Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Thinking Against the Spectacle: How the Attention Crisis, Political Performance, and Tech Geopolitics Threaten the Public Good

Introduction: Digital Distraction and Cultural Embodiment

The newsletter snippets from Monocle, Semafor, ArtNews, TLDR, Rest of World, UBS Insights and the Economist from August 11-13, 2025, present a kaleidoscopic view of contemporary global affairs, blending opinion pieces, cultural critiques, geopolitical briefs, and business forecasts into a tapestry that mirrors the fragmented, interconnected nature of late modernity. Drawing from diverse locales—ancient Athens to modern Bangkok, Copenhagen’s harbors to Ukraine’s frontlines—these vignettes underscore persistent tensions between distraction and reflection, nationalism and environmental stewardship, economic innovation and policy disruptions, and artistic expression amid social controversy.

Analytically, they reveal causal interrelations: for instance, how technological distractions exacerbate social inequalities (as in the culture piece on thinking), while policy decisions like media funding cuts amplify misinformation, feeding into broader geopolitical instabilities. Theoretically, this aligns with Marshall McLuhan’s notion of the “global village,” where media technologies collapse distances but intensify conflicts (McLuhan, 1964, p. 31: “The medium is the message”).

The newsletter fragments under examination reveal a particularly urgent intersection of technological alienation and cultural representation that demands sustained philosophical inquiry. Both articulate profound anxieties about modern subjectivity—the first through its diagnosis of digital fragmentation as epistemological crisis, the second through its examination of how public art becomes a contested site for cultural meaning-making. Together, these texts illuminate the broader phenomenological transformation of how we inhabit the world under conditions of technological mediation and cultural democratization.

The newsletter fragments read like a compact atlas of late-liberal anxieties: attention and leisure; mediated publics and their erosion; the visual politics of national belonging; the dilemmas of conspicuous consumption and design; and the geopolitical–technological entanglements of tariffs, chips and talent flows. Rather than summarise each item in turn, I pursue three linked moves: (1) identify the recurring structures that knit disparate pieces together (attention economies, public-good decay, and spectacle); (2) trace causal levers that make those structures persistent (market incentives, political opportunity, infrastructural lock-in); and (3) suggest modest conceptual and policy reframings implied by the reportage.

The Attention Economy as Ontological Violence

The lament about “phones, apps and selfies” keeping us “distracted and prevent[ing] us from thinking” resonates with a substantial body of critical scholarship documenting the cognitive and existential implications of digital culture. Nicholas Carr’s influential analysis in The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains provides crucial neuroplasticity research demonstrating that “as we train our brains to take in information very, very quickly in a very interrupted, distracted way… we are not exercising those parts of our brain that are involved in deep concentration, deep attentiveness, things like contemplation and reflection”. This neurological reconfiguration represents more than mere efficiency loss—it constitutes what we might call, following Martin Heidegger’s critique of technological thinking, an ontological transformation of human dwelling.npr+1

Contemporary empirical research supports these phenomenological concerns with quantitative precision. Studies reveal that adolescents who spend more than three hours daily on social media experience twice the likelihood of mental health challenges compared to those with lower usage patterns. More significantly, recent research utilizing experience sampling methodology found that 77% of adolescents experience social media-related distraction, with the between-person association of social media use with distraction explaining 23% of variance. The implications extend beyond individual psychology to fundamental questions of attention as a social resource and democratic prerequisite.ijisrt+1

The theoretical framework developed by attention economists reveals that digital platforms employ what scholars term “adversarial inference”—algorithmic systems that “build up models of users in order to keep them scrolling”. This represents a profound departure from earlier media forms, as platforms contain “limitless sources of novelty” that can be navigated through “very simple and effortless motor movements” and offer “action possibilities everywhere and anytime independent of place or context”. Such structural features render obsolete traditional concepts of voluntary attention regulation.academic.oup

Research demonstrates that disparities in responding to digital distraction correlate with socioeconomic background factors, creating what Anna Hartford and Dan J. Stein conceptualize as “attentional harms” that “threaten fair equality of opportunity”. The most privileged users can invest in “site-blocking software, ad-blocking software, apps that generate screen time alerts, or devices that disable one’s internet connection for certain hours” , while those lacking such resources remain vulnerable to what amounts to systematic cognitive extraction.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

This analysis connects directly to Guy Debord’s prescient theorization of the “Society of the Spectacle,” where “all that was once directly lived has receded into a representation”. Contemporary digital platforms represent an intensification of spectacular logic, creating what Debord would recognize as an “integrated spectacle” where “the spectacle is mixed into all reality and irradiates it”. The result is not merely distraction but fundamental alienation from what Heidegger termed authentic temporality—the capacity for sustained engagement with being itself.anticapitalistresistance

1. Thinking, attention and the social distribution of leisure

Tom Hodgkinson’s essay — “thinking has always been a luxury” — performs two rhetorical tasks at once: it registers a familiar lament about digital distraction and it reminds readers that contemplative time has long been socially stratified (Hodgkinson, 2025). The piece insists that Socratic leisure was not a universal entitlement but a class-conditioned practice and that modern technologies have accelerated attention-scarcity for many while the privileged still purchase it back (e.g., parental controls, curated schooling).

