In Conclusion

I have never really been one to overthink how technology, more specifically the internet, has played a major role in how Americans have changed their lives. Not only how their lives have changed, but the way that people make decisions have also changed. No longer are there small towns where everybody knows everybody. Rather there are giant cities where nobody knows anybody. While I would love to be able to go to the grocery store and know the owner and most of the customers, that is no longer realistic in our society.

But why is that??

People have been so focused on the whole "bigger is better" idea and that if you have a steady job and steady income, you have to spend your money on big, expensive things (like a giant house) because thats what you "want."

So where does technology come into play? What role has it played in this transistion to individualism that has occurred in America?

Technology has become an implicit part of every American's life, whether through the internet, cell phones, ipods, etc. Cell phones allow more personal contact with friends and family via calling and texting. Many people use ipods to block out all other noises besides their music. The internet allows people to be a part of something, without actually knowing the other people (blogs, lifestyle enclaves).

Apple has shown us that people want to be individuals, they want to be unique. Thats part of the reason that Apple did so well. It was a new device that allowed people to personalize their devices to have personalities, based on apps, music, movies etc.

Google showed us that people want an easy to use service where they can search for anything, and find answers in one location. It showed us that the data is always right. But it also raised the question of how individualistic are people really? They are believing searches that are determined by algorithms that are written by computer geeks.

Facebook showed us that people want to have connections to the outside world, to other people, but it is not necessary for these connections to be face-to-face. It also again raised the question of how personalized is Facebook? People fill out boxes that Facebook provides regarding biological information: where you live, birthday, interests, hobbies, etc.

Basically, what this class has shown me is that people believe the masses.  In other words, if all your friends are using facebook, then you will want to use facebook. If all you see on facebook is that your friends have been on pinterest or playing words with friends, then you want to do these same things. I think that people in general are still a community, they want to be wanted and have social connections with other people, but it is in more of an impersonal way now then it was in the early-mid 1900s. People can now take care of most of their business online without leaving their homes, rather than always going to the bank or post office to take care of personal business.

Who's fault is it? Lawrence or Technology?

Everybody talks about the Lawrence difference, usually referring to something about the many different personalities and lifestyles that can be found all over campus. But another aspect of the Lawrence difference involves the intense homework that all Lawrentians must complete. To many students by 8th or 9th week, there is a sense of having to be productive at all times. Because there seems to never be enough time to get everything completed in time if you are not always being productive in some way.

My thought is this: Many people say that our generation is very technology dependent. As Rosen mentioned last week in his iDisorder talks, people are more likely to play around on their phone while waiting than simply sitting there in silence. Is this because they are bored? Or, like Lawrentians, have young adults become so preoccupied with making the most of their time, that it is completely unnatural to simply sit without being productive in some way?

So, society has become a very go-go-go atmosphere, for a variety of different reasons, which possibly has led to people becoming more unable to wantingly sit without some sort of stimulation. In order to do what would make themselves "happy", people have become dependent on technology to give them their wanted stimulation.

So has technology or society been the reason that people have changed? Or has technology simply been the medium through which people have changed, but not the actual reason? I think these are interesting questions that people will have different answers for a long time.

Lanier-->Is the Self what YOU want?

Many people, including Bellah, argue that America is becoming more individualized, relying on satisfying one's inner self. There have been strong arguments that technology seems to be helping in pushing people to become more individualized and self-reliant. New platforms, like Google or Amazon, help people to find information about what other people are thinking without actually having to have face to face conversations. But not everybody thinks that technology is helping people become more reliant on the self.

Jaron Lanier's book "You Are Not a Gadget" looks at how technology has influenced people to become not reliant on the self, but rather reliant on what technology says about certain things. For example, in a Ted talk (check it out at the 18:20 mark), Lanier suggests that new technology designs are most effective at self-confusion. We confuse what we really want to fit in with the technology design. He is concerned with the fact that people are letting algorithms recommend friends, movies, and music for us, rather than making decisions about social categories for ourselves.



