Progress ain’t what it used to be

Virginia Postrel, The world of tomorrow, Works in Progress, Issue 17, Dec. 5, 2024. 

My favorite line: “Today’s techno-optimism is infused with nostalgia for the retro future.” Exactly! It seems like a throwback to an earlier time. In fact, it seems like a throwback to Walt Disney’s view of the world. While I admire Disney, his vision of the future was born in the first half of the 20th century. That's done and gone. It's a new world and we need new visions for the future.

Here's Claude's summary of Postrel’s article:

This article explores how the concept of progress lost its glamorous appeal in American culture, particularly during the mid-20th century, and examines what this shift means for modern techno-optimism.

The author begins by explaining how progress was viewed as inherently glamorous for much of the 20th century, particularly from the 1920s to 1960s. This was exemplified by events like the 1939 New York World’s Fair and Disneyland’s Tomorrowland, which presented optimistic visions of the future characterized by technological advancement and material abundance.

The article identifies three distinct audiences who found progress glamorous during this period: modernists who sought order and efficiency, intellectuals who yearned for discovery and achievement, and ordinary people who desired comfort and security. The latter group was particularly significant in making progress glamour a cultural norm, as they witnessed technological improvements materially benefiting their daily lives through innovations like refrigerators and automobiles.

However, this glamorous vision of progress began to fade in the late 1960s for several reasons. First, as futuristic conveniences became everyday realities, they lost their mystique and revealed their limitations. Second, the modernist approach to progress, which often involved top-down planning and urban renewal projects, faced growing resistance from communities affected by these changes. This resistance was exemplified by Jane Jacobs’ influential critique of urban planning and the rise of the counterculture movement.

The article then examines contemporary attitudes toward progress, noting that today’s longings differ significantly from those of the mid-20th century. Modern individuals often seek escape from the attention economy, desire authentic connections, and value mastery of practical skills. The author suggests that any new vision of progress must accommodate diverse preferences and lifestyles rather than pursuing a single ideal future.

The piece concludes by arguing that future progress must embrace pluralism and avoid the modernist fallacy of “one best way.” Using examples from Neal Stephenson’s novel The Diamond Age, it suggests that material abundance should serve as a foundation for various ways of living rather than forcing conformity to a single vision of the future. The author emphasizes that progress can only regain its appeal if it allows for multiple versions of the good life while maintaining social cohesion.

The central insight is that progress lost its glamour not simply because of environmental concerns or anti-technology sentiment, but because the modernist vision of progress failed to acknowledge human diversity and the importance of organic social development. Any attempt to restore faith in progress must learn from these historical lessons while addressing contemporary desires and anxieties.