Seen sociologically, Hodgkinson’s claim is consonant with Bourdieu’s argument that cultural practices (including “time to think”) are conditioned by class dispositions and resources: leisure is a form of cultural capital that reproduces distance between those who can afford reflection and those who must perform continual economic reproduction (Bourdieu, 1984). Politically, Hannah Arendt’s insistence that thinking guards against the banality of evil remains instructive: the capacity to reflect is not only private pleasure but civic immunisation against facile obedience (Arendt, 1963). Hodgkinson’s paean therefore should be read as both cultural diagnosis and (implicitly) a civic warning: unequal attention is an inequality with democratic consequences.

Policy implications follow almost mechanically. If contemplative capacity is unequally distributed, interventions that treat attention as an infrastructural good — libraries and quiet public spaces, regulation of algorithmic nudges, the support of non-commercial cultural institutions — become not mere aesthetics but redistribution. The newsletter’s reportage on how wealthier parents limit screen time while poorer children consume more media suggests that market provision alone will not correct these inequalities.

Culture and the Eternal Struggle for Reflection

The opinion by Tom Hodgkinson laments modern distractions—phones, Netflix, social media—as barriers to deep thinking, yet historicizes this as perennial, citing Socrates’ hemlock-fueled defense of the “unexamined life” and St. Anthony’s desert retreat. Culturally, this reflects a shift from contemplative leisure (otium) to commodified busyness, where thinking becomes a “luxury good” accessible mainly to the affluent, as evidenced by tech elites limiting their children’s screen time while poorer families face higher exposure. Socially, this perpetuates inequality: Hannah Arendt, referenced in the piece, argued in Eichmann in Jerusalem that unthinking obedience enables tyranny (Arendt, 1963, p. 276: “The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil”). Causally, economic pressures (e.g., gig work and consumerism) interlink with policy failures in education and digital regulation, fostering a society where reflection yields to exhaustion.

Associatively, this echoes Michel de Montaigne’s Essays, where retreat enables self-examination amid societal chaos (Montaigne, 1580/2003, p. 239: “I turn my gaze inward; I fix it there and keep it busy”). Recent research supports this: A study in Psychological Science links smartphone use to reduced cognitive capacity, causally tying digital distractions to lower analytical thinking (Barr et al., 2015). Philosophically, it resonates with Heidegger’s critique of technology as “enframing” human existence, reducing thought to calculative efficiency (Heidegger, 1954/1977, p. 27). Implications? In a policy vacuum, as seen in the newsletter’s nod to gap years for the wealthy, social divides widen, potentially fueling populist unrest akin to Arendt’s “banality of evil.”

The Phenomenology of Digital Embodiment

Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s embodied phenomenology provides crucial insights into how digital technologies reconfigure perceptual habits and existential orientation. The concept of the “embodied screen” describes how “diverse fragments of perceptual information received from digital technology artefacts are combined with other more everyday sources of perceptual information, while missing fragments of perceptual information are imaginatively constructed and re-constructed”. This process challenges what Merleau-Ponty identified as perceptual faith—our pre-theoretical assurance in the world’s coherence and accessibility.scielo

Digital technologies create what phenomenologists call “intermundane spaces” that are “integrated into our everyday lives and into our intentional arc” through habitual incorporation. The result is an existential condition where “the scale between actuality and potentiality tips more towards the engagement of the world in terms of possibility in lieu of actuality”. This shift has profound implications for temporal experience and practical engagement with material reality.scielo

The reference to Netflix consumption and online shopping as substitutes for “cogitating” reflects this deeper phenomenological transformation. Walter Benjamin’s analysis of mechanical reproduction’s effect on artistic aura finds contemporary resonance in how digital platforms commodify attention itself, transforming what he called “cultic use value” into exchange value. The “glories of technology” mentioned in the text mask what Benjamin identified as the “withering” of experiential depth through technological reproduction.tate

2. Media ecologies, public broadcasting and democratic resilience

The dossier on prospective cuts to U.S. public broadcasting and the contemporaneous arrival of the European Media Freedom Act together dramatise a central political claim in the issue: when publicly-oriented information infrastructures atrophy, information vacuums appear and are quickly colonised by rumor, algorithmic sensationalism, and partisan entrepreneurs (see the coverage of U.S. public radio and of the new EU protections).

Empirical and theoretical literatures support this causal chain. Studies of “news deserts” show that the retreat of local reporting correlates with lower civic engagement, higher polarisation, and greater opportunities for disinformation to entrench (Abernathy, 2020). Habermas’s model of the public sphere reminds us that the mediating institutions that enable deliberation are historically fragile; when they lose stable funding and autonomy, the structural preconditions for reasoned public argument atrophy (Habermas, 1989). Putnam’s social-capital analysis (Putnam, 2000) likewise predicts civic decline when the connective tissues of community information (local radio, community papers) weaken.

