Il diritto di annoiarsi (In defence of boredom)
QCER C1407 parole
There is a particular kind of complaint, common among people of my age, that begins with the observation that nobody is ever bored any more and ends, within a sentence or two, in a description of how much better things were when we had nothing to do. The observation is worth keeping. The conclusion is not.
Boredom, in the version we are nostalgic about, was rarely chosen. It was what happened when the shop was shut, the second channel had finished for the night and the friend who might have come round lived four kilometres away. Those conditions have gone, and almost nobody who lived through them wants them back. Any defence of boredom that depends on restoring them is not an argument; it is a wish.
What can be said, more carefully, is this. Certain kinds of thinking appear to need a period in which nothing is arriving. Not rest, exactly, and not concentration either, but a sort of idling in which the mind sorts through what it already has. Most people can recognise the state from experience: the idea that turns up in the shower, on a walk or during a long and tedious journey. It is hard to summon deliberately, and it is remarkably easy to abolish, because it only requires something mildly interesting to be available at all times to be crowded out altogether.
This is where the argument tends to go wrong. The problem is not the phone, and treating it as the villain lets everyone off too lightly. Long before the phone there was the radio, the newspaper on the train and the habit of falling asleep to the television; what is new is not distraction but its portability and, above all, that it is now supplied by companies whose income depends directly on how much of it you accept. That is not a conspiracy and it is not hidden: it is a business model, described plainly in the documents those companies publish for their own shareholders.
So the useful question is not whether we should be bored more. It is narrower and more practical: whether we are prepared to defend, deliberately and against a certain amount of discomfort, the few remaining stretches of the day in which nothing in particular is happening. That is a decision about a habit, not a moral position, and it can be made without any nostalgia whatsoever for the second channel closing down at midnight.
Parole che forse non conosci
- nostalgicnostalgico
- to come roundpassare a trovare
- to idlegirare a vuoto
- to sort throughmettere in ordine
- tediousnoioso
- to summonevocare a comando
- to crowd outsoffocare, non lasciare spazio
- villainil cattivo
- to let somebody off lightlyfar cavare qualcuno a buon mercato
- stretch (of time)tratto, momento
Domande
Si risponde con il testo davanti. Non è memoria: è capire.
What does the writer accept, and what does the writer reject, in the usual complaint?
The observation is kept; the conclusion is rejected — Lo dice in due frasi di seguito e molto brevi: the observation is worth keeping, the conclusion is not. Separa la diagnosi dal rimedio.
The writer would like to bring back the conditions that produced the old boredom.
False — Falso, e lo chiude: quasi nessuno che l'abbia vissuto lo rivuole, e una difesa che dipenda dal ripristinarlo «non è un argomento, è un desiderio».
How is the mental state described that the text defends?
As neither rest nor concentration, but a sorting through of what is already there — Lo definisce per esclusione: not rest, exactly, and not concentration either. E dà gli esempi che chiunque riconosce: la doccia, la passeggiata, il viaggio lungo e noioso.
Why does the writer say that blaming the phone 'lets everyone off too lightly'?
Because distraction existed long before phones, so the phone alone cannot explain it — Elenca la radio, il giornale sul treno e l'addormentarsi davanti alla TV. Se il colpevole fosse un apparecchio basterebbe toglierlo; negandolo, la responsabilità torna a chi decide e a chi vende.
According to the writer, what is genuinely new about today's distraction?
That you can carry it everywhere and that someone earns money from it — Lo dice con un «above all» che segna quale delle due pesa di più: la portabilità e, soprattutto, che la forniscono aziende il cui guadagno dipende da quanta ne accetti.
How does the writer reformulate the question at the end?
As a practical decision about defending small empty stretches of the day — Sostituisce la domanda grande con una «più stretta e pratica», e chiarisce cosa NON è: non è una posizione morale, è una decisione su un'abitudine. E chiude negando di nuovo la nostalgia.