Seeing as how a major portion of this class is conducted via the blog, I thought I should talk a little bit about the social, economic and thus apocalyptic implications of the Internet. This might seem like a stretch to you, but consider how our entire planet has changed drastically throughout the development of the Web.
First of all, we use the Internet everyday. Don’t try to deny it. I know at least ONCE a day every single one of you stumbles onto the Web (case in point if you’re reading this). I certainly can’t give a percentage of the people around the globe that have access to the Internet, but I’m sure the numbers will serve my point. Consider how much is done via the Web: communication, commerce, banking, paying bills, sharing art & photos, checking grades, pornography, news, gambling etc etc—the list could go on forever (literally, the internet is endless). It’s difficult to even imagine how the people of the world conducted their selves without the Internet. I mean, certainly, it’s not necessary to existence, but we have expanded greatly on a global level because of it. People are able to share their work, hobbies, interests, feelings, etc with other people on the other side of this planet, something that was almost impossible to do pre-Internet. It has played an enormous role in the “globalization movement.” No country can truly call themselves isolationist anymore.
On a personal level, I started using the Web when I was probably between 8-10 years old (this depending on if the fact that I probably began in school and took it to my personal computer later). That may or may not be a pretty young age to you, but it didn’t take long before I and the rest of my friends were fully integrated onto the internet: chatrooms, AIM, e-mail, games, etc. This, particularly the social aspect, changed how I interact with people forever. I was able to connect with not only my school friends, but people I met over the internet. Now, this probably sounds a little creepy to you, but in doing this I was able to realize a world outside of myself and my immediate surroundings. Available now are all sorts of social networking sites that focus on art, business, dating, photography, music, and so on. Through social networking we have the opportunity to find people from all over who share a common interest. Truly, there are probably hundreds of little subcultures that were created through the internet.
And of course let’s not forget the risks involved with the Internet: identity theft, breech of personal privacy, viruses, pirating, and copyright issues. It has changed not only changed are social and economic structure, but crime as well. I’m sure everyone is familiar with the censorship issue involving the Internet. Early on, people realized the full advantages of this unmonitored system of communication and promptly enacted their first amendment rights of free speech. You can say literally whatever you like to anyone you like, with no real consequences (barring the issues I raised above). But who’s to keep a crazy psychopath from gathering fellow crazy people together, and creating some disastrous situations by spreading their sinister ideas? Now, this is a really paranoid argument, but valid nevertheless. Many countries, in fact, have imposed laws regulating what people are allowed to see on the Internet, whether it be child pornography (Norway, Finland), aspects of Western culture, political content (i.e. Iran, North Korea). (Got this information on the “Internet” Wikipedia page)
I could write a book on this. I’m sure there are already several. Since its conception, the Internet has COMPLETELY transformed EVERYTHING we do—that’s pretty apocalyptic.
The first thing I thought as I was reading this was "hmm.. can't give us the numbers but I'm sure it will prove the point.. I bet she could find them on the internet." The internet has insanely changed the makeup of the world we live in now as opposed to the world that existed before it. I remember being in 5th grade and getting my screenname; the sheer thrill of it all. Now it seems as though that thrill has gone away. It's as if the population, including kids (sigh), has come to expect updated and more advanced technology, and thus are not excited to receive it, but instead simply content or appeased. If no such advancement occurs or takes too long, this non-action on part of companies will cause people disappointment. I find that to be sad. Everyone is becoming more child-like, and veering away from physical items (books), autonomy (constant texting, spending idle time on cell phones instead of simply alone, relying on cell phones for things that they were never previously needed for-meeting people somewhere, etc. Yes kids who stumbled onto this random blip of a comment on this apocalypse of a blog, there was a day in which people could coordinate to meet people somewhere, be on time, and successfully hang out). My point is, why all this gratification? Soon we will be sitting on a heap of everything we could've ever wanted, and we'll miss the things we used to have.