The newsletters’ humanised sketches of stations forced to lay off journalists, and the argument that local outlets provide life-saving information during storms, convert these theoretical claims into democratic stakes: civic capacity is not an abstraction but an empirically grounded service amenable to policy choice. Hence the European Media Freedom Act (as reported) should be read not as mere regulatory maximalism but as a corrective to market failure in the information commons — a recognition that certain news goods have public-good properties that markets underprovide.

Media, Policy, and the Erosion of Truth

Trump’s $1.1 billion cuts to public broadcasting, critiqued by Charlotte McDonald-Gibson, threaten rural radio stations vital for local news and emergencies, amplifying misinformation in “partisan echo chambers.” Policy-wise, this stems from ideological biases against “liberal” media, causally linked to declining revenues and internal disputes at NPR/PBS. Socially, it widens information gaps in vast, internet-scarce areas, where 98% access public radio—exacerbating polarization, as CEO Ju-Don Marshall notes declining civic engagement (echoing studies in American Political Science Review on local news deserts; Martin & McCrain, 2019).

Contrastingly, Europe’s Media Freedom Act safeguards broadcasters from political meddling, ensuring stable funding. This interrelates causally with rising far-right threats, as in Sweden’s charter renewal debates. Theoretically, it invokes Habermas’ public sphere, where rational discourse requires independent media (Habermas, 1962/1989, p. 27: “The public sphere… may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together as a public”). Literature-wise, it recalls Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, where media suppression breeds conformity (Bradbury, 1953, p. 55: “Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs”). Implications? U.S. cuts could hasten democratic erosion, per Arendt’s warnings, while Europe’s act models resilience, potentially influencing global policy amid AI-driven misinformation (e.g., newsletter’s crypto and AI snippets).

Public Art as Democratic Contestation

The examination of Danish public art controversies reveals the complex dynamics through which cultural meaning is negotiated in democratic societies. The “Toppled Man” sculpture’s description as both “funny and puzzling, if a bit naff” exemplifies what Jacques Rancière would term the “distribution of the sensible”—the implicit rules determining what can be seen, heard, and thought within a given community.

Recent scholarly analysis emphasizes that public art “not only enhances the aesthetic appeal of urban environments but also serves as a cultural bridge between history and the future, fostering emotional resonance among citizens and strengthening community identity”. The Danish controversies illuminate tensions between what Pierre Bourdieu analyzed as cultural capital and democratic accessibility in aesthetic judgment.hrmars

The reference to “those taboo-busting Copenhageners” and local councils “commissioning their own controversial pieces” reveals the inherently political nature of public cultural production. As research demonstrates, “contemporary public art and cultural programmes across Europe were focused on finding a balance between cultural identity and cultural diversity among the communities”. This balancing act reflects broader anxieties about national identity under conditions of globalization and multicultural democracy.journals.pan

The specific critique of the “Big Mermaid” as “ugly and pornographic” and representing “a man’s hot dream of what a woman should look like” illuminates how public art becomes a site for negotiating gender representation and bodily normativity. Such controversies reveal what feminist scholar Sara Ahmed calls the “affective economies” through which cultural objects circulate emotions and solidify or challenge existing power relations.finestresullarte+1

3. Spectacles of nationhood and the commodified public square

The LED-flagging of Bangkok’s skyline — corporations illuminating civic symbols in lieu of traditional campaigning — is a vivid instance of how advertising infrastructures can be repurposed as instruments of political signalling and affective governance (Thailand piece). The visual politics at play combine corporate risk-management (firms publicly aligning with security apparatuses), state legitimation, and the literal illumination of urban life (with attendant problems like light pollution and traffic hazards).

Two theoretical frames help to unpack this: Benedict Anderson’s work on the imagined community (Anderson, 1983) explains why mass visual symbols (flags, spectacles) are effective in producing collective sentiment; Guy Debord’s notion of the spectacle (Debord, 1967) explains how late-capitalist culture substitutes mediated appearances for substantive political negotiation. In Bangkok the billboard becomes a theatre in which corporations and the state co-author a story of patriotic solidarity — one that can mask deeper inequalities and obviate public debate about policy and accountability. The newsletter’s account of the governor’s move to limit illumination levels gestures toward an infrastructural politics: regulation of the very means of mediation is sometimes the precondition for healthier public life.

Society, Nationalism, and Technological Overreach

Thailand’s patriotic LED displays—flashing Thai flags amid border clashes with Cambodia—highlight nationalism’s fusion with technology, yet spotlight light pollution and distracted driving. Socially, this fosters a performative patriotism, where corporations donate ad space for military support, masking urban ills like accidents. Economically, it boosts LED industries but invites regulation, as Governor Chadchart Sittipunt pushes illumination limits. Causally, geopolitical tensions (e.g., recent wars) drive such displays, interrelating with policy on outdoor advertising, which could curb corporate influence while addressing environmental concerns.

