“…And they all looked just the same”

“Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky tacky,” a soft, folky woman’s voice croons over radio waves and across America. To the casual listener, this song is just like all the rest; a lilting melody, catchy lyrics, and an easy-going feeling. But if you listen closer, you find an entirely different message to the tune of political activism. Malvina Reynolds, a songwriter and an activist, got inspiration for the song while driving through California “suburbia.” In the post-World War II era, more and more housing developments were being built within closer proximity to one another and, to save money, were made with poor materials (“ticky tacky”). This housing boom was facilitated by the emergence of Federal Housing Administration loans after the end of World War II, not to mention the droves of returning soldiers. In this influx of population, public transportation was used more often, making suburban developments by railways and bus lines almost necessary (Boundless). The “American Dream” had shifted for some, but others saw a danger in this uniformity.

Malvina Reynolds identified with the “Beat” culture of the time – a counterculture group bent on criticizing conformity and aiming to change the U.S.’s slow decline into uniformity. The message of her controversial song resonated, and ever since it was released in 1967, Reynolds captivated audiences and pushed for a change in the way Americans saw their lives after World War II. In the years following, “Little Boxes” was covered by countless musicians, from Pete Seeger to Regina Spektor and even Rise Against. Its cultural influence is invaluable to our history as a nation, but what influence could it possibly have today? Our palates have become accustomed to the monotonous houses devoid of creativity; the “little boxes” certainly don’t bother us much anymore. Instead of houses, there is a new “ticky tacky” in society that is slowly pulling all Americans into a willing submission: smart phones and devices. Malvina Reynolds may have never presupposed the era of technology we live in today, which is exactly why “Little Boxes,” as a cultural variable, takes on an entirely new meaning in this day and age.

Take Apple Inc., for instance. Apple and its affiliates use smart marketing to advertise their products’ versatility and originality, yet strictly regulate usage after purchase. Columnist John Naughton draws an important distinction between Apple’s products and other personal computers:

Up to now, our gateways have been personal computers [in] which the user has complete control over what runs on them and can do with them what she or he likes. But the iPhone and iPad are radically different…Nothing runs on them unless it has been expressly approved by Apple. (Naughton)

Naughton suggests here that Apple is so powerful that it can afford to be demanding in its regulations, controlling its app use as much as it controls its clients. What’s worse, we willingly accept its terms and conditions. Instead of opting for a more lenient technology provider, we are entranced by the shiny “ticky tacky” of Apple’s advertising campaign and their subsequent relevance in canon culture. Following Reynolds’ words, then, owners of Apple products can be seen as the “doctors and lawyers, and business executives” who “all look just the same” (Reynolds). We’re subscribing to the same conformist idea Reynolds was warning us against so many years ago, although the context has changed.

It is not just appearances that form connections between the housing development boom and the technological monopoly Apple is beginning to possess.  Statistics of both the suburban boom and Apple’s consumption show staggering growth patterns in new residents and market caps, respectively. The growth and power both the housing development and Apple retained in such a small amount of time is staggering. Boustan and Schertzer explained how the housing developments in the ‘50s all the way until 2000 “grew at a phenomenal rate of 35 to 50 percent” compared to city populations of eight to ten percent rises (Boustan and Schertzer 4). This early rapid growth and change led to discomfort in society, with people feeling trapped and forced unwillingly into presupposed roles and expectations. Malvina Reynolds and the Beats decided to speak up about these expectations in the form of poetry and song. Similar statistics can be seen in Apple’s market cap, which is $214 billion: “Apple is now bigger than Google and is rapidly gaining on Microsoft,” Naughton discussed. “It’s as if BMW had overtaken Mercedes and is now threatening Ford” (Naughton). That kind of money can be used and abused in any way Apple wants. Because of how quickly technology evolves, this rapid growth is not as surprising as that of the early suburban housing development, but the frustration is still felt by every iPhone owner to some extent when a new model is released. As coincidence or calculation would have it, older models of the iPhone begin to suddenly work less efficiently and become sluggish in programs. There is little literature on the possibility that this could be an intentional marketing ploy as opposed to wear and use, but the anger from Apple consumers is unmistakably visible. If Reynolds were to see these statistics in correlation with the housing movement and rapid expansion, I’m sure she wouldn’t be surprised, especially in this technological age. We refused to heed her warning of the slow descent into conformity, and we are paying the price.

In the housing boom as well as the technological age, the idea of conformity often accompanies the idea of progress. For with progress come norms to be accepted and rules to follow. The parallels between suburbia and Apple are unmistakable in that both require an unsettling amount of conformity on the part of the consumer. Reynolds identified with this and was able to send a message to the people of her era to not accept everything at face value. In the same vein, I hope that we, as modern Americans, can discover the error in clicking “accept terms and conditions” without realizing what we are doing. Apple and other companies like it have put Americans on a tight leash. They promise better social lives, happier families, and more satisfied children with the touch of a button. They are shaping and molding their own reality for us to inhabit, and we are slowly but surely falling into it. By identifying with this alternate reality but not fully subscribing to it, we can find a happy medium. It is true that technology is useful to us, but too much of it is a bad thing. We can accept its use, but understand its role in society as a tool rather than a master. Human interaction, in its base form, outweighs a blue screen every time. If we can hold on to our own ideas and thoughts as well as the ones of Apple’s corporation, we can forge a strong and healthy consumer-producer relationship. Hopefully, there are enough creative minds to keep us from one day looking “all the same.”

Works Cited

Boustan, Leah Platt and Shertzer, Allison. “Residential mobility and the decline of central city population.” Demography and Population Loss from Central Cities, 1950-2000. 4-9. Web. August 2010. 26 March 2015.

“The Growth of Suburbia.” Boundless. N.d. Web. 27 March 2015.

Naughton, John. “Does Apple wield too much power in the technology marketplace?” The Guardian. Web. 3 Apr. 2010. 26 March 2015.

Reynolds, Malvina. “Little Boxes.” Malvina Reynolds Speaks the Truth. Columbia Records. Rec.