ReplyDeleteHannah, this formulation: "the social, economic and thus apocalyptic implications" was confusing. Because something is social and/or economic, it is necessarily apocalyptic? I don't get the use of "thus" here.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "...consider how our entire planet has changed drastically throughout the development of the Web."—you are not talking about the whole planet, right? Plenty of people in the world do not have access to the Internet. I wonder what things the Web has *not* changed on the planet?
Furthermore, when you state:"Consider how much is done via the Web: communication, commerce, banking, paying bills, sharing art & photos, checking grades, pornography, news, gambling etc etc—the list could go on forever (literally, the internet is endless)"—this does not seem radically different than saying consider how much is done in person: pooping, eating, copulating, driving, reading, getting online, talking, working etc etc—the list could go on forever (literally, life is endless). Do you see what I mean? Has the Internet actually dramatically changed the things we do, or has it just created one more way to marvel at how we do things (even when they are boring: like banking). I am reminded of Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction."
"No country can truly call themselves isolationist anymore." Well, sure, any country can "call" itself isolationist; it just may not be true. But was it ever true, even when countries were isolated from one another? Weren't they also, in certain ways, connected even hundreds of years ago whether they called it that or not? What is the Internet actually doing to countries? That is an interesting question.
"Now, this probably sounds a little creepy to you, but in doing this I was able to realize a world outside of myself and my immediate surroundings." What is creepy about this? Isn't this what happens to many people, whether through encyclopedias, dictionaries, TV, the Web, or even the mirror (ala Lacan)? I'm still not convinced that the Internet stands out as a radical departure for the socialization of humans. Maybe it does—but I'm not convinced yet. Subcultures are as old as cultures.
"And of course let’s not forget the risks involved with the Internet: identity theft, breech of personal privacy, viruses, pirating, and copyright issues."—Again, these "risks" are all present in the 'real world', too. (That's why many of them are metaphors: 'virus', 'pirate', 'theft'—these words are not literal, but figurative when applied to the Internet.) What makes the Internet a 'heightened' state for these risks?
"(Got this information on the “Internet” Wikipedia page)"—That's fine to cite, but it would be both more helpful and very easy to LINK to this page so that your reader could get there from here.
Hannah, this is a great subject, and yes, you could write a book on it. I am fascinated with these issues, and I am glad that you are considering the media of our communications in relation to apocalypticism, but I also think we should be cautious about thinking that, in Hayden White's terms, we have "jumped the future" through the Internet. It might be even more savvy to consider what the Internet has NOT changed on the planet—and what social relations it precludes. On the other hand, I don't know if we need to be nostalgic for "the things we used to have" as Molly conjectures. Perhaps, with critique, we can move forward in time without being seduced by the alleged grandeur of the present.
Great introduction to some really pressing issues Hannah. Molly in response to your post, do we not run the risk of being unnecessarily and perhaps even indulgently Luddite or Antiquarian by refusing certain technological developments, while at the same time favoring others…others which undoubtedly make sustenance living a lot easier?
ReplyDeleteFor example, when you write:
“Yes kids who stumbled onto this random blip of a comment on this apocalypse of a blog, there was a day in which people could coordinate to meet people somewhere, be on time, and successfully hang out)”
can we not imagine people who existed before the telephone saying something very similar:
“yes kids who use the telephone, there was a day in which people could meet somewhere, hang out, without the use of a telephone”.
The same could be said of cars, of mechanized farming equipment, etc. In this sense I don’t think that the same level of critique is being applied but instead only focusing on the latest gadget, which of course makes people, want it all the more.
What’s so different about the Internet, and advanced technology? Are we simply opposing the future because, well, eventually it will (hopefully) escape our grasp? However, that being said I do think that you are on to something in regards to the issues of “disappointment” (indifference) and “childishness” (autonomy). I think that something is wholly Promethean about this new technological form and yet cannot put my finger on exactly what it is. Perhaps it centers on these two issues.
