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.