'Pay to Play' society and fashion: not just a neoliberal concept

Theorists claim that neoliberal society, in which individuals feel an increased responsibility for themselves, has paved way for ‘pay to play’ society. This concept refers to the idea that within society we now need to spend money in order to participate within society’s conventions. For example, the expansion of the housing rental market has resulted in individuals paying for temporary shelter as long as they can afford the rent prices; ownership is temporary. I first read about this concept a couple of years ago and I was reminded about it earlier today when playing music through YouTube. I usually listen to music through logging into either my sister’s or partner’s premium membership with Spotify. However, I began to think that YouTube provided a reliable, free, source of music if for some reason I could access Spotify either through forgetting passwords or through these being cancelled. This prompted me to think about my search for stability within a subscription filled music business. With the rise of Spotify brought services such as Apple music and MTV music, the same pay for a month of ad free and downloadable music. For some reason I did not get a sense of permanency with these pay to listen services. I was searching for stability within neoliberal pay to play society.  After reflecting upon this, I started to think about other areas of my life which involved regular upkeep; the ideology behind the ‘pay to play’ concept. I looked to my own personal list, on Google Keep, of what I needed to do: get my eyebrows shaped and tinted, dye my hair, self-tan and get my nails done. Indeed, with each one of these tasks, the result is temporary: hair grows, tan fades and nails chip. Each one of these tasks comes at a financial expense and the upkeep of my own beauty ideals comes at a cost. My body itself is engaged within pay to play society.

In a similar manner, recently I have been watching a lot of videos, mostly Buzz Feed - an entertainment website dedicated to trendy news and ‘life hacks’, about beauty and music trends in the last 100 years. These included: common eyebrow shapes, the ‘ideal’ figure of the decade and dance moves throughout the last century. Of course, comments on the videos disputed some depictions of fashion within certain decades. However, the point I wish to focus upon is it was interesting to see how pay to play society was a feature of the so-called ‘modern’ era of stable mortgages and the ‘golden age of the family’. As such, pay to play society is not a foundational concept of neoliberalism, but rather the foundation of fashion. Fashion has penetrated every type of society, as Simmel states, fashion is a social relationship between the individual and society at any given time. Therefore, it is important that concepts related within neoliberalism are not just confined to this type of society. Indeed, it may be true that sociological concepts, such as the pay to play society, are fluid in essence. Every version of society does not have a concrete set of sociological concepts that relate to it. Pay to play is not a new phenomenon; it is simply represented in a different way within current times.

The ‘cultural omnivore’ in a new light: hybridizing digital and paper forms of organisation

At the start of this year, I observed a colleague at another school, it was then that I began my mission to go completely digital. Unlike me, the colleague kept all of his organisation online: his marking, lesson planning, details of meetings. His lesson inspired me to stop lugging my heavy bag, filled with three different paper diaries and my current reading book, around everywhere I went.  I set off on my challenge: I saved meetings and important dates in my Google calendar, I used an online tool for lesson planning and all of my lesson resources were saved on Google Drive. I had gone completely digital and I was loving how light my bag felt. I felt like I was the protagonist in an Apple or Google advert for cloud computing with capitalism on my side. However, this feeling did not last. After a couple of weeks I started to miss my home crafted diary where I could decide the exact colour, format and style of my calendar. The shininess of my digital devices faded to reveal a dulled cold metal. Although the use of the internet is now rife in society, knowing that everything I needed was online became unsettling; the lack of physicality of my objects and the instability of the online world drove me back to my analogue forms of organisation. One can only look at the stories about the NHS Malware last week to begin to see the risks associated with cloud computing. As such, I abandoned my efforts of cloud computing in favour of my old paper based diaries and USB for the feeling of control.

So now as I write this, tempted towards cloud computing again, my life is scattered across both digital and analogue forms of organisation. I have un-touched to do lists on my Google Keep from February. I have documents, spreadsheets and PowerPoints on both One Drive and Google Drive accounts. I have half started and missing weeks within my paper diaries. Only now am I beginning to pick up the pieces of my double life. I cannot say that now I will favour one method over the other. The use of Google Keep for generic to-do lists together with paper post-it notes with my shopping lists gives me the best of both worlds. My new approach is the use of my Google accounts for scheduling but paper based forms of lesson planning. As I try to make sense of my new organisational set up, I can only identify this feeling with what I have read about the cultural omnivore. Although, this sociological concept involves consuming a mixture of capital from highbrow to low brow, I identify with this on an organisational level. I am mixing my methods of media – on one side is the traditional analogue forms and the other is the new, trendy, cloud computing. Switching between my Google Drive and physical post it note shopping lists, I am embracing both sides of the spectrum. 

