LOB Book Club - The Big Sort: Part III
In Chapters 7, 8 and 9 Bishop explores "The Way that We Live" in order to make the point that culture trump tradition in terms of the choices we make about where to live. In Chapter 9, however, he admits that, "Of course, in the strictest sense, place no longer limits the availability of goods. People can rent obscure movies through Netflix and buy books at Amazon.com that their local stores can't afford to stock. Digital technology and cheap transportation have given everyone access to nearly everything, no matter where they live" (p. 201). Bishop dances over this point a bit too quickly for my taste. As someone who has lived outside big Northeastern cities where I might naturally gravitate in order to satisfy my cravings for art movies, used books and avant garde jazz CDs, I can attest to the fact that you can bring the culture with you. What do the rest of you think of this issue?
posted by The Blue Devil @ 3:26 PM
5 Comments:
I agree with you to a certain extent, Blue Devil. While there are certainly many things that we can choose to take with us when we move, there are some we just cannot. I can have lobsters shipped to me in the Midwest, but I can't eat them with the sound and smells of the sea. I can rent an art movie, but I can't watch it in a theater with 45 other afficionados squirming in bad seats.
I would also be hard-pressed to find a liberal congegration to join with on Sundays in Stephenville, TX...
Well, there are certainly trade-offs involved in living in any particular place. Whenever we move (and we've moved a lot in recent years) there are plenty of things that we miss about leaving each place and then plenty of things that we enjoy in the new place. That's life.
I have two main arguments with Bishop's contention that people are increasingly migrating to be among like people:
1. I don't think people have the ability to do this financially. Bishop's thesis doesn't take into account the current economic crisis.
2. I don't think people base their decisions on culture. Most of us move for work, not for culture.
I take your point about proximity, but I doubt whether you really decided to move to Rhode Island to be close to the Olde New Englande Clam Shacke where you can enjoy seafood on the beach. You just take advantage of where you are in the same way that you no doubt took advantage of being in the Southwest by trying out some line dancing.
Am I right about this or crazy?
I have to agree that people don't move long distances specifically to be among like people very often. Probably when they're younger and unfettered by kids, as with the examples Bishop uses of comic book illustrators moving to Portland. We certainly saw a good bit of that in Austin, especially in the 90s.
While we didn't move to RI for purely cultural reasons, we did limit the job search to RI and Maine for cultural reasons. Neither of us really wanted to live in the greater Boston or southern Connecticut areas - we wanted a more rural, "greener" culture away from the rampant commercialism we had endured in Austin. And NH and VT have little to no seacoast, so they were out.
We were lucky in that Bill and I both had good jobs when we decided to move back East. We could afford to be picky. If we had been in dire financial straits, however, and Bill had gotten a great job offer in Slummerville, we probably would have sucked it up and gone back to Boston although I would have hated it and lobbied hard for a move soon after.
As with anything, our life experiences affect our decisions. Your experiences (and mine, to a certain extent) of widespread travel early in life has helped you to find the good wherever you live. Many people, however, don't have a wider world vision and feel extremely unhappy out of their comfort zone. Witness the folks who never left base unless they were on a bus trip, always shopped at the BX vs. going *gasp!* into a British shop by themselves, or think that by screaming English ever louder that they will be understood by a non-English speaker.
I think you're onto something in terms of the generational basis of migration. Bishop's rumination on Seattle did remind me of all the transplants I met in the 80s in Boston who were attracted to the city by its intellectual culture.
Ten years on, though, almost all of my Boston friends are gone. Why? The found that, while they could enjoy living a funky, bohemian lifestyle in group apartments in their 20s, that didn't make sense in their 30s and they started to move out to areas beyond even "Slummerville" (hey, don't knock it!) where they might be able to afford some property.
I also have no college friends still left in large cities. We've all migrated out. Did we all move out for cultural reasons? Perhaps. But I think you're more right in that we've done it in order to afford property and have good schools for our kids.
Post a Comment
<< Home