Response Essay
Shopping a sale is something that most everyone longs to do. I will never forget going to Black Friday in 2014. Black Friday hosts multitudes of sales, particularly sales on technology. When I arrived at 7pm, after Thanksgiving dinner, the line was already down the block and around the corner. Hundreds and hundreds of people were all preparing to the battle for the new television, phone, or headphones. Seeing the seemingly infinite amount of people, all gathered for technology, is something that will stick with me to this day. It’s beyond clear that the urgency for technology is rapidly growing. Society often finds itself divided, questioning whether this urgency is for the good or the bad. In the collection of essays, Changing …show more content…
Every single person is different, and different things work for different people. In Changing the Subject, Birkerts admits that he reads “novels in order to indulge in a concentrated and directed sort of inner activity that is not available in most of my daily transactions. This reading, more than anything else I do, parallels and thereby tunes up, accentuates my own inner life, which is ever associative, a shuttling between observation, memory, reflection, emotional recognition” (148). It’s great that Birkerts has his own way of tapping into his inner concentration; however, he can’t force this on all of society. He believes that if he must read a novel to achieve this, then so must everyone else. It’s simply not true. Music is a known factor to tap into observation, memory, reflection, and emotional recognition. Often times, society uses technology to tap into these things. This is adding to the fact that Birkerts doesn’t cut technology any credit. It has done so many great things for our world, things that’ve made it a better place. Of course he is entitled to his personal feelings; however, these generalizations are bad for our society. These repetitive and tired essays are doing the exact thing he is arguing against. Creating an overfall downfall of society. These claims he’s making are almost dangerous. It’s time for Birkerts, and all of the other anti-technological members, to accept that we are in fact better with technology versus without
Shopping a sale is something that most everyone longs to do. I will never forget going to Black Friday in 2014. Black Friday hosts multitudes of sales, particularly sales on technology. When I arrived at 7pm, after Thanksgiving dinner, the line was already down the block and around the corner. Hundreds and hundreds of people were all preparing to the battle for the new television, phone, or headphones. Seeing the seemingly infinite amount of people, all gathered for technology, is something that will stick with me to this day. It’s beyond clear that the urgency for technology is rapidly growing. Society often finds itself divided, questioning whether this urgency is for the good or the bad. In the collection of essays, Changing …show more content…
Every single person is different, and different things work for different people. In Changing the Subject, Birkerts admits that he reads “novels in order to indulge in a concentrated and directed sort of inner activity that is not available in most of my daily transactions. This reading, more than anything else I do, parallels and thereby tunes up, accentuates my own inner life, which is ever associative, a shuttling between observation, memory, reflection, emotional recognition” (148). It’s great that Birkerts has his own way of tapping into his inner concentration; however, he can’t force this on all of society. He believes that if he must read a novel to achieve this, then so must everyone else. It’s simply not true. Music is a known factor to tap into observation, memory, reflection, and emotional recognition. Often times, society uses technology to tap into these things. This is adding to the fact that Birkerts doesn’t cut technology any credit. It has done so many great things for our world, things that’ve made it a better place. Of course he is entitled to his personal feelings; however, these generalizations are bad for our society. These repetitive and tired essays are doing the exact thing he is arguing against. Creating an overfall downfall of society. These claims he’s making are almost dangerous. It’s time for Birkerts, and all of the other anti-technological members, to accept that we are in fact better with technology versus without