In the recent Bob Edwards’ interview of John Mellencamp (Bob Edwards Weekend podcast), Mellencamp talks a bit about progress and quality of life. He then says:

The invention of computers and the internet… is going to turn around and destroy this country. Corporate America has made every town the same. I can go anywhere and there’s a Starbucks. I can go anywhere and there’s the Gap…

According to Mellencamp and the proximity of these statements, the internet’s destructive nature and corporate-influenced uniformity are linked. In the interview, he does not elaborate about the connection or say much about why the internet is harmful, other than touching upon it being terrible for music (lesser quality and you can’t touch it, smell it, see it, as he recalls he used to love to do at Tower Records). I’d be interested for more Mellencamp on the computer/internet theory and whether he thinks the destruction will be limited the US. My guess is the context of a Mellencamp conversation is likely to land stateside considering his recurring commentary on the plight of the American farmer and the plight of the American dream. His commentary in the interview is sweeping and lacking argument, but it’s got Pink Houses context.

These days, now more than ever, we may be born and live in small towns or big towns, but we all have the ability to connect with one another in the socially connected world. There’s a lot of noise out there, but there’s also harmony to be found within the conversation.

Is Mellencamp Begrudgingly on Facebook?

Considering the Mellencamp’s larger Americana career themes, he’s talking about community and the identity of a community shaped by individual citizens. His commentary produces an interesting question. Is social networking a modern way for people to attain or regain lost community? Although we call places and topics where people actively engage in and on within social spaces community, can they really be considered similar to the experiences of tangible communities within actual physical places of community congregation? I’d argue that social communities are extensions of tangible communities that can then morph in any number of ways depending on which elements of a particular community influence others. We can now share and participate on whim, or otherwise, based on any interest or topic from anywhere. Within the frivolity, social networking is a way people can become involved and possibly evolve without going to great lengths. Virtual rain on the Scarecrow has the potential to keep a message alive and bring about positive change in perpetuity.

But can social space truly shape identity? Or are we all, within social space, varying degrees of Oz behind the curtain?

Cross-posted on usblog.havasdigital.com