Performative Reading is Middle Class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cancelled my New Yorker subscription because of garbage articles like this one. Good to know I’m not missing anything.

That's too bad, because it's still one of the best publications out there. OP completely misunderstood the article-- or didn't actually read it, which would be ironic in this context.

Yes if you read the New Yorker article it's absolutely not on the side of the people sharing these videos.

"The only way that an internet mind can understand a person reading a certain kind of book in public is through the prism of how it would appear on a feed: as a grotesquely performative posture, a false and self-flattering manipulation, or a desperate attempt to attract a romantic partner."

Yes. It’s much more of an indictment of our social media addiction or at least those who don’t read. Who cares why someone is reading? Isn’t reading anything that isn’t drivel these days a good thing? I wish there were more of us who would put down their phones and do that (unless they use their phones primarily to read).

Yes, my read on the article was more a commentary about how social media is warping people's perceptions of activities. That because social media involves and element of performance people are now viewing activities as if they are intended for display or consumption.

"If our authenticity is questioned—if we are caught pretending and playacting—what ground do we have left to stand on? If we are deemed inauthentic, how can we stand for anything at all? Conversely, if everything is potentially performative, how will we ever work up the courage to step outside of our sphere of normal, to risk being earnest and cringe, and experience something transformative?"

I'd recommend reading the article. I do feel like people are getting the wrong idea about it.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/performative-reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cancelled my New Yorker subscription because of garbage articles like this one. Good to know I’m not missing anything.

That's too bad, because it's still one of the best publications out there. OP completely misunderstood the article-- or didn't actually read it, which would be ironic in this context.

Yes if you read the New Yorker article it's absolutely not on the side of the people sharing these videos.

"The only way that an internet mind can understand a person reading a certain kind of book in public is through the prism of how it would appear on a feed: as a grotesquely performative posture, a false and self-flattering manipulation, or a desperate attempt to attract a romantic partner."

Yes. It’s much more of an indictment of our social media addiction or at least those who don’t read. Who cares why someone is reading? Isn’t reading anything that isn’t drivel these days a good thing? I wish there were more of us who would put down their phones and do that (unless they use their phones primarily to read).

Yes, my read on the article was more a commentary about how social media is warping people's perceptions of activities. That because social media involves and element of performance people are now viewing activities as if they are intended for display or consumption.

"If our authenticity is questioned—if we are caught pretending and playacting—what ground do we have left to stand on? If we are deemed inauthentic, how can we stand for anything at all? Conversely, if everything is potentially performative, how will we ever work up the courage to step outside of our sphere of normal, to risk being earnest and cringe, and experience something transformative?"

I'd recommend reading the article. I do feel like people are getting the wrong idea about it.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/performative-reading

That sounds right. It’s really sad that folks are judged for doing things that they enjoy in which they have no expectations regarding performance. I wish people lived more in the moment and just put their phones away. Not everything is a performance or needs to be saved or broadcasted to the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what "performative" means in this context. Reading is reading and is always a good thing, no matter the material. Getting through a "serious" book just to say you read is not wasted time or effort, but I doubt many people (if any?) do that. There has to be some curiosity and intent to learn something for yourself behind it. There isn't anything wrong with reading something fun and light either.

Read the article. Performative reading is more or less defined as conspicuously reading a physical book in a public setting. A book that is considered high brow literature (eg, Proust or David Foster Wallace) or critically accepted and in a way design to convey intellectual superiority. It screams, “Look at me you rubes. I have higher status than those who waste their time addicted to brain rot social media.” It sounds like it’s a direct reaction to those who endlessly scroll social media in public places to the point that they are often obvious to their surroundings and others. Maybe it’s just another form of snobbery in our modern age. FWIW, I’m beginning to think there is a real stigma in connection with those who endlessly consume social media, especially in public. I certainly judge them.

1. The article is a pathetic attempt at clickbait to generate relevance.

2. If I saw someone reading Proust or a recognizable classic, I would assume they didn’t read it in middle/high school or college. Put differently, I don’t think it’s a flex.