This evokes Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, where media constructs national identity (Anderson, 1983, p. 44: “Print-capitalism… made it possible for rapidly growing numbers of people to think about themselves… in profoundly new ways”). Here, LEDs replace print as nationalist tools, but with ecological backlash—research in Science of the Total Environment links light pollution to biodiversity loss and human health issues (Falchi et al., 2016). Associatively, it parallels Orwell’s 1984, where screens propagate state ideology (Orwell, 1949, p. 4: “Big Brother is watching you”). Implications include policy trade-offs: stricter regulations might dim economic growth but enhance quality of life, potentially inspiring global urban reforms amid climate-driven tourism shifts, as in Estonia’s “cool” Baltic appeal over sweltering southern Europe.

Critical Theory and the Culture Industry

The Frankfurt School’s analysis of the “culture industry” provides essential theoretical scaffolding for understanding both excerpts’ concerns. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer argued that mass culture industries produce “standardized, formulaic cultural products that serve to reinforce the dominant ideology and maintain social control”. Contemporary digital platforms represent an intensification of these dynamics, with algorithmic curation replacing the broadcasting model while maintaining similar effects.numberanalytics

The culture industry’s “specific function… of providing ideological legitimation of the existing capitalist societies and of integrating individuals into its way of life” finds contemporary expression in what Jaron Lanier calls “digital Maoism”—the belief that technological aggregation of human activity produces superior collective intelligence. Lanier’s critique of “cybernetic totalism” resonates with the newsletter’s anxiety about technological substitution for authentic intellectual engagement.techliberation+1

Herbert Marcuse’s concept of “one-dimensional thought” becomes particularly relevant here. The reduction of complex cultural and political questions to algorithmic optimization represents what Marcuse identified as the “closing of the universe of discourse” under advanced industrial society. The newsletter’s reference to being “busy, greedy and exhausted” reflects what Marcuse analyzed as the “false needs” created by consumer capitalism to maintain systemic stability.

4. Material culture, design and the aesthetics of emancipation

Grace Charlton’s reflection on Vincenzo Latronico’s Perfection (and its relation to Perec’s Les Choses) advances the classic anthropological and sociological insight that possessions are semiotic devices through which modern subjects narrate identity and safety (Charlton/Latronico reporting).

Perec’s mid-20th-century diagnosis of “les choses” and Latronico’s contemporary update together form a conversation about how late capitalism turns identity into curated objects and experiences. Bourdieu’s thesis on taste returns: consumption is both expressive and constitutive of status (Bourdieu, 1984). Jane Austen’s ironic injunction about money and marriage (Austen, 1813) is also instructive: literary history repeatedly ties socio-economic attachments to intimate life choices. The newsletter’s cultural threads — from novel recommendations to film reviews — thus reveal how aesthetic economies both reflect and reproduce material inequalities.

Policy and civic latitude here are subtler: cultural literacy, public support for arts and craft economies, and protections for small-scale manufacturing and repair (rather than only subsidising mass-market consumption) create breathing space for non-commodified forms of meaning-making.

Art, Materialism, and Social Critique

Denmark’s “Big Mermaid” controversy—decried as “ugly and pornographic”—sparks debates on public art, private finance, and civic taste, alongside pieces like “The Giant Buttplug.” Socially, it critiques gender representations and royal influence (e.g., Prince Henrik’s abstract bronzes), causally tied to policy on commissions. The art newsletter snippets, from synagogue damage in Ukraine to Harlem’s new museum, underscore art’s vulnerability to geopolitics and funding cuts.

Grace Charlton’s opinion on materialism—via Latronico’s Perfection and Perec’s Les Choses—associates possessions with millennial malaise, where objects curate identity but fail to fulfill. Philosophically, this invokes Marx’s commodity fetishism, masking social relations (Marx, 1867/1976, p. 165: “A commodity appears… a trivial thing… But as soon as it emerges as a commodity, it changes into a thing which transcends sensuousness”). Celine Song’s Materialists extends this to film, per the snippet. Research in Journal of Consumer Research links materialism to lower well-being, causally via economic inequality (Kasser, 2002). Implications? Amid wealth gaps, such critiques challenge consumer capitalism, intersecting with design interviews like Kevin Frankental’s emphasis on emotional connections over “shiny perfection.”

Economy, Innovation, and Geopolitical Ripples

French aviation’s “upward trajectory”—Safran and Airbus thriving despite U.S. tariffs—illustrates economic resilience through transatlantic exemptions. Causally, Boeing’s struggles and Air France-KLM’s premium shift interlink with policy (tariffs) and innovation (defense growth), projecting 820 aircraft deliveries. Broader snippets, like Ford’s EV “reboot” amid subsidy removals, highlight tariff-induced challenges, with $1.3 billion EV losses signaling competitive pressures from Chinese firms.

This aligns with Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction,” where innovation displaces incumbents (Schumpeter, 1942, p. 83: “The opening up of new markets… incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within”). Research in Journal of Economic Perspectives ties tariffs to supply chain disruptions, causally inflating costs (Amiti et al., 2019). Associatively, it evokes Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat, where globalization flattens hierarchies but invites policy backlash (Friedman, 2005, p. 8). Implications include uneven recovery: French gains contrast U.S. losses, potentially reshaping global trade amid Trump-Putin talks on Ukraine, where territorial “swaps” interlink economically with energy and tariffs.

