Alone Together, Expecting Less - What to do?

In his article ”Shifting Worlds of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in ‘Them’ versus ‘Us,’” Joshua Meyrowitz discusses ways in which the electronic age is seeing an eroding of traditional social boundaries. His thought is that in “postmodern electronic societies” there is a diminishing emphasis on groups and a shift towards “a new recognition of the special needs and idiosyncrasies of individuals” (1997, p.65). Meyrowitz also states that in his vision of society, the trend is away from any emphasis on differences among groups and towards relativistic, egalitarian inclusion.

I think Meyrowitz raises a compelling point. In a world where there is no “them” and no “us,” everyone is together in one group. Superficially, this scenario suggests a unified utopia. But I think it is possible that this level of inclusion ultimately makes people more isolated and alienated. What does it mean to belong to the Facebook community? What types of social reassurances does one have as a result of having an account on their favorite TV show’s website? Because anyone can gain these memberships, the emotional satisfaction of being included is almost nil. Furthermore, the all inclusiveness of electronic social groups can tend to make someone feel as if they don’t matter. If who a person is has absolutely no bearing on where they can go and what they can participate in, then what does their personality matter? It doesn’t, and people are being adversely effected by this.

In her latest book “Alone Together,” Sherry Turkle discusses some of the social implications of this new all-inclusive electronically connected world. In her opinion, this environment is allowing people to expect less from each other (2011, p.295). Turkle leads the reader to wonder what friendship within the bounds of a social networking website really means? When one is sick, there is a distinct difference between a person posting “Hope you feel better!” on your Facebook wall and a friend stopping by to see how you are doing. Turkle wants to alert people to the dangers of accepting the wall post type gestures as good enough.

Meyrowitz’s ideas about all-inclusive social structures and Turkle’s observations about the nature of relationships mediated by the online environment seem in complete agreement. The question remains, what to do? It seems that online communication will only become more and more the main mode of human interaction. Is there any way we can preserve the integrity of the meaning of friendship, support, and belonging? As I’ve written in this blog before, I believe part of the answer is in reducing the amount of information to which one chooses to be privy. Avoid looking at information that has no real bearing on your life. Keep your social networks at a level that allows you to actually interact with everyone on your lists. Always be conscious of your actions!

But I fear these types of solutions will not help much, or at least, not enough. More and more, the construction of the social pathways on the net seem to dictate the nature of the relationships therein. I don’t think it is practical to expect people to constantly fight against the designs of sites like Facebook. It is always a loosing battle. A human’s discipline and resolve has limits, a machine’s does not. It is up to leaders to come up with better systems that will displace the flawed ones. While I don’t have faith in people’s ability to fight the web, I do have faith that they will choose the system that allows them to feel most human, to choose the system that enables deeps seated human needs and instincts. So… to the drawing board!!!

Could Internet use help erase generation gaps over time?

An experience that has recently solidified its place as an official electric age cliché is when one receives a Facebook friend request from their parent or grandparent. An event only becomes a cliché once it has been repeated over and over again. Clichés, by there very nature, are accessible to most people. Some type of personal connection is needed to have this accessibility. This connection is often foraged through personal experience. This leads me to believe that many, many people have been “friended” by their parent or grandparent. Available data confirms this deduction. One of the fastest growing demographics on Facebook is the 35+ group (insidefacebook.com). So what does this new(ish) cliché mentioned above tell us about how demographics in the entire Internet user arena are changing? Obviously, the boarders are expanding and the Net has no Ellis Island. All are welcome.

Many discussions of the social impacts of the Internet are subtly framed by vague acceptances of an age continuum. The younger one is, it is assumed, the more tech enveloped one’s life is. But as the demographics of Net users expand, this assumption becomes archaic. The “kids today” comments become naïve and unfair. How different can understanding be between two people who both understand how to create and maintain a Facebook page? Much can be different, but much less than if one of those people did not know how to use a computer at all.

What could this mean for the future? It is thought that human life expectancy could continue to rise. And children are becoming Net savvy at younger and younger ages. It is conceivable that in the not too distant future, a fifteen year old and a seventy-five year old could be learning to master the same new technologies at the same time. This type of environment could mean a shrinking in the social space between generations. As greater portions of the population become connected and fluent in web technologies, things that formerly separated people in different biological generations will have less and less importance. This could be good news for cultures that struggles with coherence. A criticism common among those wary of the changes technology is causing is that life is becoming increasingly fragmented. But I think that amidst the vast ocean of fragments, a new kind of unity could emerge.

It’s time to get behind ‘em!

Critics and luddites say that the Internet is creating a culture in which shallow knowledge is the standard and that in a few years, no one will be willing to read anything longer than a tweet. This vision is defeatist and, as much as I agree with the problems to which this prediction is a reaction, I refuse to get behind it.

First off, I’d like to rail against the “our future is doomed” folks. Oh ye of little faith!!!! Anyone who says that technology will ruin the youth of our culture, however big their soapbox and however stuffed their shirt, is ignoring eons of history. Guess what, after all this time… we’re still here. We’re still here after all that’s happened; after the invention and implementation of every technology that has ever been created. For those who see the internet as a wild beast set to devour us, allow me to draw your attention to an invention that preceded the Internet: fire. True, fire is not an invention as clearly man-made as the Internet. But in both cases, the technology is more about an ability to harness a certain type of power. For the Internet, the power is in the form of information. For fire, the technology was founded on ways to control the location and intensity of combustion. Perhaps the discoverers of fire tech where the first to experience awe at our ability to create things that can destroy. How many forests were burned before man learned to respect the power of fire? No one can tell. But what we do know is that civilization persevered.

