Ian Bogost Shares Insights on How ‘The Small Stuff’ Can Empower Us to Reclaim Life from Over-Convenience

Is Silicon Valley focusing on the wrong priorities?

In his upcoming book, “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life,” writer and academic Ian Bogost raises important questions about how technology has altered our interactions with the physical world. Inspired by his earlier article in the Atlantic discussing the decline of stick shift vehicles, Bogost’s work highlights how various elements of our daily lives—ranging from vehicles to simple household items—have become increasingly dematerialized.

Bogost explains, “Essentially, we are becoming detached from the sensory world, and the driving force behind that is what you could call convenience technologies.” He quickly notes, however, that technology is not the sole factor in this shift. “Multiple influences—beyond just technology, and particularly not limited to Silicon Valley’s innovations—have distanced people from their environment, removing the richness from everyday experiences.”

While he acknowledges critiques of the tech sector, Bogost admits to feeling somewhat fatigued by ongoing criticisms. He is now more interested in seeking “gratification” within daily sensory interactions rather than demanding sweeping societal changes.

“It’s unfair to expect ordinary people to tackle issues like wealth inequality or capitalism before they can fully engage with their lives,” he remarks. “They shouldn’t have to wait for that.”

In a recent interview, we examined the tension between convenience and experience, potential improvements for Silicon Valley, and the trend of ’hipster nostalgia.’

Your piece on stick shifts was compelling. How did it lead to your broader reflections on “the small stuff”? When did you realize there was a book to be written?

My article on stick shifts from 2022 resonated widely. While many have lamented the decline of manual transmissions for years, electric vehicles have made this concern tangible as they don’t utilize gears. If EVs become the norm, then for stick shifts, this could signify a true endpoint.

Writing that piece was fulfilling, yet I was surprised by its impact. I pondered whether the response stemmed from a genuine nostalgia for stick shifts. After reflective thought over the year, I realized I had been exploring the significance of everyday life for a while, through various topics like toasters and smoothies. I’ve always found the mundane captivating and questioned why this interests me so deeply.

It was through examining the stick shift that I recognized ordinary life holds far greater meaning than we often appreciate. A stick shift, laden with cultural and personal significance, can evoke feelings akin to a refreshing breeze on a warm day.

The concept of dematerialization is central to your book. Can you elaborate on it and how you approached the subject?

Dematerialization refers to our growing detachment from the sensory aspects of reality. This disconnection arises from what we might call convenience technologies, but also includes bureaucracy, efficiency, economic interests, and regulations. These elements collectively strip away the fabric of daily life.

For instance, think about airport restrooms: the automated toilets, faucets, and soap dispensers. While they aim to enhance our experience, they ironically often hinder our physical engagement with the world. These changes are largely beneficial, yet we fail to notice the trade-off we make—a loss of tactile interaction with our environment.

Your restroom example is impactful, as it highlights both the convenience and the unexpected inconveniences we encounter with these technologies.

Indeed, we become aware of these conveniences primarily when they fail. Often, we don’t even realize there’s a problem, or we sense something is amiss but lack clarity on what it is.

You also suggest that many of these technological advancements have improved our lives. How do you navigate this trade-off, especially between traditional cars and modern innovations like EVs?

Some advocates for stick shifts cling to the notion of unyielding traditionalism. Yet, I don’t subscribe to that view. Services like Uber and the ability to stream music contribute positively to our lives. However, the gradual shift towards automatisation—the “boiling frog” phenomenon—has often passed unnoticed.

I appreciate critiques like those from Cory Doctorow who offer enlightening perspectives, yet I find value in the convenience of services like Amazon Prime and Google search. My stance seeks to balance acknowledging beneficial technological shifts while recognizing that many changes occurred so subtly that we overlooked their implications.

Your tone deviates from the typical anger found in critiques of technology. What distinguishes your perspective?

Having critiqued Silicon Valley for some time, I find the ongoing negativity to be somewhat tiresome and often misdiagnoses the root issues. It’s comforting to categorize entities as good or bad, but real change is far more complex than that.

Considering Silicon Valley’s influence, do you believe many consumer tech products are aimed at the wrong goals?

Absolutely, there’s a preoccupation with efficiency and speed that often overshadows the need for meaningful experiences. The push for seamless, automated services has taken priority. While services like Uber made transportation effortless, it’s essential to recall the human aspects intertwined with such advancements.

Instead of blaming society or the tech industry for this evolution, I argue it transpired gradually, earning both consumer approval and industry endorsement over time as conveniences were embraced.

If entrepreneurs want to create products that balance convenience with experience, what examples can guide them?

History shows that early computer innovations aimed to connect users in meaningful ways. In the 1970s, there was a strong emphasis on human-centered design—catering to the user’s physical presence. However, as computational power and automation expanded, we gradually lost focus on that crucial human element.

It’s vital to remember that the process of doing something holds value, not just the end results. We’ve become overly fixated on outcomes rather than the qualitative experiences that lead to them, often disregarding the importance of engaging with our tasks.

Your book emphasizes personal and sensory experiences. How do you navigate your feelings of nostalgia without romanticizing the past?

Nostalgia can easily become indulgent. While I cherish certain past experiences, the reality is that we cannot revert to earlier times. Instead, we must engage with the present and seek ways to find similar meaningful encounters today.

For instance, I enjoy the depth of connection that a traditional phone offers compared to modern communication tools like Zoom. While we can’t recreate the past, we can still cultivate enriching experiences in the here and now.

Nostalgia may serve as a guide, but it’s essential not to dwell in the past. The goal is to find ways to appreciate our current experiences, incorporating the richness of our sensory perceptions.

You address the broader societal implications of your book. Are you concerned that sensory experiences may diminish over time?

It’s a nuanced issue. We often fixate on what has been lost without recognizing that recovery doesn’t necessarily require sweeping changes. I don’t oppose significant societal shifts, but it’s unrealistic to expect ordinary individuals to wait for broad reforms before engaging fully with life. There are actions they can take right now to enhance their sensory experiences.

For example, in discussions around remote versus office work, while some organizations can influence working conditions, individuals can find ways to enrich their surroundings regardless of their circumstances. Rather than lamenting societal issues, they can actively seek to enhance their sensory lives.