Geopolitics, Tech, and Future Horizons

Geopolitical briefs—Netanyahu’s Gaza plans, Trump-Putin summit, Thai-Cambodian clashes—reveal causal chains from territorial disputes to economic sanctions (e.g., tariffs on China). Tech snippets, like AI chip deals and crypto launches, interlink with policy (export controls) and economy (Nvidia’s revenue shares), potentially accelerating de-globalization.

This resonates with Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis, now frayed by resurgent authoritarianism (Fukuyama, 1989). Literature-wise, it echoes Tolstoy’s War and Peace, where individual actions cascade into historical forces (Tolstoy, 1869/2007, p. 606: “The course of earthly happenings… is predestined from on high”). Implications include heightened volatility: AI’s “post-slop era” demands utility over hype, per the crypto analysis, mirroring broader shifts toward sustainable innovation.

In conclusion, these snippets portray a world grappling with distraction, division, and disruption, where cultural reflection combats economic materialism, and policy shapes social realities. Causally, tariffs and tech interweave with art and geopolitics, demanding theoretically informed responses—perhaps Arendt’s call for vigilant thinking to avert banality. As Montaigne retreated to essay, so must we amid this noise: examine, associate, endure.

5. Geopolitics, technology and the new injunctions of statecraft

Scattered but persistent across the newsletter are notes on tariffs, chip export controls, talent flows, and AI-cloud firms — a cluster that shows market and state co-production of technological advantage (chips and tariffs) and of dependency (cloud providers and hyperscalers) (see coverage of U.S.–China trade talks, Nvidia/AMD revenue deals, and China’s talent attraction).

Two interpretive frames are useful. First, David Harvey’s account of neoliberalism emphasises how state policy often reorients to protect capital in the face of crises, producing ad hoc industrial policy (Harvey, 2005). Second, the political-economy of tech literature (e.g., Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014) locates the labour and distributional consequences of automation and AI. The newsletter’s reporting — on tariff truce extensions, on chips being negotiated as political assets, and on the rise of AI-specialised hedge funds — illustrates how technological competition becomes geopolitical leverage. That leverage, in turn, shapes domestic politics (industrial subsidies, data-localisation demands) and social outcomes (job dislocation, concentration of rents).

If we take these items together, the causal logic is clear: (a) geopolitical competition increases the instrumentalisation of trade and tech policy; (b) amplification of national security frames legitimises extraordinary interventions (export curbs, revenue-sharing deals); and (c) firms adapt by reconfiguring supply chains and lobbying for protective rents. Policy response should therefore combine industrial strategy with redistributive safeguards (training, portable benefits) and international governance fora that reduce zero-sum escalation.

Theoretical Synthesis: Attention as Democratic Resource

The conjunction of digital distraction and public art controversy illuminated in these texts reveals attention itself as a fundamental democratic resource. Hannah Arendt’s conception of the public sphere as the space of appearance where individuals can act in concert requires what she terms “thoughtfulness”—the capacity for sustained reflection and judgment. The fragmentation of attention described in the first excerpt threatens this democratic prerequisite.

Research on “arts-based approaches to democracy” suggests that participatory cultural practices can “contribute reflective, playful, imaginative, and collective elements to a reinvigorated public sphere”. The Danish public art controversies, rather than representing democratic failure, might be understood as evidence of culture’s continuing capacity to generate the kind of “agonistic” discourse that Chantal Mouffe identifies as essential to democratic vitality.journals.sagepub

The juxtaposition of technological distraction with cultural conflict reflects what we might call the “double bind” of contemporary democratic culture: digital technologies provide unprecedented opportunities for cultural participation while simultaneously undermining the attentional capacities necessary for sustained cultural engagement. This paradox demands new forms of what John Dewey termed “democratic inquiry”—collective investigation of shared problems through experimental practice.

6. Synthesis — Culture, Policy and Political Economy

Three synthetic claims follow.

  1. Attention, information and the public good are co-produced. The unequal distribution of contemplative time, the weakening of local journalism, and the colonisation of the public square by spectacular displays are not three separate problems but symptoms of the same underlying market logic: private provision of public goods. Corrective action must therefore be collective (public funding, regulation, and civic investment) rather than merely pedagogical.
  2. Spectacle substitutes for deliberation. Visual amplification (LED nationalisms, commissioned statues that provoke outrage or boredom) often substitutes mediated affect for institutional deliberation. This is at once aesthetic and political: it shapes what counts as legitimate public life. Governance of public space — including norms and limits on private uses of high-visibility infrastructures — is a democratic question.
  3. Technological geopolitics intensifies domestic inequality. The scramble for chips, talent and cloud capacity elevates strategic industry at the expense of broad-based social investment; policy that treats industrial-strategic aims as separate from social policy will widen inequality. Democratic resilience requires aligning industrial strategy with redistribution, not subordinating social policy to short-term geopolitical competition.

