With Valentine’s Day now indubitably a global festival like perhaps no other – one that practically nobody can escape – and the contemporary relationship scene being characterised by epic churn, we at Mediolana felt moved by an article that our Creative Director & CSO recently came across in The New York Times on the topic of Mend, a new app and associated online community aimed at assisting people going through painful heartbreaks.
Mend (iOS launch date: July 2016) was founded by Ellen ‘Elle’ Huerta, a former Google employee who noticed – during a break-up of her own – that there was gaping gap in the app world for precisely this type of situation, while the corners of the Internet devoted to the topic were (and, we dare venture, still are) dominated by platitudes whose wisdom may only become apparent after a very long time indeed.
Huerta has correctly observed that while there is an ocean of fitness and (somewhat more tentatively) ‘brain-health’ software, vast areas of people’s love lives – beyond those pertaining to getting into a relationship in the first place – are wildly underserved. And on one level, Mend appears to be a great idea which taps into a clear cross-cultural need, having already been downloaded in over 100 countries; moreover, it certainly seems to have the backing of key players in Silicon Valley.
But after some reflection, in our opinion there is one clear potential issue with the concept: by turning such a sensitive area of human existence into yet another domain to be ‘managed’ electronically, apps such as Mend could make society overall that little bit less caring. Secure in the knowledge that there is now an algorithm to tend to their acute emotional needs, people may leave their friends in the care of a portal which can never actually be physically present, let alone listen to someone at close quarters who is truly suffering. Further iterations of Mend – an update is scheduled for this spring – must take this vital consideration into account if the noble original purpose of this technological marvel is not to be subverted.
Firmly entrenched as we now are in the era of emergent big data, barely a week seems to pass without some kind of new rankings list – in areas from academic attainment to public transportation system safety – being published. Many of these are indubitably worthy, but one of the great recent additions to this panoply is Monocle’s Soft Power Survey (‘MSPS’). The MSPS orders countries by their performance in the arena of soft power, a concept that encompasses fields such as culture, education and innovation, and which deserves far greater prominence, particularly when contrasted with its costly and increasingly insane military counterpart.
This being said, for any index to carry a high level of authority, its rankings have to be both comprehensible and justifiable; on reading its latest iteration (Power Play, 12/16-01/17), we at Mediolana – after some contemplation – think there are at least five reasons why Monocle’s Soft Power Survey desperately requires reexamination (and quite possibly recalibrating):
- We’re Number One. The United States (position: 1) has been placed at the pinnacle of the index after a year in which its political system has – after decades of decline – well-and-truly jumped the shark, with much of the rest of the world looking on in much the same way as observers to a car crash. This choice alone jeopardises the value of the entire index, and begs the question: what exactly would the US have to do to rank poorly? In truth, Brand America has arguably never quite recovered from the humanitarian and fiscal sinkhole of the present series of Middle Eastern conflicts; how Monocle can attribute more weight to a Beyoncé album than to (unmentioned) deep structural problems is a genuine mystery.
- Oh, Those Russians. Almost as baffling as America’s ascension to the top of the MSPS is Russia’s non-placement – it does not make the cut of 25 ranked nations. Again, this seems scarcely credible: the Russian Federation has won the hosting rights for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, arguably the most potent soft power event of all; moreover, the nation clearly punches above its weight in the news media sector, even if not all its organs are necessarily outlets of record. And in sectors as diverse as fashion (think: Irina Shayk) and education (where there is a serious, long-term plan to propel its HE sector into the elite category), Russia is enough of a player to make its exclusion from a soft power index difficult to understand.
- Blood on the Beachfront. Similar to the United States, Brazil (19) enjoys an augmented ranking in this year’s survey – and only Monocle knows why. 2016 saw its elected president removed from office in a manner which can charitably be described as eyebrow-raising; correspondingly massive and bitter protests; and no end in sight to the plague of senseless urban violence which casts a huge shadow over this undeniably beautiful country – and which means that Brazil at ‘peace’ rivals war-torn Syria when it comes to its annual tally of civilian murders. The ‘games’ element in the bread and games formula – soap operas, footballers and an invidious Summer Olympics – cannot paper over these these chasms.
- Soft Power ≠ Skiing. Austria (21) is many things – tidy, well-administered, efficient – but twenty-first century soft power giant it is not. A generally stable and functional political system aside, it is in fact a real struggle to think of any heavyweight soft power assets in this Alpine nation’s possession, so its inclusion in the MSPS – just behind China (20), but ahead of India (24) – does little to dispel the idea that this index is, at least in places, borderline arbitrary.
- Our Absent Friends. As well as Russia, there are other absentees from the Soft Power Survey which do not inspire confidence in the index’s criteria. Unlike Brazil (with which it shares a number of similarities), Mexico is a rapidly-developing culinary superpower; unlike Portugal (15), Turkey has both a twenty-four hour English-language international news network and a world-class airline; and unlike Poland (25), the United Arab Emirates is a country that connects the planet via Emirates and Etihad, and also contains no less than three global or regional hubs: Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah. Basic computational errors such as these must be remedied if the MSPS – which surely merits a much, much wider audience – is to reach its full potential.
Filed under Culture, Media