I loved this (one of many examples of the persistence and antiquity of the cycle of responses) in this case in the early stages of 'negotiation' about the etiquettes of new technologies:
In the early days of the printing press it was seen as bad manners to give a printed book as a gift; until the 1980s there was a stigma of rudeness attached to typed private letters. The criticism of the use of mobile phones in public deems a conversation with an invisible partner – as opposed to one with a third party who is physically present – to be an unacceptable lack of respect for the people in one's vicinity. Sitting in cafés with one's laptop open is something that restaurateurs do not like to see – it gives an antisocial impression and reduces takings – yet sitting around in public with a book or an open newspaper has not caused any offence for quite some time. The unspoken thrust of these complaints is ultimately that opponents of an innovation do not want to be confronted with it without their consent.Oh, and do have a look at this to get a further sense of perspective:
"For critics around 1870, the postcard sounded the death-knell for the culture of letter-writing, while in February 1897 the American Newspaper Publishers Association discussed whether "typewriters lower the literary grade of work done by reporters"."This is a must-read article to put beside all those books that seem to be coming out to alarm us about the brain-rotting, civilisation-threatening effects of search-engines and blog-reading.
4 comments:
I enjoyed the article, which gave an in depth analysis of the many criticisms of new technology over time.
However, Argument 9, "If the new technology has to do with thinking, writing or reading, then it will most certainly change our techniques of thinking, writing or reading for the worse" does pick up on a valid point, albeit using it to take a particular view. It is important to recognise that new mediums can change techniques of thinking, writing or reading, and not to necessarily embrace them without some analysis first. Rejecting change simply because it is change is illogical, but the same is equally true of embracing it.
The articles about neural change that you've discussed before highlight the effect prolonged internet use has on the brain, and you've written that you "agree that research on what the changes might be is therefore a good idea so that we can debate what would be the best way to respond and optimise things." Does the best way to respond have to include optimisation? Surely it can, sometimes, include a rejection?
I'm not advocating a rejection of the internet or new mediums of technology, in fact I think it's important to use them well. I just wonder if the idea of embracing all technological changes is over optimistic about their impact and effect?
As ever, I remain with a skepticism of 'progress', hopeful that it will be beneficial and positive, but not starting from that view.
To be sure it could involve rejection. However, my context was taking issue with knee-jerk 'rejectionism' so I guess that I'd set aside that option with regard to the main point I was making. That said, I suppose that, while I'm sympathetic to the skepticism about Progress, I'm also aware that there are few instances I can think of where rejecting has actually 'worked' as a strategy in broader cultural engagement. Right use rather than no use seems to be the general rule in taking on abuse.
I'd be concerned that a view that sees rejection as an option might be slipping towards a gnostic view of created order ... I'll put it no more strongly than that.
I'm unsure how having rejection of something as an option is moving towards a gnostic view.
I can see that if the rejection is of the creation (books, telephones, tv, internet, or whatever comes next) that is a seemingly gnostic view.
However, the 'rejection as an option' I'm advocating is one that rejects not just the way the technology is used, but the way it is fundamentally implemented and embraced. This isn't a rejection of the creation per se, but rather a rejection of it's current implementation, or a rejection of an open embrace of the creation.
My concern is that, with all new developments, there is too often a rush to embrace and to see the positive at the expense of stepping back and asking if the positive benefits, of which there are often many, outweigh the potential costs, and if there is a way to implement or utilise the developement that would better mitigate those damaging effects.
e.g. If, and I stress if, the internet is changing the way our brains work through using different neural pathways, then there is the positive impact that we are able to absorb multiple types of information at once. However, the negative impact is that the ability to focus in depth on one type of information is not utilised, and so over time potentially lost. Is it not wise, therefore, to reject the current incarnation and use of the internet as an information delivery medium and try and reimplement and reuse the internet as a creation so that it can produce both types of neural activity?
I definitely agree that right use over no use seems to be a better idea, but I also think that right implementation is necessary, and that sometimes means rejecting the current implementation in order to redesign.
I think that we're fundamentally agreed, Andy. The gnostic 'worry' was that rejection could be read as rejection not of a particular usage but of the thing itself. This tends to push in an Amish-like position which can be read as a fundamental flight from the world understood as ktisis rather than simply the Johanine 'kosmos'. In other words a rejection of created order rather than simply its usage. That's not to say I thought that's what you were doing, simply that it could be read to be beginning to point in that direction.
Post a Comment