Perhaps not… However, as an interesting note, I found it quite funny that Porn was eighth on the list of things you can “do” via the Web. That pornography was placed after ‘checking grades’ I think signifies perhaps an unwillingness to admit (face up to) what the Internet is most commonly or popularly used for, its massive share of cyber-‘space’, and may perhaps reveal a gaping hole in our understanding of the Internet’s re-shaping and re-making of our relations with ‘the body’ and ‘the other’.
I think we must not succumb to what Judith Butler calls the impulse to characterize the digitilization of evil as 'the evil of digitality''.
ReplyDeleteDr. Schaberg, when you quote Hannah on her list of numerous activities now available via this new technological form: the Internet, and write:
“this does not seem radically different than saying consider how much is done in person: pooping, eating, copulating, driving, reading, getting online, talking, working etc etc—the list could go on forever (literally, life is endless)”,
I think that Hannah’s point may have been missed in some respects. On a surface level, the phenomenon of the Internet has and has not significantly and dramatically altered the way in which the very activities of life (that are supposedly endless) are changed via this new form of technological development.
When thinking the apocalypse we cannot run from contradiction can we?
So for example to use straight from your list, the activities of ‘reading’, ‘talking’, and ‘working’ online:
Bodily, I find myself more attentive to the ‘Scrolling’ aspect of reading online as a process whereby the eyes move downward (primarily), rather than across (primarily). This is precisely because in a book there is the physical limit of the physical page, and when I arrive at that limit, I have to look over to the next page, and/or turn that page. Online I can potentially scroll ever downward, although of course as of right now most web-‘pages’ are structured as similar as possible to the Book.
Another examination is of ‘talking’. It is of no doubt that when talking to a person in their bodily presence I experience things that cannot be registered when communicating with them online in text. That being said, the Act of ‘reading’ still takes place in conversing with another online. However, what I am reading shifts, or changes. I no longer read a person’s bodily movement (from face to toes) or tone of voice, etc. Body-to-Body I am engaging in an act of listening (to what they are actually vocalizing) and an act of reading (their tone of voice), which may be said to be of one order and thus am ‘talking’ to another human being. Online I am also listening (to sounds and alerts signifying various messages and points) and reading (texts and screens), and thus am ‘talking’.
Those examples remain, for me, relatively on the surface. They change the minor accents of daily life (Western capitalist life anyway), but life remains all the same (banal to some, marvelous to others).
ReplyDeleteWhat interests me is the moment of reversibility regarding the ‘everyday’, regarding the Internet…the singular moments when the processes of integrating the New with the Old, of synthesizing the newly emerging ‘on-line’ with the Already existing ‘off-line’ becomes reversed: when the Already existing ‘on-line’ synthesizes with the newly emerging ‘off-line’. In other words, regarding the Internet - what if, instead of thinking of New wines (the internet) fitting the Old, previously existing Wineskins (humans), we thought of the Old wines (internet) fitting the New wineskins (humans)?
For example, what of ‘copulation’, this bodily-engaged activity?
I think this is exactly where Hannah’s “things one can DO” online comes into play. Porn is something one can ‘do’ online, but what is the activity that one is now ‘doing’ when one does-porn in the first place? To be sure Porno-graphy, as that ancient Greek word of ‘prostitute-writing’ has existed for a long time, and as a word meaning (signifying and referring) ‘to arouse the beholder’ – pornography certainly transposed many different technologies. Yet the erotic activity we refer to as ‘copulating’ (“sex”), is an activity of daily life that can now be ‘done’ online, and indeed more and more, the ‘online’ will be the place that reverses the (thought to be) most intransigent areas of bodily (in person) engagement.
Erotic activity, as well as erotic ‘intending’ (purposive plans of actions to get-some), for all intents and purposes, starts online and “moves” offline. Desire begins online and is mobile. Human erotic interests begin online (for it contains all possible combinations of fetishes and positions) and are tailored to fit individual circumstances off-line. The already existing wineskin of the Internet is being integrated with (fitting) the newly emerging forms of copulating and “sexual” life existing offline (sexual life since the Freudian-Modern era).
