Summary Of Electric Funeral By Chuck Klosterman

Villainy and Virtue of Technological Process

It is 2018 and the world is moving faster and faster every day. Clicking, typing, swiping and texting; with more to come. Every year there is a new iPhone, and every model has more storage, clearer cameras, and more accessibility overall. Young adults are interested in majoring in a technology-based field. Not necessarily because they are so interested in learning it, but because the technology industry is booming. There is nothing anyone can do to alter the speed of technological advancement. Chuck Klosterman elaborates on this idea in his short essay, “Electric Funeral.” His viewpoint is that no matter how much people miss the old world, it does not matter because “the future makes the

rules” (224). Therefore, everyone is better off accepting the inevitable. Although people cannot do anything about the augmenting world of technology, it does not justify the evil and harmful posts people are able to upload about others.

First and foremost, it is critical to discuss and unpack the ethics behind online gossiping. The way Klosterman describes online gossiping is by using the word villainy. However, villainy is typically defined as cruel or wicked behavior. In his essay, Klosterman discusses what makes a villain in regards to the online world. Specifically, Klosterman states, “The reason Perez Hilton became a villain was because the intersection of those two qualities: It wasn’t just the content, and it wasn’t just the success. It was the creeping fear that this type of content would become the only way any future person could be successful” (226). This interpretation of villainy is quite different than what most would consider. When people hear the

word “villain”, specifically with respect to technology, they would simply pair the word with the online bullying that has become such a problem in recent history. However, Klosterman’s explanation of villain, intriguing and reasonable, describes an individual who not only gossips, but also presents as an example to millions of people for future generations to come. Perez Hilton’s empire focuses on celebrities, and he unapologetically shares a post that could hurt their profession, which ultimately could be their entire livelihood. The influence that Perez Hilton has is unnatural for one single person to have. It is because he is online, and the online world is open to everyone, and it is the people online who fuel his fame and success. The targeted audience has no regard what they contribute just by sharing Hilton’s posts, or simply just by viewing them. Which means the targeted audience does not even fathom or realize their influence. Therefore, villainy is a matter of ethics.

Although technology improves life regarding various aspects, it also possesses the ability to lose a person’s true virtue.

Before text messaging and emailing existed, everyone had their conversations in person, or at the very least, over the phone. Perez Hilton is an individual who acquires the photos and personal information of celebrities in an online gossip format. The articles he writes may not be true or simply skewed, nevertheless the people read and interpret the information to be true because of the credibility he portrays. Every article has a well written article of how the given “issue” played out, and he follows his posts with photos, which almost always confirms an individual’s doubts. Hilton embodies this movement and still so, others copy as a trend. The keyboards on devices allow people to hide their true identity as easily as they allow you to speak negatively when an individual is right next to you. However, Hilton does put a name to the empire, but he still does his work on a keyboard where he is unharmed. Even if a rich, famous, powerful celebrity wanted to approach them with the law, they really have no jurisdiction to harm Hilton because none of his acts are illegal. The standard that we hold ethics on is everything above the law. So all because something is legal, that does not mean it is not unethical. Because of that, the virtual world allows a sense of freedom one would not feel if they had to defend their ideals in a face to face manner. By not

staying true to oneself, a person loses a part of their virtue. Everyone has more friends that they had ten years ago, thanks to social media. Which means that the stage people posses today, is a lot bigger than their inner circle that they once had a time before Facebook, and other social medias. The respect one has for the people they converse with on a regular basis, is fractional compared to now. This idea ties closely with the Dunbar number, which Maria Konnikova describes in “The Limits of Friendship”.
Furthermore, Konnikova’s and Klosterman’s essays are enmeshed with similar conviction. To begin, the example of Perez Hilton’s opinions chronicled in Klosterman’s essay appear to correlate to the Dunbar number. Hilton’s blog receives views by millions of people who follow it. He may not know any of his viewers personally, but what he writes is read and highly regarded. This parallels to social media posts created by ordinary people, the differentiation is that the audience of the average author is one whom he knows. In short, Konnikova’s essay argues that the more detached a being is, the lower the Dunbar number becomes. Though Klosterman and Konnikova’s arguments have similarities, they also bear discrepancies. It’s implied that Klosterman believes that people with many online or virtual friends will become viewed and also more popular. This implication gains its validity because viewers of famous bloggers will follow in the footsteps of their idols for success or popularity. This does not mean Klosterman would like that to happen, just that it naturally will and it is indomitable.