So Lanier is suggesting that technology is influencing the self, making the community have a larger influence on personal decisions than the actual self. In "You Are Not a Gadget" Lanier makes several key points about what effect current technology can have on people, including this quote about the effects society can have on the decisions of the self.

"Emphasizing the crowd means deemphasizing individual humans in the design of society, and when you ask people not to be people, they revert to bad moblike behaviors.This leads not only to empowered trolls, but to a generally unfriendly unconstructive online world." (pg. 19-20)


Technology superpowers like Google have as their goal to be able to tell what people want based on previous searches and what is popular among other people. This is what Lanier referred to as the crowd, and it deemphasized individual humans because people would would accept what Google offered them was what the majority of the community bought as well, so it must be a good product.

The Internet Disorder

While I was unable to attend the iDisorder presentation by Larry Rosen, I find it very interesting that he has done so much quantitative data on this subject. It is almost like he is using Google's philosophy/technique of deciding whether users like their new products, by using hard data. Google shows new features to some users, and lets the raw data determine whether they decide to implement the new feature or not.

 










Similarly, Rosen used experiments to explore how dependent people were on their electronic devices and social networks. Most notably his experiment where he put people in a room with their phones on the table and made them "wait" for an hour. His data showed that people were likely to go on their phones durng that hours. So his data showed that people are becoming dependent on devices that Google has proven, with data, that people would like and would use often.

My point is that Google followed a scientific system that has worked for ages, and now Rosen is using that same system to prove that people are dependent on Google. So I guess following the cold hard facts will lead you to success.

Rally the Troops!

Most writers/journalists have a point of view that is portrayed in their writings. This is especially true in newspapers, magazines, and as the world becomes more technologically advanced, blogs. While all writings have a point of view, the most popular theme in many writings is trying to motivate people to get involved in a particular cause.

"Small Change" is an article in the New Yorker that compares the strong ties of  personal motivation compared to the weak ties of impersonal motivation, such as via facebook or twitter. Gladwell discusses that strong ties actually produce results, using the example of hte Woodwarth sit-in in the mid-1900s. The four African American friends stuck together in a personal way, which caused their friends to join, and then their friends, and so on. However, the weak ties/friendships that are a result of facebook or twitter do not produce as strong of results because the connection is not as strong. People do not feel compelled to join a cause because they have no personal connection to it. Gladwell calls all of the weak ties that are a result of twitter and facebook a network. There is a lot of people, but not as much individual involvement.

The Egyptian chronicles blog  gives updates on news stories that appear to be unfaithfully reported by the government controlled news. This blogger also puts their perspective on these stories, implying to their readers that they should be out there, involved in some way with the revolution. She also gives the illusion that there are a lot of people out there fighting for the cause right now, and anybody who is reading her blog should join them. Gladwell would suggest that, even though she isnt using facebook or twitter, the Egyptian chronicles blog is a form of weak ties,and while many people may read her blog, there isn't as much action. While I do not know what exactly is going on in Egypt right now, according to this blog, there are many people who are reading her blog and using that as motivation to get out there and fight for the cause.

Facebook and Privacy

Facebook has been dealing with issues of privacy since its beginning. People want to share information with friends, but they don't want the whole world to know about any details of their personal lives. Zuckerberg's main intention with creating facebook was to create a social network where people could have virtual relationships with people. In "The Social Network," one of the uses of facebook that Zuckerberg suggested was to see if people were in a relationship or not, or to get some background information on a blind date.

Last year, Consumer Reports came out with a review regarding Facebook and their privacy issues. One of the most surprising things that this article points out is that Facebook collects data anytime you visit a Facebook page. For example, anytime a person visits a site with a Facebook "like" button, Facebook knows about it. It doesnt matter if you are logged in to facebook or not, they still know that you visited that site.This can help them with targeting for advertisements.

Also slightly nerve-racking about Facebook and their privacy settings is that a friend of your friend can see some of your information without your knowledge or approval. It doesnt matter if you have the restricted settings on or not, they can still see the information.

Some people may not think this is a big deal, but it makes it easier for ID thieves steal identities of people who have specific information on their facebook page. Plus its just plain creepy. You don't really know who is visiting your profile page. There could be creepers, stalkers, and criminals who know everything about you, and sneak up and steal something from you without you having any clue.

So many people use facebook without realizing how unsecure it really is, and it is important for people to be aware and to perform necessary actions to take care of themselves and their identities.

Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs

After viewing “The Social Network”, the movie about the beginning of Facebook, there was a striking resemblance between Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs. Both men showed such strong dedication to their respective companies, but they both also had this feeling that they were above everybody else, including the law.

 Steve Jobs started Apple with Woz, but when they came to a disagreement about where the future of Apple should go, Jobs did what he had to do to make sure that he stayed in control of Apple. Whatever happened to Woz happened, but Apple was going to stay on the path that Jobs had envisioned. According to “The Social Network”, Zuckerberg was also as determined as Jobs to make sure that Facebook continued on his envisioned path. He ignored the fact that he stole the idea from the twin brothers from Harvard, and he ended up diluting Eduardo’s shares. Both of these actions resulted in lawsuits that Zuckerberg would clearly lose.

Jobs and Zuckerberg’s personalities were also very similar. Both were awkward men who said what they thought, most of the time without thinking about how it would affect somebody. This is evident in the many instances where Jobs shouted how one of his employers ideas sucked. In the opening of “The Social Network”, Zuckerberg is on a date with Erica Albright. He says some very harsh things to her, but doesn’t understand why she is reacting with such anger. After she breaks up with him, Zuckerberg proceeds to blog about her, again saying some mean things.

 Both men give off this attitude that they can do or say whatever they want because they know that they are smarter than the average person. Zuckerberg is an excellent programmer, and Jobs has been putzing with computers all of his life. They emit this snotty personality, and many people who do not know them personally take it very offensively.

The main difference between these two men is their motivation for beginning their respective companies. When Jobs saw what Woz had created, his main intention was to find a way to make money from it. He wanted to sell it. Zuckerberg had a different motivation that is more similar to Brin and Page from Google. He wanted to provide a service to people, a social network for people to connect with other people. He didn’t want ads to clutter the page, to alter the users experience. Brin and Page wanted to create a way to search for things on the internet; a search that gave the most popular results and was the easiest for the searcher to use.

Zuckerberg and Jobs have many of the same personality characteristics, but I think their main difference is their motivation. Because they have very similar personalities, they therefore have similar ways of running a business, but their one glaring difference is why Facebook struggled in creating revenue in the beginning, while Apple had revenue from selling their products immediately.

So how does this relate to the ideas of religion? Jobs was more worried with creating revenue, creating products he could sell to individual people. These ideas support the concept of the self. Whereas Zuckerberg was more focused on creating a social network for people, rather than focusing on how to make a profit. He created a virtual community. While Jobs created products for the self, Zuckerberg created a product for the community.

Perfection and Meditation

"The Information" by James Gleick discusses what information really is, if it is really computable, and if, hypothetically, there was a machine that could be created to do all of the possible computing with any given numbers. In order to solve this problem, Alan Turing did something never before considered. He created a machine that had ideal powers, but only existed in his own mind.

And that is what I want to focus on in this post. How Turing basically answered important information-related questions that mathematicians had long been considering, with a machine that only existed in his mind. This would require Turing to have a very focused and logical mind. This idea of being able to focus one's mind to one particular subject also occurs in different religions, especially religions involving meditation.

Buddhist meditation is a classic example of meditiation for enlightenment, or understanding the nature of things. I think this can be similarily correlated with what Turing did regarding information. Followers of Buddhism use meditation to pursue understanding of the nature of the world, meaning they have to be very focused. Turing created a machine in his own mind, requiring him to be very focused on his theories.

Also interesting was Shannon's idea about cryptology. His goal was to create a coding system that was impossible to decode without a certain key. He was able to prove that a perfect coding system was possible, but that to be perfect, that encoding something was basically useless because the receiving end would not be able to understand the code either.

