Friday, December 10, 2010

Cool – Just Be

What is cool, and how does one know it? Who decides it and who produces it? Few dictionaries do a good job defining the phenomenon to its degree; nonetheless, it is unmistakable yet supremely elusive. Those that exemplify it cannot pinpoint it, and those that imitate it cannot tell for sure that they have it right even when the resemblance is impeccable. Cool seems like a masterpiece that only fits its origin; leaving the fakers condemned to their insecurities. Cool would be great merchandise if only one could buy it, but then that will not be cool anymore. This remains one of the puzzling elements of cool - just a little more or less, and it loses its cool. So what is cool?
The November 2001 issue of Wired magazine highlights cool as a revolutionary force in the history of cultural and technological production. “Attempting to capture cool is a trap,” the section begins. "Cool has emerged as a series of movements, an unwavering stance of individuality, and more recently, a flash of red-hot radiation.” Even though one supposedly cannot name cool, the pages that followed map an ideal that included items as distinct as James Dean, television, cocktails, and Miles Davis' Birth of the Cool (Rice). The same holds true with the experience during my personal interviews on the subject. Everyone described cool with examples rather than a definition. One of them said, “Cool is a beautiful car or limo,” then when I asked if every 'beautiful car or limo' is cool, the answer was obvious and even facially expressed, no. Andrei Santos, a good friend, explained that cool was not that easy to pinpoint. The case is true with PBS's 2001 video on 'The merchants of cool'. The narrator, almost as though puzzled, said, “… cool keeps changing so how do you map it - pin it down?” Cool is indeed that difficult to snap into one definition, but the attributes of cool keep it distinct. For one thing, cool beautifully exudes and communicates inspiration.
 Something so glorious will indeed attract hunters. Thus, everybody wants to be cool. PBS logically calls this search 'Cool Hunting', which Malcolm Gladwell, a writer for The New Yorker and best-selling author, defines as structured around the search for a certain kind of personality and player in a given social network. This search of cool is why the Internet is full of tips and nuggets on how to be cool. Cool has become the epitome of self-esteem and confidence; the one everybody wants to know; the ideal personality - and most of all, the one virtue that commands a craze in every cranny of the earth. Every ethnicity, class, and people know, understand, and respect Cool, even though its appearance in diverse situations and cultural context differs. Cool remains that rudimentary quality that inspires admiration. One of such inspirations, as at least morphed by good marketers, is that many buy their products. Hence, many marketers have tried and still try to use cool as the final commuter of their finished goods or services because, as one would imagine, when cool has it, everyone wants it. This especially comes to mind because of the generation we live in today - the pop culture generation. Consequently, big corporations trying to transcend into unchartered territories, like the teenage mind, have found it imperative to accept and study the foreign overlord Cool.
Cool, nonetheless, remains elusive. One only knows it when he or she finds it, but the paradox of cool hunting is that it kills what it finds. As soon as people and marketers discover cool, it stops being cool. Thus, Malcolm Gladwell's statement, “By discovering cool, you force cool to move on to the next thing.” In effect, the faster one shares cool, the more one forces the person who has it to move on. This is the life cycle of cool, but an interesting twist is that just as in bush fallow or shifting cultivation, a previous cool sometimes relives but dies out again. Thus, the slogan is simple: “If your neighbors are in on it, it can't be cool” (Rice). The earlier discussed Wired magazine article from November 2001 concluded the advertisement with a homage to technology. “Media multiplied. Technology shifted gears” (Rice). These media help beam and replicate cool from one location into hundreds of million homes, tracked and data-processed. This makes the spread of cool extremely fast, perhaps with its imminent death. When cool dies, its artifacts, such as our aforementioned car and limo, gadget, party, etc., starts to lose their inspiring cover.
So who determines cool? Big businesses work tremendously hard to be the dominant influence of cool. This has led to the creation of firms now known as Cool hunting firms that Malcolm Gladwell describes in his March 17th 1997 article entitled The Coolhunt:
“A coolhunting firm is a marketing agency whose exclusive purpose is to conduct research of the youth demographic in the areas listed above. They then compile their data and produce reports detailing emerging and declining trends in youth culture as well as predictions for future trends. These reports are then sold to various companies whose products target the youth demographic. They also offer consulting services. Coolhunting firms often provide services for some of the largest corporations in the world.” (gladwell.com)
Therefore, from this research, corporations learn about the life of the regular youth in his or her natural habitat or environment. Armed with this information, the business makes and then promotes new products that will appeal to the youth. Brands like Sprite and Reebok have even married a culture, pop-culture, with their brand under the commonality of cool. These cool hunting firms enable the corporation to feed, literally, the youth with what they really want, but not without its downside. Gladwell also asserts, “This is the first rule of the cool: The quicker the chase, the quicker the flight.” In other words, the act of discovering what is cool is what causes cool to move on, which explains the triumphant circularity of coolhunting: because we have coolhunters, cool changes more quickly, and because cool changes more quickly, corporations need coolhunters (Gladwell). This remains true because of the paradox of cool, if everyone is cool, then it ain't cool. Cool is not a philosophy. Cool is even a difficult thing to quantify because it is not a science; “it is really a question of how much you trust the one doing your interpretation and how good their instincts are…” (Gladwell). Thus, the fine gamble line remains for corporations to dare.
If the cool hunters are the determinants of cool, the media is a leading producer of cool. Networks and Television channels like Viacom and Disney have become the trendsetters of cool, shrines where consumers turn to know the next cool. These cool makers idealize celebrities which, in turn, show or tell their audience what clothes to wear; what beverage to drink; and even how to talk. The fad catches on and the ball starts rolling with the innovators and early adopters until it spreads to the early and late majority and becomes uncool. By this time, the media, through further research, would be talking about the new cool, and the hunt continues - for both consumers and producers. Hence another paradox of who influences whom; is it the media by its consumer research, or the consumers who facilitates the research?
Certainly, the appreciation of cool has evolved from James Dean's rebellious image in 'Rebel Without a Cause' to today's sophisticated media and culture. No person or agency has successfully boxed it. The addictive spectral element continues to elude all that hunts it, and its effect for finders are short-lived. Marlene Connor in her book entitled “What is Cool?” states about cool, “It means everything and nothing at once.” How can anyone attain something that is both “everything” and “nothing”? Perhaps hunting is a close answer. Nonetheless, cool shows itself in every field and industry. It is like an allusive piece of life that is both scarce and ubiquitous. Perchance, the delusion might be from how it is both recognized and commonly perceived. However, certain kids like those at Harlem, the Bronx, and others immersed into culture are undaunted by the concept. This is probably because of cool's connection with art and culture. Such kids are often trend-setters; always with the new cool or just fabricating it for the early adopter and then the early majority that eventually forces these kids to move on to the next cool. I remember going to shop with a friend of mine. Shanna was the kind of girl that looked good in everything she owned. As we walked down the sports section, she picked up a headband and stood still - obviously absorbed. Then, trying to remain composed, she started with a voice that gave her thrill away, “oh Dili, isn't this the coolest band ever?!” Her 'ever' was strong and emphasized, her eyes still glazed on the band. I nodded. She then gave me a quick gaze as though not buying the act. “This,” she started, but was then interrupted by another woman who suddenly appeared in the section we were at, accompanied by a store assistant. The woman pointed to the same heap of headbands that had impressed Shanna. It turns out she wanted to buy a good quantity of the bands. “My students look adorable in these,” she said turning to us, “we are going camping, and these would make an outstanding theme for my class.” As we all politely smiled, Shanna slid away. When I finally caught up with her I asked, “Hey, how about your headbands?” In a reproving manner, she slurred, “That's is soo 30 seconds ago.”






