Chatterjee 1

Aadrita Chatterjee

Becky Hsu

COW R1A

10 February 2020

A Reversed Dilemma

In Ian Bogost’s Every Place is the Same Now, he introduces the idea of a super space—

“a place that might be fused together with any other” (Bogost). This idea of a super space can be

seen in every aspect of our life: work, school, home and in my case, a bus. On my journey on bus

52, I noticed how the space of the bus was more social closer to campus and started to get

isolated the farther we got away from campus which is in disagreement with Ian Bogost’s idea of

a super space.

Bogost’s idea of a super space is completely driven by technology and both of these go

hand in hand. In a sense, a super space is highly individual because it is a space that you have

complete control over, giving you the power to turn it into whatever you want it to be. While

Bogost acknowledged some of the positives that come with the contemporary idea of a super

space and technology (convenience and ease of living) his main argument was how it leads to a

lack of social interaction (Bogost). This is because we have a tool that gives us the ability to take

our mind out of the setting we are currently in which raises the question: are we ever really

present with the people around us?

I took bus 52 (which goes from Albany to campus) and at first my observations may have

seemed to agree with Bogost’s argument because the interactions between the people and the

space created more of a super space closer to Albany—that is to say an environment where most

people were on their gadgets. I also noticed a large population of adults and people from lower
 Chatterjee 2

socioeconomic backgrounds. Not only did this different age group make me feel out of place but

it created a different dynamic in the bus as there was no acknowledgement of one another’s

presence which created a hostile and isolated environment. In the bus there were only three

people (excluding me) closer to Albany and two of them were on their gadgets. One of them was

listening to music and the other older person was glancing down at her phone only to look up

whenever we stopped and more people boarded the bus (see fig 1). The extent to which people

interacted with one another was limited to only greeting the bus driver by saying “hello” or

“good morning” or “thank you”. All of these observations lead me to think that people tried to

avoid social interaction at all costs since they just wanted to reach their final destination.

The environment of the bus near the campus was in stark contrast from the hostility I felt

near Albany. As a college student taking the bus near campus, I felt at complete ease when I was

around students carrying backpacks who were complaining about their assignments, stressed

from exams and talking about who likes who in their friend group. In particular I noticed a group

of two girls who seemed to be having a very dynamic conversation which accounted for most of

the noise on the bus (see fig 2). At the risk of seeming like a complete stalker, I also saw a

couple of students with their AirPods in and on their phones but it seemed like the same amount,

if not slightly less than Albany (the main difference being that there was more social interaction

on the bus). Moreover, I could feel a sense of community on the bus when I was near the campus

which made me realize the extent to which the space of a bus reflects the location we are in.

Upon further examination, I realized how my contrasting observations mainly refutes

Bogost’s idea of a super space. While I did feel like I was in a super space closer to Albany, what

was most surprising to me was how a space filled with young adults –who should be addicted to

technology according to Bogost—was more social than the adults and this observation
 Chatterjee 3

completely refutes Bogost’s idea of a super space. This is because he implies that this

phenomenon is mainly relevant to younger generations. He supports his claim by giving the

example of his son saying that “You walk into your own living room to find your spouse or son

on the couch, staring or tapping into a device. What are they doing? you wonder. Email?

Television? Pornography? Shopping? Which is also to ask: What other, foreign, spaces have they

conjured into the shared space of the home?” (Bogost). Even though everyone is susceptible to

getting addicted to their phones, Bogost clearly believes it’s more applicable to newer

generations citing the reason to be a generation difference (Bogost).

As a naturally curious individual, I started questioning how one trip on a bus could cause

me to disagree with Bogost’s argument especially since his arguments are based off real-life

observations as well (he mainly cites his childhood memories and day to day interactions). My

conclusion is that it’s due to the setting he’s exploring this phenomenon in. By this I don’t mean

an airport, a house or even a bus— I mean the larger picture. In the case of Bogost, he lives in a

suburban home so any of the observations he’ll have are in the context of nice family houses, a

school nearby for children to go to and cars parked in front of the house for parents to go to

office in. The dynamic in this type of neighborhood is completely different from a college town

which is mainly comprised of college students.

This brings into question, how biased is Bogost really and how much does it affect his

analysis? While it’s true that technology is a big part of our lives as teenagers and young adults,

so is our need to interact with other people; after all, you meet a lot of people and form long

lasting friendships in school and college. Take me for an example: even though I’m a teenager

who uses technology quite frequently, my experience at college has revolved more around my

relationship with my friends and other people than technology. Therefore, Bogost’s examination
 Chatterjee 4

of super spaces and the role technology plays in it isn’t exactly fair as he doesn’t get the full

picture since he lives in a suburban home where the demographic is completely different.

While it’s easy for us to relate to Bogost’s article, it fails to be an accurate picture of how

super spaces manifest themselves in real life. Furthermore, my observations not only contradict

his argument but it also proves that teenagers/ young adults can be associated with other things

than just technology. Maybe now it’s time to shift the narrative to discuss technology use across

generations rather than constantly focusing on it as a millennial issue because that’s clearly

what’s being reflected in real-life.

 Chatterjee 5

Works Cited

Chatterjee, Aadrita. Field Notes. Feb 8, 2020, Berkeley & Albany, CA.

Bogost, Ian. “Every Place Is the Same Now.” The Atlantic,

www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/01/smartphone-has-ruined-space

/605077. Accessed 12 February 2020.