I think that this point can relate to Christianity in the following way. God did not create people to be perfect, so there are no perfect people. This allows people to have emotions. If everybody was perfect, there would be no sadness or fear, meaning that there would be no reason for people to truly feel happy or joy. So in reality, perfection in people would be useless, just as Shannon found perfection in a coding system useless because it would have no real purpose.

Google Takes over the World

So I was looking through the about Google pages that nobody realizes was at the bottom of the Google homepage. And under one of the hyperlinks was a passage labeled "What we do for you." Basically, it just explains how Google's main goal is to provide a perfect search engine, and that it has now expanded to offer actual products to try to make the user's life easier. But the last sentence of this explanation really hit me



"With all our technologies—from search to Chrome to Gmail—our goal is to make it as easy as possible for you to find the information you need and get the things you need to do done."




So maybe you read that, and didn't really think there was anything wrong with that. And technically, in our current world, that is a completely normal sentence. But what really hit me was how technological dependent our world has become. Google has so many different technologies, including Chrome and Gmail. I remember in grade school, having to do science or social studies projects, and having to rely on the encylcopedias that were right next to our chicken soup for the soul books. We didn't even have a computer in the house to consider using the Internet.

Not only are the days of encyclopedias gone, but so are the days of calling family members asking how to do something at home, whether its calling mom on how to do laundry or calling grandma for that amazing recipe. Today everybodys solutions to these problems is to google it.

Google's way of working and knowing what people want is because it collects all of this data from the entire world. People dont have any idea that they are currently test subjects in some sort of huge Google experiment. Even worse, people have no idea how much Google currently knows about them. Personally, I think it would be very scary to consider if something would happen where Google would trade hands/be bought out by somebody else. Having so much information puts you in complete control, and if that control gets in the wrong hands, how many people would be in big trouble because of their reliance on the internet?

Following some of the great pictures regarding Google taking over the world, one of the sites provided 5 weapons that Google has that will eventually lead to it taking over the world. Whether its possible or not, the argument is relatively compelling. Check it out if ya got some time Google Taking Over the World

The User is the Most Important Person

The number one thing that the company Google knows to be true is that they focus on the user, and trust that all else will follow. Whenever Google makes a change to the browser or homepage, they make sure that it ultimately serves the user, rather than there being an internal goal for the company. I think it would be interesting to compare this concept, to put the user/individual first and the goals of the people in charge on the back burner.

For example, lets look at whether the Catholic Church embraces or disregards this concept, in terms of the self versus the community.

Self/Community in the Church
I think it would be safe to say that the Catholic Church stands as a community. It is a place where people can get together, with similar views, and pray. Catholicism's main ideas is the Golden Rule, to do onto others what you would have done onto yourself. There is a feel of unselfishishness about the Church.

But are all aspects of the Church like this? Or does Google have something that might make people feel differently about the Church? As a whole, religion, or faith, is something that people come together and believe in. But for people who are part of a Catholic Church, there are certain things that you have to believe in. In order to become a part of this community, you have to believe in the core values of that faith. Therefore it isn't so much about the individual's beliefs, but rather about what the Church says their beliefs are.

Self/Community in Google
While Google is putting all of its focus on making things easier for the user, the Church is focused on telling people how to think about topics like abortion or the death penalty. If a person wanted to form an opinion on those subjects, they could simply google it, and Google would present them with information from both sides. Google's goal is to make the user happy.

I think the main difference between Google and the Church, besides the fact that one is a company and the other is a religion, is that Google exemplifies beliefs of the self, while the Church focuses on beliefs of the community and getting everybody on the same page.

Interesting...
But this comparison brings another question to mind. The concepts of the self and the community are two different things, but many times they are forced to be mixed. People want to be a part of a community, but they also want to be their own individual. I think that individual people, groups, churches, companies, etc all struggle with finding the perfect balance of the self and the community, whether its in their personal lives or the business world.