Humans (Western capital humans anyway) do not do “What Comes ‘Natural’ ” first and foremost, wherein we might imagine a Freudian boy/girl who begins to manipulate genitalia because a ‘phase’ begins and the libido moves from one erogenous zone to another. No, that same Freudian boy/girl can now quite literally stumble onto another psychosexual phase by being online and through the process of surfing (just looking around) and then of searching (purposive looking) can begin to see how others do and do likewise. This ‘seeing and doing likewise’, or mimesis, I think better characterizes desire, especially thanks to the Internet. One now looks online and stumbles across things never before seen and instead of “ex-ing out” actually tweaks their desires to fit this never-before scene (through the apparatus of pleasure being utilized and made actual no doubt).
Put dramatically, the already existing, or, “Old wine” of cyberspace ‘fits’, aka is integrated with, the new wine-skin(s) of human-bodies engaging in an erotic polyvalence the likes of which Freud could never have dreamt of.
ReplyDeleteDo not the rapid emergence and normalization of many fetishes fit this ‘mimetic desire’ (of Rene Girard, etc.)?
Indeed is there not an apocalyptic moment when you read:
“The awkward truth, according to one study, is that 90 percent of 8-to-16-year-olds have viewed pornography online. Considering the standard climax to even the most vanilla hard-core scene today, that means, there is an entire generation of young people who think sex ends with a money shot to the face. It's hard to pinpoint exactly where the age divide falls, but it's safe to say that the first purebred guinea pig to have grown up never knowing a world without fisting on demand is probably around 22 years old.”
and…
“Cody describes his first real-life ejaculate-to-the-face finale like this: "It was the happiest moment of my young life. There is just something about blowing a load in a chick's face that makes you feel like a man." (http://www.details.com/sex-relationships/porn-and-perversions/200907/how-internet-porn-is-changing-teen-sex)
So, “Has the Internet actually dramatically changed the things we do, or has it just created one more way to marvel at how we do things?”
I answer that the Internet is in no way separate. It constitutes our daily life and we can and do marvel at it, but the Internet now exists as so much apart of our daily life that it has ‘reversed’ it…perhaps we are first and foremost ‘Online’ (our desires certainly are, perhaps our bodily functions will be as well) and then only later Offline. How or if we can or should ‘dis’-connect is the question.
Under our current Panopticon, the Internet, although a root of much of our social ailments, is almost impervious to the oppression. This escapist and fascinating bonanza may not last much due to the government's push for Internet regulation. Although great things come into digitalized form every day, the Internet is mostly surrounded by the similar physical junk that we encounter every day, sometimes even worse.
ReplyDeleteWe are slapped by "popups", pestering advertisements that chase us in our browsing. A billboard in the real world does not follow us unless it is a powerful subliminal message. Scams can really mess Internet users up. Although there is common sense on what to avoid, there are traps that go unnoticed that may result with identity theft, or viruses.
The masters of the Internet, those who have computer science and programming knowledge and are not simply users like the masses, control us, because they control our drug; the Internet. They are the puppeteers in the digital world we share with them. There may be redeeming qualities, unfortunately, the Internet has not been used to its full, positive potential.
The internet is a mirror image of our society, often exacerbated due to our collective frustrations and desires that cannot be exposed in our public lives. Instead of partaking in a Lynchian underground in your neighborhood, the Internet presents a seedy underground in itself, reminiscent of the Lynchian universe.
The desires that we may or may not choose to pursue in our physical world, are fulfilled through the internet; may it be getting off to a supermodel, role-playing as a mutant, liberating the bigot within in forums, or the live prostitution for a anonymous, horny audience. Unless you are a child pornography enthusiast, or a pirate who downloads a terabyte of multimedia on a daily basis, you will not be held accountable for any of your Internet exploits. 12% of all websites are pornographic.
Once done with your daily diet of depravity, all you have to do is sign out, log off, or shut down. So it goes. Another day in the liberating world that is the Internet. In spite of the liberating aspect found in web browsing, the fact that it is liberating makes it addictive. It creates idle individuals who start neglecting their public lives.