3. You said you judge people consuming social media in public, pp. Question: how do you know what I’m reading on my phone? I’m usually reading work-related emails and related attachments (sadly). If I’m killing time in line or enjoying a quick lunch alone, I might scroll dcum, daily mail, or reels. Given the excruciatingly heavy stuff I’m dealing with at work, I need a break. My mom called it “bubble gum for the mind” and said you need a break to relax your mind, body, and soul. She had a PhD from Hopkins back when women didn’t get in unless they were truly brilliant (and she had a full ride).

Your assumption is probably wrong, and only someone who is not intellectual thinks that reading a "classic" in middle school, high school or even college means that you have really understood or internalized it. The reason things are "classics" is that they address serious human questions, and these are best considered with wisdom and experience.

+1

And high school is for Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird. Not In Search of Lost Time or Finnegan's Wake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cancelled my New Yorker subscription because of garbage articles like this one. Good to know I’m not missing anything.

That's too bad, because it's still one of the best publications out there. OP completely misunderstood the article-- or didn't actually read it, which would be ironic in this context.

Yes if you read the New Yorker article it's absolutely not on the side of the people sharing these videos.

"The only way that an internet mind can understand a person reading a certain kind of book in public is through the prism of how it would appear on a feed: as a grotesquely performative posture, a false and self-flattering manipulation, or a desperate attempt to attract a romantic partner."

Yes. It’s much more of an indictment of our social media addiction or at least those who don’t read. Who cares why someone is reading? Isn’t reading anything that isn’t drivel these days a good thing? I wish there were more of us who would put down their phones and do that (unless they use their phones primarily to read).

Yes, my read on the article was more a commentary about how social media is warping people's perceptions of activities. That because social media involves and element of performance people are now viewing activities as if they are intended for display or consumption.

"If our authenticity is questioned—if we are caught pretending and playacting—what ground do we have left to stand on? If we are deemed inauthentic, how can we stand for anything at all? Conversely, if everything is potentially performative, how will we ever work up the courage to step outside of our sphere of normal, to risk being earnest and cringe, and experience something transformative?"

I'd recommend reading the article. I do feel like people are getting the wrong idea about it.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/performative-reading

That sounds right. It’s really sad that folks are judged for doing things that they enjoy in which they have no expectations regarding performance. I wish people lived more in the moment and just put their phones away. Not everything is a performance or needs to be saved or broadcasted to the internet.

DP. Agree that it's sad that people get judged for things like this, but what's far worse are the people who are judging and who think everything is a performance. I couldn't care less if some dimwit is judging me for reading a novel in public because TikTok has declared it performative, but how sad for them for failing to understand that reading can be an enjoyable way to pass the time for some people! It's a goal in its own right, not just a means to appear a certain way. How sad that they are viewing life through the lens of social media and influencers and have become unable to recognize authenticity in the real world!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cancelled my New Yorker subscription because of garbage articles like this one. Good to know I’m not missing anything.

That's too bad, because it's still one of the best publications out there. OP completely misunderstood the article-- or didn't actually read it, which would be ironic in this context.

Yes if you read the New Yorker article it's absolutely not on the side of the people sharing these videos.

"The only way that an internet mind can understand a person reading a certain kind of book in public is through the prism of how it would appear on a feed: as a grotesquely performative posture, a false and self-flattering manipulation, or a desperate attempt to attract a romantic partner."

Yes. It’s much more of an indictment of our social media addiction or at least those who don’t read. Who cares why someone is reading? Isn’t reading anything that isn’t drivel these days a good thing? I wish there were more of us who would put down their phones and do that (unless they use their phones primarily to read).

Yes, my read on the article was more a commentary about how social media is warping people's perceptions of activities. That because social media involves and element of performance people are now viewing activities as if they are intended for display or consumption.

"If our authenticity is questioned—if we are caught pretending and playacting—what ground do we have left to stand on? If we are deemed inauthentic, how can we stand for anything at all? Conversely, if everything is potentially performative, how will we ever work up the courage to step outside of our sphere of normal, to risk being earnest and cringe, and experience something transformative?"

I'd recommend reading the article. I do feel like people are getting the wrong idea about it.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/performative-reading

That sounds right. It’s really sad that folks are judged for doing things that they enjoy in which they have no expectations regarding performance. I wish people lived more in the moment and just put their phones away. Not everything is a performance or needs to be saved or broadcasted to the internet.

