Reading Sebastian’s and Ana’s comments on the panic button has sparked a conflict regarding my own outlook on the ethical standpoint of mass media and information. Yes, fear can be a great tool for motivating large groups of people to become proactive with problems in the world; however, it is this same fear that can also lead to a nation’s complacency. One of the most discussed fear in media today, other then climate change, is terrorism. In the
This difference in reactions leads to an important question or notion that needs to be considered in the implementation of panic buttons; that is, what is the ethos of a nation regarding fear? How do someone’s cultural differences and set values affect their reaction to fear (i.e., do their imposed social practices matter when inducing a panicked response, like that of pressing a panic button). Designers are left with a general problem to solve in creating a universal panic button, and, how would one react to a device that would hinder or exacerbate his or her panic. When it comes to the symbolism of a panic button, the device represents something spasmodic, red, and initially cautionary; a device that causes alert or alternately even pacifies a nation (or person) in a time of chaos and is an object a designer has to take into consideration for its representation of a culture’s ethical stance. Only once this consideration is made can a designer truly create a device that is necessary. For example the doomsday clock moving minutes closer to midnight may have more of a powerful effect for Americans to become more aware of climate change, as it appears that most, not all (and even less now-a-days), Americans react to fear-based media more then other cultures.
Designing panic buttons
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Meghan’s comment about designers having to create a universal panic button. I don’t believe that a universal panic button can ever be practical or even conceivable, as different societies and cultures will react differently to situations that aren’t too dissimilar. Meghan talks about the tragedies that have occurred in New York and London as a direct result from acts of terrorism, and how the citizens of each country have reacted differently to these shocking events. As an example, this goes to show that you cannot really predict how people are going to react and respond to unexpected events or calamities; not to the extent that as a designer you are able to design something that will encompass a worldwide panic button.
This is a somewhat bold statement to make, but maybe that particular example has something to do with Britain’s apparent lack of patriotism, especially when compared to the pride that the vast majority of Americans have in their country. Considering how much larger the population of America is they all behave as if they are one huge family, and they find solidarity and comfort within each other. There is a strong sense of community within American culture, whereas the British (particularly the English) are seemingly afraid to be proud of their heritage. A recent survey by a national newspaper found that more immigrants call themselves British than the Brits themselves. I’m not saying that the British don’t care what happens to their fellow man, far from it; but I think that it doesn’t seem real until it happens to you or to someone close to you.
What I admire most about humans is their ability to cope with unexpected situations. They have the capability to be innovative and adaptable even under the most compromising situations, and their hardiness and persistence; their drive to survive through improvisation is certainly commendable.
Each country or culture will prepare themselves differently to deal with situations that could potentially arise, and how they do that is unique and exclusive to them. The varying conditioning that different populations undergo will determine their reaction to the possible changes. Some ideas (or ‘panic buttons’) may be shared and exchanged between societies, but who is to know what will work until it is tried out.