While there may be some groups that can provide a common ground for the self and the community, I don't think it is Google.  It provides people with any information they are looking for, no matter what the subject. People are able to then choose a community that best suits them, but based on criteria that they themselves have chosen. Google also has provided a reason for people to talk less, relying more heavily on the self. Rather than calling Grandma on how to make the best pumpkin pie, I could simply google it and get a great recipe for pumpkin pie. It's simpler and less time consuming.

Overall, Google's number one thing it is proud of is that it puts the user first. This idea, in itself, suggests that Google is a strong supporter of the self. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is all about community. People doing things together, believing in the same thing, etc. There is less of a push to please the individuals compared to whats good for the church as a whole.

Apple-Self or Community?

Technology has been a major conributor to the transition of focus from community to the self, and Apple is an excellent example of this. With every new product that they have come out with, from the mac, to the ipod and iphone, to the ipad, Apple has revolutionized the concept of being self-sufficient and independent.

The mac was a personal computer that was user friendly and allowed the user to think creatively. The ipod could hold 1000 songs in your pocket, an idea that allowed people to put in their headphones and not worry about what was going on around them. Ads for the ipod typically displayed a person rocking out to music from their headphones with their eyes closed. The iphone put together a phone, ipod, and internet all in one. Another way for a person to be self-sufficient on whatever they needed. Anything they needed to know was on the internet or a phone call away. The ipad is the ultimate depiction of the self because it is so personalized. There is a big difference between an ipad that is not personalized, such as the ones used by public libraries, and a person having their own. The individual can put on whatever apps, music, pictures etc on the ipad, and find entertainment for hours. The ipad provides a domain to make yourself feel good through entertainment and fun.




While Apple's products have been very influential in the self, you can also see a sense of community when discussing this brand. There is a such thing as the Apple cult, where people who are so obsessed with the awesomeness that is Apple that they stick together, forming a sort of community. ?

But how has Apple been changing as the world/economy changes? Have they been sticking out, or conforming?

I think the answer is both. Steve Jobs has a very good thought process for determining when it is time to do something different, and when it is time to accept the fact that they have to be similar, but I dont think he chooses the latter very often. I think many people would agree with saying that Apple has been a major contributor to changing the world, in regards to technology. It would be interesting to discuss where technology would be today if it wasnt for Apple and Steve Jobs.

The only time I have come across Jobs believing that it is time to go with the times is in regards to the logo. The first logo that was well known was the colorful apple with a bite missing. When Jobs returned to Apple in the late 1990s when the company was failing, he knew he had a lot of work to do. When creating the "new" Apple, Jobs focused on making things simple, look great, and easy to use. But he immediately realized that their colorful apple logo would be an eyesore on the new sleek looking machines. So he went with how the world was changing. The "modern" look was in, and he went accepted that that was the direction Apple had to go with its logo. So his design team came up with the modern looking Apple logo that is seen on most Apple products. To see a more detailed history of the Apple logo, click here!

iPad vs iPod touch

Apple created, in Steve Jobs words, "the greatest product ever" in the iPad. While it has many features that are great, I don't see the real difference between the iPad and iPod touch except size.

One of the big differences with the iPad was its design. The bottom edge was rounded slightly, so the user could comfortably scoop it up rather than lifting with care. But looking at the iPod touch I currently own, it has that same design.

During the launch of the iPad, Jobs said Apple had to find a middle ground between the laptop and iPhone, something that was good at "web browsing, email, photos, video, music, games, and ebooks" (pg. 494). Again, comparing that with my iPod touch, I find it can do all of those same things. The only hinderance is the size issue.

To get to the point, I think it would be very fun to have an iPad. It's a great size to easily play games, surf the web, etc. But at the end of the day, my iPod touch can do all of those same things. So if Apple keeps updating their iPod lines, to have similar features as the iPad, will the need/want for an iPad disappear? Or will people purchase one and not the other? Or do people want the joys of both having an iPad and 1000 songs in their pocket?

Apple and the Gay Movement...What??