Implications for Cultural Policy and Democratic Practice

The analysis suggests several practical implications for cultural policy and democratic education. First, the documented disparities in digital attention regulation require policy responses addressing technological design rather than individual behavior modification. This might include mandatory “friction” features in social media platforms, similar to those proposed by technology critics like Tristan Harris.

Second, the public art controversies demonstrate the continuing importance of physical cultural spaces that resist digital mediation. As attention restoration theory suggests, encounters with natural and cultural environments can restore cognitive capacities depleted by digital engagement. Public art provides opportunities for what Rachel and Stephen Kaplan identify as “fascination” and “being away”—psychological states that facilitate attention restoration.reddit+2

Third, both excerpts point toward the need for what we might call “phenomenological literacy”—education in recognizing and analyzing how different media and cultural forms shape perceptual habits and existential orientation. Such education would draw on insights from embodied phenomenology to help citizens navigate the complex interplay between technological mediation and cultural meaning-making.

Conclusion: Toward Embodied Cultural Criticism

The newsletter fragments examined here reveal the profound interconnection between technological transformation and cultural politics under contemporary conditions. Digital technologies create new forms of what might be called “phenomenological violence”—systematic disruption of the temporal and attentional structures necessary for sustained cultural engagement. Simultaneously, debates over public art reveal the continuing vitality of democratic cultural contestation, even as that contestation occurs under increasingly challenging conditions.

The theoretical resources provided by critical phenomenology, Frankfurt School analysis, and democratic theory suggest pathways toward more nuanced understanding of these dynamics. Rather than romantic rejection of technological development or uncritical embrace of cultural democratization, the analysis points toward forms of engaged criticism that attend to both the enabling and constraining aspects of contemporary cultural conditions.

The “familiar moan” about digital distraction mentioned in the opening excerpt should not be dismissed as nostalgic complaint but recognized as pointing toward genuine transformations in the structure of experience and possibility. Similarly, the “controversial” status of contemporary public art represents not aesthetic decline but evidence of culture’s continuing capacity to generate the kinds of shared inquiry essential to democratic life. Understanding these phenomena requires theoretical sophistication that can grasp both their particular manifestations and their broader historical significance within the ongoing transformation of human sociality under technological conditions.

The newsletters’ value is precisely their situated collage: art, local reportage, opinion and geopolitics all appear on the same scroll. To turn reportage into practice, readers and policymakers might consider three modest measures: (a) treat “attention” as an infrastructural good (libraries, quiet zones, limits on algorithmic attention capture); (b) implement stable funding models for local public media (subscription-matching, public endowments, legal protections for editorial independence); and (c) build multinational governance instruments for critical technologies that combine openness with robust labour and redistributive clauses. These are neither utopian nor technocratic; they are pragmatic recognitions that what we attend to, what we are told, and who controls infrastructure together shape the forms of life we can imagine.

References

Abernathy, P. (2020). The expanding news desert: Local news in a digital age. UNC Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media.

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1947). Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press.

Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh University Press.

Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.4.187

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.

Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. Viking Press.

Arendt, H. (1978). The life of the mind. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Austen, J. (1813). Pride and prejudice. T. Egerton.

Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). The brain in your pocket: Evidence that smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.029

Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Illuminations, 217-251.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Bradbury, R. (1953). Fahrenheit 451. Ballantine Books.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton.

Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton.

Chambers, J. (2025). Thailand’s patriotic digital displays shine a light on its addiction to LED ads (news item).

Debord, G. (1967). The society of the spectacle. Black & Red.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Henry Holt.

Falchi, F., Cinzano, P., Duriscoe, D., Kyba, C. C. M., Elvidge, C. D., Baugh, K., Portnov, B. A., Rybnikova, N. A., & Furgoni, R. (2016). The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness. Science Advances, 2(6), e1600377. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600377

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of history? The National Interest, 16, 3–18.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)

Hartford, A., & Stein, D. J. (2022). Attentional harms and digital inequalities. JMIR Mental Health, 9(2), e25447.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Harper & Row.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans., pp. 3–35). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1954)

Hodgkinson, T. (2025). In a world full of distractions, it’s getting harder to think — but has it ever been easy? (newsletter commentary).

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/344429

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget. Knopf.

Latronico, V. (2025). Perfection. Fitzcarraldo Editions.

Lewitschnik, L. (2025). A new act comes into effect to protect Europe’s public broadcasters.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man. Beacon Press.

Martin, G. J., & McCrain, J. (2019). Local news and national politics. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000965

Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1) (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867)

McDonald-Gibson, C. (2025). Trump’s media cuts silence trusted voices and amplify misinformation.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.

Montaigne, M. de. (2003). The complete essays (M. A. Screech, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1580)

Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg.

Perec, G. (1965). Les choses. Gallimard.

Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics. Continuum.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Tolstoy, L. (2007). War and peace (R. Pevear & L. Volokhonsky, Trans.). Vintage Classics. (Original work published 1869).