Gladwell, Malcolm. "Gladwell Dot Com - the Coolhunt." Gladwell Dot Com - Malcolm Gladwell, Blink, Tipping Point and New Yorker Articles. 17 Mar. 1997. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.gladwell.com/1997/1997_03_17_a_cool.htm>.

Connor, Marlene K. "What Is Cool?: Understanding Black Manhood in America." Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.amazon.com/What-Cool-Understanding-Manhood-America/dp/0972456236>.

Rice, Jeff. "What Is Cool? Notes on Intellectualism, Popular Culture, and Writing." CTheory.net. 5 Oct. 2002. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=338>.

"News Public Affairs Player: Video." The Merchants of Cool. PBS. Frontline, 27 Feb. 2001. PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p70&continuous=1>.

"Wired Magazine." A Special Advertising Section. November (2001): ix-xv.p. ix. Print.

Lasn, Kalle. Culture Jam: The Uncooling of America. New York: Eagle Brook, 1999 pgs.xiii-xiv.

"What Is Cool." Interview by Dilinna C. Francis. Andrei Santos. Live.

"What Is Cool." Interview by Dilinna C. Francis. Wendy Akeru. Live.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Hardly Religious (Script)

hardly
religious

Who got God into a fight?


Is it religious or is it political? The media all over, including the Internet, refers to it as a religious conflict: the unending fight between the Nigerian Christians and Muslims. It has cost many lives and has crippled development especially in northern Nigeria. Nonetheless, those that live within the inflamed areas can easily recognize that it is barely religious; in fact, it is political. It is another instance of the eternal struggle for control as distinct sects continue to seek their dominance in a place. However, in a culturally diverse country where religion loosely defines the common values among ethnic groups, the same becomes an easy excuse for many otherwise political conflicts.

It was sometime in the month of May 1999, and my otherwise pleasurable childhood was about to get a new meaning. The traditional ruler of the town had died, and the town now wanted to crown a new leader. The problem, however, was that this new ruler was not a native of the small town; nor was the late king, but at some point in the history of this town, probably after an Islamic invasion, the town got under the rule of the foreign invaders, and it remained that way until now. The natives of the town, largely Baptists, decided that the new king must now be one of their own - a king that would truly uphold their native culture. Of course, this held no justification for the immigrants who insisted that it would remain business as usual. There was the tug-of-war. On the inauguration day, the natives started a peaceful protest and mounted roadblocks to thwart the occasion. Matters declined to confrontations and verbal assaults as the New-settlers responded to the roadblocks and tried to move them. Then, a group of New-settlers ambushed and disbanded the demonstrators killing one in the process.

Word of the mortality spread and other demonstrators took to flight as an armed group of the New-dwellers paraded the streets clearing all the blocks. They armed themselves with all kinds of primitive weapons: daggers, machetes, arrows, etc. It was a deadly sight and one could tell that they were ready for violence, but not the kind that hit them. Unknown to them the natives had prepared for battle but decided to head-off with a peaceful demonstration first. Their flight and subsequent eerie silence was in their regrouping and preparation for a brutal comeback. In their sudden appearance, they fell on the New-settlers like a torrent and slaughtered many in revenge. This was the beginning of three awful days of bloodshed on both sides. Since the New-dwellers were majorly Muslims, the natives burnt down many Mosques and the overwhelmed Muslims, in effect, took on a few small churches. Again, what was otherwise political morphed into a religious conflict, nonetheless, the participants of the fight remained constant, that is only the natives and 'Muslims' contended in the conflict; Muslims because of Islam's political assertion in the situation, plus, the fighting New-dwellers were all Muslims and connected their insistence to the Islamic cause. Both fighting parties considered the Christian non-indigenes as neutral, which shows again that the fight was not primarily religious

I had never seen such chaos in my life - people so violent and resolved to kill one another. Most amazing of all was that it all built up in front of my eyes: a peaceful demonstration and a day off school turned sour and suddenly became a nightmare and I could not wake up. I closed my eleven-year-old eyes often, and had never wished more the power of flight – the air kind, but every time I opened them, the day was still as black as prior. Screens of imminent death sickened me as I heard people that I might have known in this small town torture one another to death. A periodic silence that followed was suspicious and sinister because all kinds of shouts would suddenly shatter the silence. As I watched houses burn and crumble back into their foundations, I imagined my home in a similar situation and felt the loss of others. The police had not shown up because the carnage was no doubt beyond their training and control. I died many times over within the three days of this battle, and every time I lived again, death became a casual acquaintance whose visit could not trouble me further.

The fight nonetheless had some riveting twists – still weird to conceive. Throughout the three days of this conflict, all fighting and killing would usually stop at some time in the evening. Then as though from nowhere, the neutral people would surge out perambulating freely as though inspecting the damages and effects of the day's battle or checking up on a friend. I was at home with two relations and a Nanny; Dad had travelled out of town two days earlier. We were among the neutral folks, and I still remember those evening strolls. We walked around with others looking at burnt corpses and fallen houses. This was not what one would call a pleasant walk; it was a necessary walk because people were everywhere, a rare moment in those three days, and perhaps a delusive sense of security. Something about the atmosphere outside told the gory stories that had occurred in a thick and tangible way. Everyone looked as nothing was happening, but even a stranger could spot the choreography. People like spectators walked around, greeting each other and discussing whatever they had seen. Some even referred others to 'an exhibition' they found appealing, perhaps appalling. This recess or 'social hour' lasted for about an hour or two. Then, as though alerted by an innate whistle, the town turned ghostly again as night fell. There were momentary screams at night, but most of the combat happened during the day. Throughout the period of battle, this odd routine continued.