Suddenly, living begins to take place in the Internet, as well as everything else. Just because we can get away with things that are normally impermissible, does not mean a digital life is preferable to your reality.
As exciting as it may be, browsing is an extremely sedentary activity, and the rapid progression of technology is likely to reel us in even more. To my knowledge, there is no "anti Internet" group strictly for the negative effects of it. An "antiquarian" is not anti-internet, these are folks who simply refuse to adapt to the fast times. Unlike any other invention, the Internet has been very successful at attracting former antiquarians due to its convenience and increasingly simplistic interface ready for everyones use. Some of our parents still listen to LP records, but will we keep our first generation Ipods in 2030? Doubtful. Will rapid technological progression destroy any collector value with the first laptop when there are 100 better versions and not just 1 or 10? Perhaps. We will most likely dump our past infatuations for the yearly faster, better, improved version or a new invention. I wish to keep my gameboy and CD's, but i am not sure i'll stay true to that in the next decade.
Moving on, the addiction prevents us from keeping reality in check. It is a truly alienating activity; one can laugh, smile, cry, or rage over the Internet but there is always an unbreakable digital barrier that prevents us from reaching the warm, REAL, physical world that we also despise at times. It is then that people are faced with the question of whether or not one should cooperate and persevere within the physical, more gratifying world, or become online recluses with their drug of choice.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it may be easy, cybersex is not intimacy, chatting is not conversing, and online shopping is not going to the mall. The digital activities that at times dominate physical activities will always lack the genuine interpersonal relationship. The internet is a vessel of our self or what we want our "self" to be but due to the impossibility or perhaps just lack of technological advancements, it is devoid of contact.
Maybe we have a disdain for human contact as we have known it for centuries and our immediate reaction is to hide within the digital world, temporarily invisible to the panopticon just to be ourselves and come out of the surface to breathe from time to time. However, whenever we kind of break free from the panopticon, as benign as the Internet appears to be because we make choices we cant make in real life, we fall under another oppressive system. Maybe we never left the panopticon, it could just be an illusion to keep us happy, which appears to be sedated.
Yes, the Internet very conveniently fits into the Panoptic structure. Everyday, we check-in with our digital social status, we swipe our identities as credit cards and we express our opinions sometimes in the most crude and blatantly hateful ways (just read a few YouTube user comments on music or humor videos). Why is this in any way a revelation?
ReplyDeleteWell, autonomy seems possible online, but it really is not. The Internet is the outer window of Bentham’s Panopticon. It allows “light” in the form of online activity to shine through the annular cell window, or user’s access point. When you use the Internet, you are essentially shining another light onto your existence. You are leaving a trace of yourself, like a slug crawling up a wall (or down a page). We would like to have faith in our anonymity and independence from the web, but the truth is that the Internet does exist in the physical world and it permeates our everyday reality.
All government applications, ranging from registering for a driver’s license to enlisting in the Marine Corps, are reliant on this worldwide communication network. Whether it be the person who sends the information or the person who does the consequential background search, our social order depends on effective access to extensive knowledge. We are the source of this knowledge, so we also complicate our own existence.
If we all lived as individuals devoid of substance, we would have forced ourselves underground by now. We exist to progress because if we did not, then we would destroy each other entirely out of ill-founded rivalry, instead of just threatening that type of brutality. This is why we must register ourselves as existent, like inhabitants of plague-filled streets. We mark ourselves on the list as people with needs, wants, demands, and thirsts who depend on a larger entity to provide. We have the Internet because we are not capable of providing solely for ourselves as independent creatures; we are cheating Darwin’s theory of evolution by delaying our own survival as a society. The Internet is just an idea fabricated by mankind and suited for mankind because it is the response to whatever out internal desires may be making it an all-inclusive resort with your identity as the pool coaxing others to jump in and your sense of distraction as a cheap bar stocked with everything but precisely what you want. Rather than answering complexities within ourselves, we choose to analyze and provide information as well as disinformation as it pertains to our conception of existence. We are wrong because we are unable to see the guard in the tower, and we are unaware of his presence.