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Research, Perplexity, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Grok, xAI, tools (August 20, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (August 20, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

Footnotes

  1. https://www.npr.org/2010/06/23/127988880/the-shallows-has-the-internet-rewired-your-brain
  2. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/conversation-nicholas-carrs-the-shallows-what-the-internet-is-doing-to-our-brains
  3. https://www.ijisrt.com/social-media-effects-on-mental-health
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9684974/
  5. https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/doi/10.1093/nc/niad019/7251284
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8881781/
  7. https://anticapitalistresistance.org/guy-debord-and-the-spectacle/
  8. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1445-73772020000100009
  9. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/a/aura
  10. https://hrmars.com/journals/papers/IJARBSS/v15-i3/25062
  11. https://journals.pan.pl/dlibra/publication/124614/edition/108749/content
  12. https://www.finestresullarte.info/en/news/pornographic-and-fake-mermaid-sculpture-in-denmark-accused-of-offending-women
  13. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/08/12/pornographic-mermaid-statue-must-be-removed-danish-government-confirms
  14. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/frankfurt-school-deep-dive
  15. https://techliberation.com/2010/02/15/book-review-jaron-laniers-you-are-not-a-gadget/
  16. https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/fs.htm
  17. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02633957251324529
  18. https://www.reddit.com/r/studytips/comments/1ay6l4s/digital_detox_unplugging_for_mental_clarity_in_a/
  19. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-dynamics/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2025.1572587/pdf
  20. https://focuskeeper.co/glossary/what-is-attention-restoration-theory
  21. https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/73823228/47f0640d-881a-4c98-9904-5228fe074a83/Newsletter-August-20-2025.docx
  22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19312458.2023.2181319
  23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08838151.2025.2484347
  24. https://jier.org/index.php/journal/article/view/516
  25. https://www.ijssl.latticescipub.com/portfolio-item/a1073093123/
  26. https://thecrsss.com/index.php/Journal/article/view/228
  27. https://www.ijmres.pk/index.php/IJMRES/article/view/677
  28. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20531680211016968
  29. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20531680231225316
  30. https://www.ijfmr.com/research-paper.php?id=12824
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7712353/
  32. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15213269.2021.1959350?needAccess=true
  33. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/8/4/497/pdf
  34. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.10464.pdf
  35. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3613904.3641950
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7369880/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9358364/
  38. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077/pdf?isPublishedV2=False
  39. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=143508
  40. https://monocle.com/culture/denmark-mermaid-state-controversy/
  41. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cognition/articles/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077/full
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10779052/
  43. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711416/full
  44. https://journal.formosapublisher.org/index.php/cjas/article/download/12346/12159/49000
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563224001262
  46. https://swedenherald.com/article/controversial-mermaid-statue-removed-in-denmark-amid-body-image-debate
  47. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ugly-and-pornographic-mermaid-statue-removed-copenhagen-1234749265/
  48. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13347-024-00698-z
  49. http://www.emerald.com/ajar/article/10/2/126-149/1241275
  50. https://fusionproceedings.com/fmr/1/article/view/63
  51. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4663506
  52. https://scindeks.ceon.rs/Article.aspx?artid=0547-33302401075C
  53. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e97bab8f42e5210bfd0ef21076425bda608b53d0
  54. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00799-023-00376-z
  55. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/08a6442b3f975f78dd9189d2ad05727b47315cf0
  56. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/hlrc/vol12/iss1/3
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7644608/
  58. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06478
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7982468/
  60. https://academic.oup.com/iwc/article/37/1/18/7733851
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10457025/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7978171/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8674581/
  64. https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/407154/jaron-lanier-ai-religion-progress-criticism
  65. https://www.ron-burnett.com/digital-culture-1/n3z7j4vasqk7f7adm35oktnxxmewe7-batfk-pg6xx
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328723001477
  67. https://logicmag.io/failure/glen-weyl-and-jaron-lanier-how-to-live-with-technology/
  68. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/higher-ed-gamma/2024/07/03/how-digital-economy-distracts-us
  69. https://denverjournal.denverseminary.edu/the-denver-journal-article/the-shallows-what-the-internet-is-doing-to-our-brains/
  70. https://journal.uitm.edu.my/ojs/index.php/IJAD/article/view/3658
  71. https://reunido.uniovi.es/index.php/RAHA/article/view/19291
  72. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02637758241284889
  73. http://www.ssc.smr.ru/media/journals/izvestia_hum/2025/2025_1_105_110.pdf
  74. https://conferencias.ageditor.ar/index.php/sctconf/article/view/1202
  75. https://openaccess.cms-conferences.org/publications/book/978-1-964867-34-2/article/978-1-964867-34-2_12
  76. https://ecohumanism.co.uk/joe/ecohumanism/article/view/4303
  77. https://conferencias.ageditor.ar/index.php/sctconf/article/view/1482
  78. https://journals.openedition.org/eces/pdf/176
  79. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20004214.2021.1898766?needAccess=true
  80. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20004214.2021.1972527?needAccess=true