It is not just my organisation in which the preference between digital and analogue becomes blurred. During my time at University I took a module about popular culture which detailed how the digital era has been changing the way people consume culture. I will always remember Dave Beer, the lecturer, asking us - if we are turning into a digital society with eBooks, kindles, why do most people continue to buy physical books? This question has been on my mind ever since the lecture. The Guardian (2017) suggested on 13th May that the sale of books has risen to the highest in four years whilst eBooks has declined. When I heard of this news this got me thinking about Beer’s question again. When reflecting upon this, I can see the benefits of both digital and analogue forms of media. Both forms fix the other’s downfalls: I love the portability and greenness of digital whilst also the freedom of scribbling on a piece of paper. It would be interesting to see how my organisation changes again in the next few months and to see what experiences, like the observation, shape these decisions. 

Reference:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/13/printed-book-sales-ebooks-decline

Gender, Age and Technology in ABC’s Modern Family

I have just finished watching Modern Family Season 6 Episode 16 “Connection Lost”, throughout watching this I could not help but view certain scenes from a sociological perspective. This episode was a prime example of sociology in everyday life through the interplay of social characteristics such as gender and age with concepts of capitalism and new technology. It provoked me to flesh out these thoughts within the words below, no knowledge of Modern Family is required to follow my thoughts.

This 20 minute episode saw a side story which revolved around Claire, a mother to three teenagers and wife to a ‘Realtor’ (an American estate agent), and her perspective on a family issue. Although Claire was physically away from her family at an airport in Chicago, the medium of screen casting (digitally recording a computer screen) on her Apple laptop, the whole cast was seen throughout the episode. The plot developed through Facetiming, messaging on Facebook and searching Google. Indeed, this episode creatively shows how ubiquitous digital forms of communication has become, social media is the dominant form of communicating with others. The mere fact that an entire episode uses an Apple laptop to explore a storyline advocates this point. This was a clever idea from the writers, this difference provokes me as a viewer to watch more attentively and relate to the use of sponsored social media use, the only thing missing was the use of emojis.

Indeed, this did provoke a conversation between myself and my partner: we joked how much Apple, Facebook and Google must have paid for the sponsorship or what the writers got in return. There is no doubt about it that this advertisement worked, I bought into Claire’s life, I wanted her laptop, I wanted to use the websites she did, have the applications that she had open, and effortlessly socialise with my family whilst at an airport for who knows what reason. The fact that we do not know why Claire is actually at the airport adds to the craving of this glamorous ‘on the move’ life. Upon reflection, my desire for this does reflect Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism: the idea that physical objects that are bought and sold, such as a laptop, have characteristics that they do not hold outside of societal context. For instance, the Apple laptop for me, as a viewer of this episode, hold the power of effortlessly socialising which instigates my desire for the object. This is the foundation of capitalism, buying a ‘life’ through material possessions to achieve the capitalist desires that are advertised throughout media. Of course, I do not want to discredit Modern Family as a driving force of capitalism. Whilst I was under the mystical powers that this form of commodity fetishism encapsulates, my partner was critical and argued against the use of Apple in comparison to Android. Indeed, one could argue that the avocation of android is no different and this still involves capitalist values in some way but the mere fact that we both reacted in different ways to this promotions shows how this sociological concept should not be definitive.

This episode also struck me with how it related gender and age with technology. As technology was obviously at the forefront of this episode, we saw Jay, the 60 something year old father to Claire struggle with technology. He would often answer face time by putting the phone to his ear or accidentally calling Claire on Facetime when he thought he was taking a video. Such portrayals positioned Jay as the self-proclaimed stereotypical ‘old man out of touch with new technology’. Indeed, it was not only Jay that was the victim of social pressures of being tech savvy, Claire identifies herself as this to avoid a fight with her husband. When Claire hangs up on Phil’s, her husband, Facetime whilst he plays Halo, Phil is upset and askes Claire why. Claire responds “Oh you know me, I don’t get Computers” whilst effortlessly multitasking with shortcuts on her laptop. The juxtaposition of this confession with the fact that the viewer can see the tech skills that Claire is exhibiting on her laptop fuels the comedic value of the show. Through playing up to her gender and position within her family, she is playing societal norms to her advantage. The very fact the writers include this for comedic value shows that not only is this gender norm now being challenged within the media but also the mother is positioned as knowing how to play society so she ‘win’.

Overall, I believe the writers of this episode got it spot on. The intrigue that the episode offered due being different sparks the viewer to watch and buy into Claire’s digital life. Indeed, it provokes me to think, could the writers get away with creating a whole series based around screen casting now that the communication has become so ubiquitous in everyday life and within the modern family?

Reference for Marx's Commodity Fetishism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/ch05.htm