DP. Agree that it's sad that people get judged for things like this, but what's far worse are the people who are judging and who think everything is a performance. I couldn't care less if some dimwit is judging me for reading a novel in public because TikTok has declared it performative, but how sad for them for failing to understand that reading can be an enjoyable way to pass the time for some people! It's a goal in its own right, not just a means to appear a certain way. How sad that they are viewing life through the lens of social media and influencers and have become unable to recognize authenticity in the real world!

I think there has got to be some projection in there. It would never occur to me that someone sitting around reading Ulysses or The Brothers Karamazov or whatever is doing so to be seen doing it. I think people who are being performative themselves all over the place -- highly insecure people -- are the only ones even thinking about this. Even people who may have come across such nonsense on TikTok are not going to think that hard about it, unless it is akin to something they engage in themselves. Plenty of weird insecure people out there, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Great article.

Reading classics in third-world countries is considered performative, and it's fascinating that the same sentiment is now growing in the US. I wonder what it will mean for the US' future.

[Anonymous]

First, look at how many adults don't even read AT ALL. Not even one book a year. ZERO BOOKS for like 80% of Americans.

Then zoom out and think "who tf cares".

[Anonymous]

Just popping on to say that this "middle class" as an insult/slur is so amusing. It reminds me of the 80s when conspicuous consumption was all the rage, and you wanted to look as rich as possible. Then the 90s followed with grunge and you didn't want to admit to having grown up with money, let alone flaunt having it. The pendulum swings, then swings back, then swings back...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great article.

Reading classics in third-world countries is considered performative, and it's fascinating that the same sentiment is now growing in the US. I wonder what it will mean for the US' future.

Nothing. It will mean nothing for "the US' future."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article.

Reading classics in third-world countries is considered performative, and it's fascinating that the same sentiment is now growing in the US. I wonder what it will mean for the US' future.

Nothing. It will mean nothing for "the US' future."

Probably just the nail in the coffin in a 50 year decline in exalting the study of English as a discipline as well as university English departments across the country. There’s an article in the NY Times today lamenting how few novels are read by middle and high schools with screens viewed as the likely culprit. Kids may not even have the capacity to tackle difficult literature these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to DCUM, middle class means I have a 4000 sqft home in NOVA (inside the beltway), two nice cars, a retirement, healthcare, college for the kids, international vacations and the ability to shop without thinking about it at Whole Foods. Plus I get to read real books with pages?

SIGN ME UP!

You live in Virginia? Eww...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tf is performative reading

Well, I did once see a guy at a music venue dive bar pull out a stack of heavy books (think Bakunin, etc.), put them on the bar, and proceed to read one for an hour or so. That sure seemed performative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just finished the New Yorker piece on performative reading. Actual performative reading signals insecurity because of its inauthenticity and is decidedly middle class as are the folks poking fun and making a spectacle of it on social media. However, foregoing social media and reading difficult literature for pleasure (and authentically) is becoming a higher status thing due to the brain rot that the proliferation of algorithmic social media and smart phones has caused in our society.

Whether it’s authentic or not, I certainly think more highly of someone reading a physical book than I do the hordes of phone addicted zombies scrolling endlessly on the metro. If nothing else, maybe this trend will improve our reading habits!

Change my mind!

Reading the New Yorker is the ultimate example of performative reading.

This. What irony!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just finished the New Yorker piece on performative reading. Actual performative reading signals insecurity because of its inauthenticity and is decidedly middle class as are the folks poking fun and making a spectacle of it on social media. However, foregoing social media and reading difficult literature for pleasure (and authentically) is becoming a higher status thing due to the brain rot that the proliferation of algorithmic social media and smart phones has caused in our society.

Whether it’s authentic or not, I certainly think more highly of someone reading a physical book than I do the hordes of phone addicted zombies scrolling endlessly on the metro. If nothing else, maybe this trend will improve our reading habits!

Change my mind!

Reading the New Yorker is the ultimate example of performative reading.

This. What irony!

Really? Isn’t it only if you’re doing it publicly? Who are you performing for if it’s at home or discussing it on an anonymous forum? I read it regularly at home and on my phone as well as The Atlantic.

[Anonymous]

I’m adding performative reading to the hobbies section on my resume.