  81. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02560046.2024.2316302?needAccess=true
  82. https://tidsskrift.dk/periskop/article/download/133733/178821
  83. https://www.konfrontasi.net/index.php/konfrontasi2/article/download/266/266
  84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20004214.2017.1371563?needAccess=true
  85. https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlit/article/download/1765/1647
  86. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20004214.2022.2046956?needAccess=true
  87. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/58E70BE4B220026788DCB9FD4C060CC8/S0080440123000105a.pdf/div-class-title-statues-spatial-syntax-and-surrealism-history-and-heritagescapes-in-public-space-div.pdf
  88. https://maddoxgallery.com/news/400-5-contemporary-political-art-pieces/
  89. https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/context/art-history-faculty/article/1002/viewcontent/_Introduction_Contemporary_Arts_Across_Political_Divides.pdf
  90. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1482715/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  91. https://www.contemporaryartissue.com/the-30-most-controversial-artworks-today/
  92. https://ijhssm.org/issue_dcp/The Intersection of Politics and Art.pdf
  93. https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/ncr-article/public-art-and-the-art-of-public-participation/
  94. https://statenskonstrad.se/app/uploads/2019/03/Public_Art_Research_Report_2018.pdf
  95. https://different-level.com/how-art-and-politics-influence-and-shape-each-other/
  96. https://arrow.artaround.org/enabling-arts-democratization-through-a-reimagining-of-public-space/
  97. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/195622
  98. https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/revice/article/view/e52417
  99. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f574ae9e55d7d52a13bfd6c5d50a5c2944250b30
  100. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c9c6c80e7325ae37f94c951c01ee66ee97f42248
  101. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-12586-8_5
  102. https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/thesis/Technology_and_spectacle_an_investigation_of_the_obsolete_through_video_art/4663951/1
  103. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3448721c3b5170541fc026f5377b3a9f0dffa63d
  104. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dda5ad2ee68e72b45d64a3064210831b6266313f
  105. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d67bd36df9dbe52b69526060a77322fc16529885
  106. https://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/jep.2012010101
  107. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/02637758241227243
  108. https://fastcapitalism.journal.library.uta.edu/index.php/fastcapitalism/article/download/183/218
  109. https://concept.mgimo.ru/jour/article/download/483/392
  110. https://www.scipress.com/ILSHS.48.31.pdf
  111. https://fastcapitalism.journal.library.uta.edu/index.php/fastcapitalism/article/download/262/304
  112. https://fastcapitalism.journal.library.uta.edu/index.php/fastcapitalism/article/download/82/74
  113. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23311983.2021.1995117?needAccess=true
  114. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/1/10406378/1/Desired Machines.pdf
  115. https://publication.avanca.org/index.php/avancacinema/article/view/526
  116. http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/revistafamecos/article/download/4083/3092
  117. https://sublationmedia.com/debord-and-tik-tok-society-of-the-spectacle-redux/
  118. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/ca/7523862.0012.010/–mechanical-reproduction-in-an-age-of-high-art?rgn=main%3Bview%3Dfulltext
  119. https://mediatheoryart.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/guy-debord-the-society-of-the-spectacle-a-critical-analysis/
  120. https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/57a1b26d39e3d.pdf
  121. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry
  122. https://www.csus.edu/indiv/o/obriene/art206/readings/debord-the_society_of_the_spectacle.pdf
  123. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction
  124. https://www.pdcnet.org/oom/service?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=&rft.imuse_id=symposion_2023_0010_0002_0239_0260&svc_id=info:www.pdcnet.org/collection
  125. https://bryanhousepub.com/index.php/jssh/article/view/1132
  126. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/11c654824cb010ca7220bf00335cedc710e94a54
  127. http://www.horizon.spb.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2403:chernavin-12-1&catid=123:eng&Itemid=123&lang=en
  128. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/95b516c0b8e0d4dda91b9f0a48bea4bd71896591
  129. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f0add981a2bdb00c2c075f1a043ded6e241f476d
  130. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13347-023-00625-8
  131. https://pq.iphras.ru/article/view/10783
  132. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781009480048/type/book
  133. https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies/vol38/iss1/3/
  134. https://www.tankebanen.no/inscriptions/index.php/inscriptions/article/download/17/21
  135. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ss/v5n3/a05v5n3.pdf
  136. http://recentscientific.com/sites/default/files/7279 I-A-2017.pdf
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7467140/
  138. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09672559.2017.1323404
  139. https://academicjournals.org/journal/PPR/article-full-text-pdf/C0C905445052.pdf
  140. https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2022/7469970.pdf
  141. http://centerprode.com/ojsp/ojsp0401/coas.ojsp.0401.01001z.pdf
  142. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0924933824013725/type/journal_article
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8009457/
  144. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/understanding-heidegger-on-technology
  145. https://philarchive.org/archive/AJVHBA
  146. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1196049.pdf
  147. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/
  148. https://philarchive.org/archive/SWEVLO
  149. https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/431219.pdf
  150. https://www.ecehh.org/research/attention-restoration-theory-a-systematic-review/


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (August 19, 2025). Thinking Against the Spectacle: How the Attention Crisis, Political Performance, and Tech Geopolitics Threaten the Public Good. Open Culture. Retrieved November 17, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/14hjw


You may also like...