therefore anxious and helpless “(Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom, 1942).
Yet they were taught that choosing is the only verb able to conjugate to the very idea of freedom. Without disturbing the religious principle of ‘free will’, it seems obvious that having an option to have an alternative, is the only way to assert our right to choice, in which the right to fail is included.
the problem is that to choose is also a burden, a responsibility that derives from the original biblical condemnation, that identified with the knowledge they need to act according to conscience ( “Behold the man is become as one of us, for knowledge of good and evil … “- January 3.22). Choose means to reflect, to analyze the various possibilities, exercise discernment and finally decide, taking responsibility for their own responsibilities. Definitely too much for tecnologicus homo our ‘Brave New World’, where there is never enough time for everything checks in at increasing speed. A world where it also leaves little room for spontaneity and for the rational comparison with those who think differently.
The mechanisms identified by Fromm as a characteristic of this “Escape from Freedom” are basically three: authoritarianism, destructiveness and conformity. The first makes us give up our autonomy and individuality as to take refuge under the wing of something bigger, and generally important: external authority precisely. The second mechanism, based on fear, leads us to eliminate in advance what might threaten us, escaping the feeling of helplessness and fragility to put the aggression. Conformism, finally, makes us almost automatons, for which the individual ceases to be himself and uncritically assumes the cultural model that is proposed, blending among others, in an increasingly grigiamente uniform company.
in short, perhaps from an advertising phrase to arrive at the philosophical and political conclusions is a bit ‘too much, after all, attaches far too much importance to a slogan like that. But we should also stop trying just great messages in official speeches or in university textbooks. The truth is that certain content ‘pass’ each day through the media so much less official but more subtle, especially when they turn to a highly permeable public as the youth.
Forward to a guy l’ idea that current technologies are giving us the freedom “no longer have to choose”, in fact, it seems to me an extremely dangerous. Let him understand that you can escape the weight of choice mastering all possible content through a single instrument, on the one hand it tickles the already hypertrophied sense of omnipotence and realization without limitation, the other nails him to a fate of uniformity controlled from the top, and then of authoritarianism.
what is being proposed to the young people, and not only to them, is a globalized society where everything is networked, everything is monitored from a distance, all you can do it anywhere and at any time, maybe at the same time … “is not that great?”, he asks a winking Pif from the spot of the TIM, suggesting that it is just a rhetorical question.
Well no. I, for one, do not find it at all ‘great’ that the maximum of freedom that is granted is to not choose, and then to do without deciding for ourselves and our consciousness. It does not seem at all an exciting prospect to achieve the peace of mind – and intellect – in the light of the ubiquitous screens of any Big Brother.
I just can not get interested or to the idea that letting others choose for us is the best solution or to the equally delusional, that we no longer take the trouble to choose, since now we can have everything. Have it all – we would admonish Fromm – is to accept no longer anything. And this is by no means ‘great’, although it is becoming terribly real … ..
© 2016 Hermes Ferraro (http://ermetespeacebook.com)
this entry was posted here
No comments:
Post a Comment