Friday 10 August 2012

Auto-Pilot

Hey folks, a couple of week ago, I posted a piece on anonymity in the big city. Here's a quick follow up, which I actually wrote in December of 2010, so again this is a piece coming from the archives. I hope that you enjoy it, and I look forward to your comments, as always.

Auto-Pilot

            Many years ago, a man named Henry Ford invented the car. Now cars were great things, taking people from place to place quickly and smoothly. Of course, when I say “people,” I mean rich people. Cars were not very affordable when they first came out, and they still aren’t really, though there are two cars for every three people in America these days. However, as not everyone can afford their own car (some people have more than one, just to keep the stats up you know) someone decided that they would invent a really big car for everyone to share. These big public cars, affectionately known as “buses,” would drive a scheduled route through town, picking people up in one place and dropping them off elsewhere.
In the olden days when you wanted to get off the bus, you’d simply walk to the front, turn to the driver and say, “I’d like to get off the bus at the next stop, please,” and the driver would smile at you, pull the bus over and let you off. Buses soon became very popular, picking people up all over the place and getting absolutely packed, so much so that it wasn’t always possible to wade through the human sea to ask the driver to let you off. In response, an ingenious person invented the rope and bell system: when you want to get off the bus, you need not apologetically and excusingly wade all the way to the front and ask the driver. Rather, you can just pull one of the ropes running along the walls of the bus and a bell will ring, indicating to the driver your intention to dismount. Peace and order reigned, and buses everywhere functioned smoothly. People would get on and off the bus with impunity, merrily pulling ropes and ringing bells.
However, buses have fallen on dark times. So often these days I get on a bus and I’m the only one on it, or nearly so. On such occasions, there I sit at the front of a nearly empty bus, which is invariably fullest at the back with people burying themselves in a cell phone or a personal music player of some non-descript description. And when those anonymous back-dwellers want to get off the bus? There’s plenty of space for them to walk to the front and ask the driver to (please) let them off at the next stop, but instead they usually stay at the back and retain their anonymity by pulling the rope and getting off without a word.
            A bus driver is a person, and it’s not tout a fait égal (not all one) to the driver whether you ask them personally to let you off or whether you just ring the bell. Sure, they’ll get the point either way, but that’s not the point. They are strangers, but they are people, too, and as such it makes sense to address them personally rather than impersonally and indirectly. It’s like looking at someone when you talk to them: it’s just common courtesy, and shows respect.
But the rope and bell system has fundamentally altered the nature of the bus driver in the minds of many. The driver is now a function, an automaton, as much part of the mechanism of the bus as the gas pedal, the brake or the bell. Obviously it doesn’t matter to the function how you input the “dismount” command, and so why should we bother addressing the function personally?
            We patrons of the bus systems haven’t been the only ones to embrace the difference either. When I’m on an empty bus, I sit at the front; I make no effort to isolate myself from the unknown Other who sits nearby. In fact, I even make a point of asking the driver to let me off. And that’s where the transformation of the bus driver is fully realised: asking the driver to let me off gets me a very strange look more often than not.
            Not only do the riders of the bus see the driver as part of the inhuman mechanism, but the drivers themselves seem to also. Very odd. Less odd is that bus drivers and patrons are frequently frustrated with one another. Any cock-ups are lost in the ever-widening gap between them, always blamed on the other, and more out of misunderstanding and lack of compassion than anything else.

5 comments:

  1. Yes indeed! That is one thing that always strikes me after returning from a developing country. There is so much more human interaction in the developing world, and when I come back to Canada, people seem so cold. People on buses in Montreal seem to pretend that nobody else exists. We've all done the "oh i just saw someone i know, so now I"m going to look super interested in my book and not look up until the end of the ride." In Kenya, complete strangers would ask if they could take a look at the book I was reading, and they would browse for like ten minutes! They definitely didn't pretend other people weren't around. I'm all for talking to bus drivers and fellow passengers! Though, I don't actually do that when I'm in Montreal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm intrigued by the fact that you've found this pattern borne out in several contexts in the developing world. Any thoughts on why that might be? And perhaps how that might translate into our context here back home?

      Also, a comment on the term "developing world." It really suggests that there is only a single model of national success, namely, economic (read: capitalist) development. The first thing that comes to mind is that the rapport between individuals in the society seems to me an important metric for the health of a community, and as you point out, that seems to be accomplished better in the "developing" than in the "developed" world.

      The second thing that comes to mind is a comment that I read a few days ago about the American mentality towards the wealth disparity in their country. I always see that gap as dividing the haves from the have-nots; however, many Americans see that line as dividing the haves from the don't-yet-haves. The difference seems an important but subtle one, and may disclose an important equivocation between the possibility that anyone can be rich and the possibility that everyone can be rich. An important factor in developed nations being developed is their opportunity to draw on cheap labour in developing nations to produce goods cheaply and then sell them for massive profits at home. So the idea of a developing nation might be a problematic one to start with, because the idea that the developing world will ever catch up with the developed world is an impossible ideal: parity would fundamentally alter what it means to be developed.

      Delete
  2. Interesting submission. I like the writing style of this one. The last time I read your entry on anonymity, I actually thought of a bud driver in Windsor we have, named Scotty, who intentionally goes out of his way to break down that wall. He always greets you and cracks a joke and he is absolutely marvellous. I've always thought the beel-ring was the only way anyone had ever gotten off the bus. In Windsor, we have a peculiar habit of ringing the bell, but shouting 'thank you!' before getting off... Kind of contradictory ^.^ oftentimes, people will stand up near the front and talk to the driver and I think they mostly get seen as obnoxious and needy. Maybe I will make an effort to bring aski to get let off back- it seems like an easy courtesy, so why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any idea what it is about the writing style that appeals to you more?

      Also, I'm glad to hear that there are people out there who consciously take ownership of their social situation, and actively try to push it in a new direction. There are so few in our society who reflect on these issues, much less make an effort to improve them.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete