A cold!

I am sick today -- actually, it started yesterday, Monday, a day when I absolutely could not call in sick to work (wayyyyyy too much junk piled up on my desk and in my inbox last week). I also could not call in sick today. One really draws the frustration of co-workers when one disappears for a week, and then brings back a virus as a souvenir.


So.....WHICH one of YOU did this to me??? ;)

America's Crowded Loneliness

When I boarded my US Airways flight to soar back to Charlotte on Sunday, I was fortunate enough to get a window seat. I'm not crazy about flying, but for some reason I like it better with a window seat (this from a guy who bungee jumped...go figure). The plane was a bit smaller, with only 2 seats on each side of the aisle. A few minutes after I had found my seat, I turned to see a young, black woman joining my row and taking the seat next to me. I watched silently out of the corner of my eye as she stowed her belongings and settled-in. I planned to give her a polite hello, perhaps a nod or a smile...you know, a friendly stranger-to-stranger greeting, especially considering that I was about to spend the next 2+ hours sitting inches from her. Much to my surprise, she stared straight ahead, put on her headphones, flicked on the iPod, pulled her baseball cap low, and completely ignored me. "Oooookayyy..." I thought. Over the course of the remainder of the flight, she switched between various forms of entertainment - iPod, books, magazines, etc., but never once looked at me, spoke to me or even acknowledged me. It was the loneliest ride I've had on an airplane in a long time.

Maybe she just wasn't interested in chit-chat. I can understand that - no one wants to find out the hard way that they are sitting next to a salesman on a long plane ride. Maybe she was really, really shy. Maybe she was afraid of me (just kidding!). Whatever the reason, I tell this story because in a sense, it's an interesting microcosm of the topic I'm considering for my research paper. I'm planning to look at the relatively new phenomenon known in behavorial and psychological circles as "Crowded Loneliness." This is the idea that we are surrounded by potential friends, neighbors, mates, etc., all day long in a very populated nation -- but no one knows anyone or speaks to anyone. We keep people at bay, and they do the same to us.

So.........what causes this? How have we gotten to a point where we live in neighborhoods where no one knows anyone else? (Although Melissa has volunteered to be a source for an exception to that statement). What does this say about America? The phenomenon, from what I've read and heard so far, does seem to be isolated to our country and isn't nearly as prevalent in Asian, Middle Eastern or European nations.

During the week, I had thought about this idea of "the strangers next door" and how it might relate to what seems to be a rapid decline in American patriotism. I'm not sure if or how to continue to pursue those ideas together, or if I should focus more on one and let the other become more cursory. The latter concerns me as I see more and more of my peers losing faith and pride in their nation -- the generation that's basically getting ready to completely inherit and take over the country (Us!), is largely fractured and doesn't seem to believe in America any longer! I'm not saying that the last few years have been the easiest or the greatest for our nation -- but don't we have to hold onto the vision for what America is, what it stands for, what it can continue to be? How do we restore unity and a sense of national pride in our citizens, and then how do we get them to go next door and get to know each other?

Back at home...

Feels a little strange, no? The transition from what we went through to where I am now hit me like a truck in the middle of the night last night. I'd be curious to know if anyone else feels a little rattled by the quick return to "reality."

(For instance -- driving a car for the first time in 8 or 9 days was almost surreal).

I'm not sure why it didn't first occur to me while reading the article, but reading everyone else's comments triggered my memory of the M. Night Shymalan movie (sp?) The Village. Has anyone else seen that? That's, in some ways, a great example of people who didn't like the conditions they were faced with -- so they essentially "moved out" (segregated) themselves, put up a fence, in a manner of speaking, and started over with their own rules. I won't give away too much more, in case no one has seen it, but it's worth watching if you haven't, and I think it strikes an interesting chord in light of our discussions about fences, gates and people's choices about how they want to live, and where.

Completely unrelated to the above...this is kind of on-topic, but kind of different. I found a link to a blog that has photos of the most unbelievable Christmas-time yard decoration extravaganzas. Here's the link if you're interested http://tackychristmasyards.com/. Despite what Bickford would say, I think some of these people need a gate and a fence that is not see-thru.

"I want to live in the countryside but I don't want only farmers to talk to."