While surfing the internet looking for something to talk about regarding Steve Jobs, I came across a LGBT site talking about the history of the gay movement, and I realized that the color combinations for the gay pride flag and Apple are strikingly similar. They use the same bright colors: green, orange, yellow, red, violet, and blue.

 Background

The colors of the rainbow is used for many multicultural movements, but the first time that the rainbow flag was used for the gay movement was in 1978, when it was created, around the same time that Apple was creating its own colorful logo. The rainbow colors stood for pride, with each color representing something. The gay community used this idea of pride to signify that they were proud of who they were and what they stood for. For more information on the gay pride flag, check out this link! Gay Movement Flag

Apple vs. Gay Pride
So, how exactly does gay pride, Apple, and concepts of the self/community come together??
       The different colors of both of these organizations symbols suggests something new and different, but also something that each group is very proud of. All of those colors demand people to look at it, so there's got to be something substantial there to back it up. Apple was coming out with the Apple II and the Mac, while the gay community was beginning to take a more public stance. The Mac and the gay community's public stance both had a major effect on the US, especially in California since both had roots in that state. Did Apple use this color effect first? Or was Steve Jobs and his old hippie self see something inspiring in the gay movement that he wanted to integrate into the Apple/Mac movement?

Self or Community?
But now the serious stuff, where does self and community come into this? I think it is actually pretty obvious. Apple was all about creating the personal computers. Making things simple and easy, so people could do it by themselves, without a manual or anybody else's help. I think that clearly signifies ideas of the self. But the gay movement required a lot of people to come together, to spread the word, and stand together strong. Its final product wasn't an actual thing, but rather helping people become ok with who they are, and letting the world know that there is no such thing as normal. I think the gay movement shows strong signs of community.

Last Thoughts

 While I could be wrong, I don't think Steve Jobs had any conscious thoughts about relating Apple products to the gay movement. I think he simply liked the bright colors and the attention that they demand because he wanted his products to demand that sort of attention. But I do think it is interesting the similarities that can be drawn between the movement  and the way that Steve Jobs created Apple.

Zazen and going "beyond things"

Steve Jobs traveled to the Western countries in the early years of his life to explore the world, and figure out what kind of person he was. He returned to the United States with a powerful belief in Zen Buddhism, and it is obvious of the many ways Buddhism has impacted his life. In particular is his need for simplicity and perfection.

Present! offers a 26 minute video on teachings from Shunryu Suzuki Roshi at the Tassajara Zen Mountain Center. Roshi taught many lessons that are easily seen in the way Jobs lived his life. Especially important was Roshi's lesson on zazen, which was when a person sits absolutely still and does not think. Ideas may come into one's mind, but these ideas may also go out, and that is all OK. I think this relates to Jobs because of the concept of focusing on these ideas. When Jobs thought a product was shit, he did not think about the consequences of voicing his thought, he simply reacted, as if he was in this state of zazen and did not think about what was coming in or out of ones mind. However, this state of zazen is also interesting when thinking about Jobs because of his constant manipulation of people. One day he would say they were brilliant, and then the next day he would go behind their back and call them stupid. He always seemed to be trying to control situations by outsmarting/overthinking people who he believed stood in his way.

Another teaching that is interesting to me was a common Buddhist characteristic, to go beyond things, to go beyond the subjective and objective worlds and the various beings and ideas that we have. When working with Apple, Jobs always demanded perfection from every single person. He wanted people to go beyond what the norm was, to go beyond what was already formed, and to create something that nobody had ever heard of before, something nobody thought was even possible. I think this characteristic was something that had a drastic effect on the way that Steve Jobs lived his life.