After three days of carnage, the State government finally declared the town to be in a state of emergency. Consequently, the State deployed a military unit and set a daily curfew for 9pm: after nine, no one was to be in the streets or open. As the military arrived on the fourth day, many people heralded as they paraded. Apparently, the patrol had strict instructions to kill on sight any troublemaker irrespective of the purpose or side. That afternoon lasted with the sound of more sophisticated guns in the air and tear gas as the military dispersed the combatants. The sound of a gun would never sound better in my ears for the rest of my life! The madness finally ended. The dust gradually settled over the week. It was indeed delightful to see friends and neighbors again especially the Muslims who were the most victimized during the fight. In addition, school reopened, and students, which represented all sides of the story, eagerly resumed to hear the accounts of others and share theirs. A lot of myths and legends concerning the fight led to mysteries and fictions. As one could tell, these tales quickly became popular in school.

The war had ended leaving in its trail the destructions and sorrows it wrought. The embers of those days still plague the now dysfunctional town. More importantly, my nightmare was over, and the consequent relocation of many, including my family, was a breeze. Nonetheless, something had happened to my young mind. I started to wonder what it is like for those in Israel and Pakistan. I thought of Iraq, Afghanistan and, in fact, some other parts of Africa like Somalia - a country that I cannot remember ever knowing for peace. It still puzzles me how the individuals in those countries feel about a daily turbulent life. How would they define life or describe earth to a Martian? One of the traumatic effects of such instability in a society is the uncertainty that loved ones seen in the morning might be no more in the evening. I thought and still think of countries and cities in an unending conflict and battle – where children younger than I was at the time are even oppressed – where killings are arbitrary, cruel and senseless. This brings to mind a neighboring country where the rebels simply amputated their victims; another example of areas where the dispute has no neutral ground - the neutral people are the victims of both sides. It is pathetic and stomach-turning even to imagine, yet it is the exact world another knows – that could have been me. Sweet people: men, women, and children at birth find themselves in a cruel world where they live more vulnerable than the wildlife producers in the food chain. The taste of those bitter days inexplicably lingers in my tongue; a taste that even an enemy does not deserve. Welcome to the world, that is all the callous hearts of those exposed to this life unemotionally utter, but what world is that?

As the world develops in many ways including technology, humankind has refused to excuse weapons of mass destruction from the development. It plagues the human race as though an inevitable self-destruct button to end it all in a swoop. These contentions are usually for prominence and dominion over other people. Nonetheless, the world has become a place where religion easily identifies diverse peoples under a common lifestyle based on the rudiments of their shared beliefs. Religion has become the common culture of the world. When two people of different backgrounds meet whether in the same town or overseas, the moment they identify a common faith they almost cease to be strangers. Suddenly, there is an awareness of some cultural similarities and mindset. Besides, religion tends to produce a transcultural bond among otherwise diverse people. On the other hand, people engage in warfare based on differences and the craving for more power; however defined. It is clear that one hardly fires a rifle at another because of his or her methods of worship. The fundamental purpose of war over the ages remains constant: Territory, the effort of one kingdom to perpetuate its culture and sovereignty in another land (Munroe). The populous Nigerian conflicts are no different.

According to the BBC survey called “WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF GOD”, Nigeria is one of the most religious countries in the world. In addition, these conflicts, as many others around the world, are territorial especially considering the over two hundred different cultures that make up the country that is hardly as large as Texas. Nonetheless, since there are no atheists in foxholes (Morrow), faith in a divine being for help inevitably brings in religion into the propaganda as God suddenly became indispensable to America during the cold war with the communist Soviet Union. This certainly makes the struggles appear religious even when the contentions are incongruous with the individual faith of the opponents. It seems like war will always stay with humanity, and as long as the belief in deity lingers, every war will somewhat be religious.



Morrow, James. "Quotations about War"
     Quote Garden. 09 September 2010. Web. 08 October 2010.

BBC Survey. "What the World Thinks of God"
     BBC Press Office. 26 February 2004. Web. 08 October 2010.     <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/02_february/26/world_god.shtml >

Barker, Eileen. "What is religion?"
     The Big Question. 25 November 2004. Web. 08 October 2010.     <http://www.open2.net/historyandthearts/philosophy_ethics/religion110904.html>


"BBC/OU Open2.net - Philosophy & Ethics - What is religion?" www.open2.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2010 <http://www.open2.net/historyandthearts/philosophy_ethics/religion110904.html>.

Hardly Religious (PDF)

Hardly Religious