Duncan's article was an easier read than the Bickford article, and provided an interesting comparison of something I would suspect may have since become a fairly common condition in our society. In Charlotte, we are seeing this more and more, as our city grows at a break-neck pace. Despite the troubled subprime housing market, demand for residential development is still very strong here, and just about everywhere you go in this city (or county), some development group is responding to the clamor with a vast, new residential spread. In many cases, these new developments (eerily similar to how Duncan has described the Beta areas) are thrown onto what was once farmland in a process so rapid it makes your head spin. Huge tracts of land that formerly held cattle, and, say, a single dilapidated barn are transformed into the latest & greatest from Ryan Homes or Ryland Homes or Centex Homes. Due to this process, I can think of at least 2 specific cases within a few miles of my home where I have seen basically the exact same condition appear as what Duncan's study covers.

So................I may have to reluctantly admit that this type of condition (and study) does give a little more clout to one of the ideas that came out of the Bickford discussions -- that leaving the urban center for suburban (or rural) destinations, and trying to take the city with you isn't necessarily a good thing. While I'm not ready to agree that all suburban development is quite as cantakerous as the worst-of-the-worst cookie-cutter setups, I can concede that there is something to be made of the argument that a landscape invaded and dominated by inhabitants whose social conditioning, expectations and patterns have absolutely nothing to do with what (perhaps) existed there long before them, and is completely at odds with what they are accustomed to, is not necessarily the best situation.

I find a bit of humor in the fact that the study goes as in-depth as to highlight the differences even between the alpha inhabitants' and beta inhabitants' mailboxes! It's hard to argue against the study's findings & conclusions when details as minute as that are quietly giving a visual hint to the strange dichotomy that exists in Bedford.

One last curiosity that came to mind while reading the article -- although this was written in 1973, as far as online social networking goes, which group today do you think uses MySpace, and which one uses Facebook? (Since clearly the two groups can share nothing, nor have even the scarcest trace of an overlapping social network, and we must assume that that trend has continued into the 21st century.)

*****Sorry for the delay....I had written this up on another computer after reading the article yesterday, and then never got around to retrieving it and posting it here!!!***********

What's wrong with the suburbs?

Not too long ago, I took a course at my undergrad institution (UNC Charlotte) that explored, to some extent, the issues that Bickford addresses in her writing. The course was in urban studies, and one of the central themes concerned the rise of what could be called "Sanitized Urbanism" - i.e., town centers, avenues, and mixed-use developments, created on private land by private developers to imitate iconic urban centers and downtowns. One of the most famous of these is right in my own regional backyard - a place called Birkdale Village that was one of the first successful attempts at this kind of development. While these kinds of centers seem to be widely successful from an economic standpoint, one of the criticisms directed at them by my urban studies course (and seemingly by Bickford) is that they are not a true example of the urban mixing ground they are trying to imitate, with their barriers, unwritten rules for what behavior & people are tolerated, private security firms, and Disney-esque cleanliness.

As I did during the course, and will again here with Bickford's article, I have to generally disagree with the notion that this kind of development (typically in suburban settings) is somehow bad for our culture. Are we not in this nation free to do what we want with what is our's, including land? Do we not have the freedom to live where we want and how we choose? That's the beauty of our country. If people choose to live in gated communities, or be part of CIDs (or both), then that's a conscious decision that they are making and are free to make. Why should that option be taken away from them just because a group of thinkers out there like Bickford don't agree that it's in the best interest of everyone else?

When I read or hear writers like Bickford going on about how bad the suburbs are for America, how awful gated communities are, how regrettable it is to have park benches that are not suitable for sleeping on -- I just want to ask them why I should have to live the way they want me to? If that's the stance that they want to have, then they are completely free to do that. But what grants them the authority to say that everyone else needs to share that stance or the culture will fall apart?

Toward the end of her comments, she actually seems to be arguing for allowing governmental authorities to put even more rules in place as to how we should live. Really? The federal government doesn't have enough power already, that we should all willingly lean back in our collective "whatever" chairs and let them make even more decisions for us? That's going to solve our social and political problems?

Admittedly, for me, it was difficult to make it the entire way through Bickford's article without having strong negative reactions to some of her stances & ideas. But, reading the entirety of her remarks at least helped to give her ideas a fair chance at being fully expressed.

Some questions that came to mind while I was reading the article -- where, exactly, does Susan Bickford live or call home, and what kind of community and residential condition is she surrounded by at her abode? Does her "outside" exposure and her circle of confidantes include a variety of people from different ethno-cultural backgrounds, diverse lifestyles and beliefs, and various living conditions; or is her life primarily dominated by UNC Chapel Hill academic-types (by comparison, a relatively sanitized, high-cost, traditional higher-education & private institution)? When is the last time that she left her front door unlocked through the night, without fear (whether she can define that fear or not)?

Test Post

First Post!