Important 3 minute clip relating to this blog:
Zazen and Buddhist characteristic


The 26 minute youtube clip of talks of Shunryu Suzuki Roshi at Tassajara Zen Mountain Center:

Class URL Blogs

Sydney Armstrong

Brielle Bartes

Jacob Bedroske

Jamie Cartwright

Rebecca Dykes

Peter Ehlinger

Najja Gay

Sarah Gettel

Mai Ishii

Robert Jones

Jennifer Krueger

Amber Lisowe

Mark McKee

Will Mihill

Anna Nelson

Joe Pegorsch

Chris Schmidt

Erik Seidel

Alli Sickinger

McKenzie Walker

American Individualism...Your First Language

When speaking of first and second languages, people automatically assume that they are referring to a form of communication, a vocabulary. However, Bellah et al. refers to first and second languages when describing the moral vocabulary that Americans have, which I found very interesting. Bellah et al. suggest that the first language of American individualism, or of this moral vocabulary, is a sense of religious values that focus on the community and the self. People consider situations and then make decisions based on what is best for their self. Even if that person decides to volunteer, an act that many people would say is actually selfless, there is still a strong sense of doing something to benefit the self. When asked why a person volunteered, typical answers can include "it felt good to give some of my time/skills to others" or "I felt bad for them, so I had to help" or "I had a sense of obligation (from a group they are a part of)." In each case, the real reason people decide to volunteer is because it makes them feel good, so there is some sort of personal gain involved. Bellah et al. also suggest that this first language of moral vocabulary is universal in America. Everybody has this sense of doing things that will benefit them in some way down the road.

The second language of moral vocabulary are actual religions, such as Lutheran, Islam, Catholicism, etc. However, it is interesting to note that some of these religions have taken this American individualistic vocabulary and integrated it into religion. An example of this are religious youth groups. Some churches will form these youth groups, with promises of taking trips or making things. For some children, the only reason they are a part of these youth groups is because they will be getting something out of it. They put in the time going to church and learning about a particular religion, but at the end of the day their only interest is what they are going to get out of it for themselves. This suggests that the idea that the second languages are derived from the first language is plausible, because people are still looking at how being a part of a religion/church will benefit themselves.

Live every day like its your Last

In Steve Job's 2005 Commencement speech to Standford graduates, he left them with 2 quotes that I find both impressive, and idealistic of the concepts of individualism that is described by Bellah, either utilitarian or expressive. The first quote offered by Jobs was "If you live each day as your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." Jobs followed this quote with asking himself everyday if today was his last day, would he be happy with what he was about to do that day. And if there were too many days in a row where he was not happy with what he had planned for the day, he knew he had to change something. This gives an insight into the way that Steve Jobs lived his life. He wanted to live everyday as if it was his last. He wanted to improve himself everyday. The espressive individualist focuses on the cultivation of the self to become happy with the way that one lives their own life. Bellah explains that the expressive individualist focuses on the fulfillment of the self. With this quote, Jobs is stressing to the graduates that they should be happy with how they live their own life everyday in a very expressive individualist perspective.

The second quote that Jobs leaves the graduates with is from "The Whole Earth Catalog." This catalog's last message to its followers was simple and straight forward, but also adapts a more utilitarian individualist persepctive. The quote was "Stay hungry, Stay foolish," suggesting that people should strive for new things for themselves, looking to better their situation in any way possible. The utilitarian perspective is more focused on material success rather than the fulfillment of the inner self that is stressed by expressive utilitarianism. I think it is interesting that Jobs tells these graduates to stay foolish, because he often chose the route of perfection in his designs for Apple, especially regarding the Mac. I feel like the term foolish has the connotation of imperfection or producing a rushed result, which Jobs would never have accepted.

Technological Shortcuts

Many people consider technology as an improvement in a person's daily life. But really, most of technology allows a person to be completely reliant on themselves, without the help of anybody else. For example, the smartphone has all of these apps which appear to better the individual, but with no personal contact with any other human being. There is an app to help a person with their diet, to remind them to exercise, and online shopping apps. Some phones even have a voice activated system that talks back to the owner. I'm not saying smartphones are a bad thing, many of my friends and family members own one. They can come in handy when lost by using the gps system it contains, and it is a good source of communication, via texting, talking, or emailing. But the American ideal of individualism can be easily seen in the way technology allows a person to become even more self-sufficient, and not have to rely on the help of others for their own personal goals.