Now, away from analogies and back to today. What I want is for the naysayers to replace their pessimistic arrogance with belief in young people. The best way to turn someone off is to insult his or her intelligence and potential. Why should the children of the TV generations be able to get through and come out the other end intelligent enough to keep the world working and not the generation of the social network and the tweet? My prediction: they will make it and they will be amazing. But they will be better having had our support. And that support should come from a place of understanding and faith.

It is important to identify the problems that our new technologies create. But any analysis of these problems is pointless if there is little faith that anyone, especially the most tech immersed, can develop a mind sharp enough to help move our culture forward. The goal of our discourse should always be the advancement our society. When there is a problem brought to the surface, be ready to offer a solution. And that solution should be designed to give people the space to rise to their greatest potential.

The Coming Ecological Determinism

The technological determinists think that technology controls the progression of civilization. I don’t think this is altogether true, but I was enticed by the processes of the consideration of huge forces that control the way we evolve and live. While I think technology is just a piece of the puzzle (granted an extremely large piece), I do think these forces are at play. One such forces that I believe will constitute an ever growing puzzle piece is the environment.

A computer can change the way we think, work, and relax. The environment can make it impossible to make the computer in the first place. What happens when coal and oil are depleted to levels that make it impractical to use them to power the factories that make technology? In terms of determining factors, I think the environment trumps almost everything else. And as things get more intense, i.e. global warming, fresh water shortages, food shortages, depleted fisheries, smog, we will be forced to adapt our lives to deal with these problems. The only other option is embracing impending annihilation. And that brings up another great puzzle piece; the determining factor that is the super-powerful self-preservation instinct. I think we’ll be all right.

Here’s a great exercise in imagining what a world with out oil might look like-

http://worldwithoutoil.org/

Reaction to Technological Determinists

After reading several writings on the theory of technological determinism, I have decided that I don’t like it. The theory is ultimately reductionist. If someone out on the street asked me to explain this theory, I would say (in the spirit of reductionism), “Those people think that technology determines the course of history, that technology is the force that moves and shapes culture.” True, technology is one of the most significant factors, but it just doesn’t explain everything. When looking at this theory, I am reminded of the old allegory about the witnesses to the car accident. Each witness stands in a different stop and thus each witness has a different rendition of the accident; different according to who’s at fault, who hit who, when it happened– basically all major variables shift with each witnesses account. The technological determinists are represented by just one of the witnesses. The arrogance of the claim that they have figured a theory to explain history is astounding. To put this into perspective, consider the fact that Marx was a determinist. His arrogance was the driving force behind the establishment of the Soviet Union. How many people suffered unnecessarily because of this flawed theory?

While I, like Elull, believe it is important to recognize the power of technology to steer entire civilizations. But I also believe that much more holistic perspectives are possible. To overstate the impact of technology actually strips humans of their power and places that power in technology. This type of thinking further unbalances our culture and makes people feel even more helpless. And as I am striving for a philosophy of human empowerment, this is unacceptable to me. Thus, I say to the Techno Determinists, thanks for your insights. I will take the good, leave the ridiculous and reactionary and be on my way.

Why We Are Ready For Solutions

In his book, Postman talks about the “specialist” culture. He says that the new priests are the sociologists, psychologists, physicians, etc. This book was written in 1993 and I think this aspect of culture has changed for the worse. The new new priests are self-help gurus, celebrities, and reality TV stars. A non-stop torrent of advice flows out of these people and every little bit is eaten up and the plate licked. WHY!!!??? Who are these people and why have they been given the authority to advise anyone about how they should live their lives? There are many answers to these questions but the one I want to focus on here is that people are hungry for answers.

If people want answers, they’re obviously out there by the millions… so what’s the problem? Well, turns out most of these answers are complete hogwash and people end up not getting their needs met. How many diets can a person go on? How many child raising strategies can a person try out? How many ways can I put my compost pile together? It is completely overwhelming. Few people can stick with anything for very long, thus no one gets good at anything and some of the greatest human qualities–discipline, fortitude, dedication, the ability to focus long-term–are left under-developed. So here’s my solution. People need to be empowered to trust themselves again. We don’t need someone to tell us how to sleep, eat, walk, run, talk, breath, and on and on. We are human beings; the most amazing animals nature has ever produced. Surely, each one of us has something inside that can guide us towards making good decisions.

So in addition to basic education, the kind that all people need, I offer as a solution to the ever-growing problems of our information culture: a national movement towards the empowerment of the human spirit. Believe in yourself. Look deep into your interior and find out what’s in there. Do you really like how you are handling yourself? If not, why? Take control of your actions. No book or talk show host or diet or strip-mall educated personal trainer can make your decisions for you. Empower yourself. Rant done… phew.

What Can We Do?

The study of the social impacts of technology can be demoralizing, depressing, and defeating. We’ve come so far so fast, that the forces of technology seem like forces of nature– unbending, unstoppable, massively powerful. It seems our digital culture says, get on board or risk complete irrelevance. I understand why so many people willingly, and often enthusiastically, go with the digital tide, wherever it may lead. What other choices are presented by society? No many, but they are out there. Neil Postman in “Technology: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” provides us with some concrete solutions. According to Postman, education is the solution to dealing with a digital culture that has run amok. Postman situates this education in schools. I agree with Postman wholeheartedly that education is the answer to the social problems created by technology, but I think that education can take place inside AND outside of schools. Furthermore, I think it needs to take place everywhere. What about all the people today who will never again see the inside of the classroom and are dealing with serious, technology driven issues?

So my question is, how can these people be helped? One answer I would like to explore is the development of an easily accessible philosophy that helps people make sense for themselves what is going on in the digital culture. If people could just be moved to evaluate their activities, I think we could begin to address our problems. I intend this blog to be a place where I experiment with ideas centered around the development of this philosophy.