I'm not sure what to write about, so many things are troubling these days, but there are some things that have been bothering me for quite a while and seem perpetually timely; so I thought I might as well use this opportunity to get them off my chest.
I'm bothered by cultural amnesia and that I am old enough to watch history repeat itself. It's not the getting old that is upsetting - well, it is tiresome, to be honest - it's the realization that we as a people do not learn from our past mistakes nor heed the warnings of those we claim to esteem the highest.
I believe that through the Internet, more accessible and democratic media paradigms are emerging that will ultimately replace the present corporate controlled model; however, I fear that this might further exacerbate the schisms that already divide our culture. While the current trend of community building is a positive development in the use of the Internet, the technology actually discourages communal use and experience. Much like the automobile's effect on transportation, the Internet physically isolates the individual and precludes a shared journey. Instead, the Internet user can avoid new experiences and chance encounters by sticking to the same path and associating only with communities of similar belief or worldview.
I'm wary of a future where each individual can create a virtual world in which all assumptions go unchallenged, all associations reaffirm, where one can indulge in conformity and revel with only the like minded. As we progress towards digital convergence, personal communication and media become increasingly entangled; if, as James Carey defines it, communication is the symbolic process by which we produce, maintain, repair and transform reality, what kind of future are we looking at? Even more of what we already have.
I remember thinking back in 1984 that I saw nothing of Orwell's vision of a future dystopia; in recent years I have seen it increasingly manifest in our culture. What happened between then and now was the implementation of the neo-con political economic vision championed by Reagan and carried out by those following who canonized him as the patron saint of the conservative. What Gitlin describes as the "cultivation of surface" and the "stylized blankness" that emerged during the Reagan years seems to have evolved into an Orwellian disconnect between surface and substance, where words (compassionate conservative) can appear on the surface to mean one thing while actually signifying the opposite in meaning and where identity (Christian Right) can become the opposite of its defining characteristics when co opted for political power.
We are currently in the midst of an economic crisis; what some say is the result of the full realization of the neo-con economic policy. If this is true, can the cultural fallout be far behind?
Peace
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with your point “the Internet physically isolates the individual and precludes a shared journey.” I think people can be isolated by the Internet because the Internet offers so many information, services, fantastic things to us. people can do almost anything online. You can even buy grocery online and get them delivered to your home. However, it doesn’t mean that people will be isolated from the outside world. I think it is all about your choice. You can choose having purely virtual life or have both virtual life and real life.
How about the convenience of using the Internet? You mentioned “the Internet user can avoid new experiences and chance encounters by sticking to the same path and associating only with communities of similar belief or worldview.” I think it is true, but it might be positive if you look at it in the other way around. If people who have the same interest or values share something online, it might help to save a lot of energy and time for them to search what they need online, right?
Thanks for a great post. I really appreciate how you reach back into history to support your apparent skepticism towards the capacity of the internet to bring people together in a meaningful way. I think the context you provided--the Eisenhower and Kennedy statements, and the 1984 reference--was very effective. I also randomly picked up 1984 again a few weeks ago and was reminded of the ways in which Orwell's dystopian vision is reflected in the direction the media structure is heading. The internet is not only a means of communication, content-sharing and community building. It's also essentially a vast, hackable repository of information about everyone who uses it.
Here's a fascinating piece from the NYTimes magazine about the extremely twisted world of online trolling: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=trolls&st=cse&oref=login
I'm posting this piece not only because it's a gripping and eye-opening read. It also speaks to how vulnerable our information is. Remember when AOL accidentally leaked the search histories of 500,000 users? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060807-7433.html
If what we do and search for on the internet can be taken as an approximation of our deepest desires, does it scare people that that information is being mined and stored?
But as you allude to in your post, there might be a disconnect between the surface and the "actual", whatever that may be. Web users have the illusion of agency and total control of their "surface" identity online. Today, it's is possible to conduct a relationship entirely via the internet. Does this make us more fearful of face-to-face interaction? I wonder to what extent the internet can truly satisfy our human social needs.
But one thing's for sure: it can certainly facilitate our human inclination to gravitate only towards others who share our viewpoints.
Post a Comment