(Previously posted on MySpace September 12, 2008)
I've long ago accepted the fact that my blog has yet to reach the stratospheric popularity of a Jonas Brothers or a Tila Tequila. I suspected that sort of thing would be the case before I even first signed onto MySpace. I wouldn't mind a higher level of popularity (especially since I hope to write for a living someday), but I've no interest in essentially changing what I'm doing just to become Internet Flavor of the Month. So for now, I'm content to sit here in my little Blogosphere niche and offer my little contribution to people seeking something a little different.
Yes, I know. You've heard this kind of thing before. We no doubt have read (or written) diatribes about the sorry state of affairs in blogging, popular music, movies, TV, news, politics, people, and all the other offerings of the Normals, the Pinks, the Mehumes, or whatever you want to call them. In fact, there was this "Death to Bad Blogs" mini-movement that went on at one time. I don't intend this blog to be either a continuation of a rant against the Philistines and Visogoths that have taken over the Blogosphere or some sort of apology for them. (Though I admit that due to the often rambling nature of my blogs it might veer into one or the other--fair warning). I simply want to present some ideas I've run across that may pertain to this issue.
In an interview with Reason Magazine (October 2008, page 15), Emory University English professor Mark Bauerelein (who, by the way, is a regular contributor to said magazine) talks about his latest book "The Dumbest Generation". This blog isn't a review of that book. I haven't read it yet and I don't think writing book reviews is one of my strengths, anyway. The interview is simply the jump-off point for this blog. Mainly Bauerlein's argument that "the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future."
In all honesty, I'm used to hearing one generation referring to another as a bunch of idiots. I've heard it said about mine. I've caught myself thinking it about others on occasions. I have my doubts that this kind of vitriol is productive. I only say that before anyone start rushing to defend or attack Bauerlein (or anyone else), hear the guy out first. And while the more intelligent members of the younger generation get ready to surprise the hell of their naysayers (and the dumber ones exchange jpegs of their privates with their phone cameras), I'll go on.
One of the things Bauerlein points out in his interview is a Nielsen Media survey that showed that when teenagers get on the Internet, their choice of website seem to be some sort of social network: Facebook, MySpace, on so on. Nine hours per week social networking. Less than one hour per week reading and studying for class. Leisure reading, visits to museums, and visits to libraries (other than to use the public computers to get onto the Internet) is down according to Bauerlein in his interview. I haven't really researched any of this for myself; so I can only go on anecdotal evidence.
Baudelein seems concerned that teenagers are more interested in other teenagers on the Net rather than using this relatively new information medium to broaden their mental vistas. Is this technology's doing?
Hmm, I took a look at what some other folks had to say about other forms of communication.
Robin Dunbar, British anthropologist, evolutionary biologist, and source of the Dunbar Number[1] had this idea that gossip evolved out of social bonding needs. And then I recalled watching a Science Channel program discussing Dunbar's idea and one scientist postulated that one of the first uses of language was probably gossip, particularly about people's sex lives.
Later on, I read Eleanor Herman's "Sex With Kings" and came across this interesting little passage:
Yes, I know. You've heard this kind of thing before. We no doubt have read (or written) diatribes about the sorry state of affairs in blogging, popular music, movies, TV, news, politics, people, and all the other offerings of the Normals, the Pinks, the Mehumes, or whatever you want to call them. In fact, there was this "Death to Bad Blogs" mini-movement that went on at one time. I don't intend this blog to be either a continuation of a rant against the Philistines and Visogoths that have taken over the Blogosphere or some sort of apology for them. (Though I admit that due to the often rambling nature of my blogs it might veer into one or the other--fair warning). I simply want to present some ideas I've run across that may pertain to this issue.
In an interview with Reason Magazine (October 2008, page 15), Emory University English professor Mark Bauerelein (who, by the way, is a regular contributor to said magazine) talks about his latest book "The Dumbest Generation". This blog isn't a review of that book. I haven't read it yet and I don't think writing book reviews is one of my strengths, anyway. The interview is simply the jump-off point for this blog. Mainly Bauerlein's argument that "the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future."
In all honesty, I'm used to hearing one generation referring to another as a bunch of idiots. I've heard it said about mine. I've caught myself thinking it about others on occasions. I have my doubts that this kind of vitriol is productive. I only say that before anyone start rushing to defend or attack Bauerlein (or anyone else), hear the guy out first. And while the more intelligent members of the younger generation get ready to surprise the hell of their naysayers (and the dumber ones exchange jpegs of their privates with their phone cameras), I'll go on.
One of the things Bauerlein points out in his interview is a Nielsen Media survey that showed that when teenagers get on the Internet, their choice of website seem to be some sort of social network: Facebook, MySpace, on so on. Nine hours per week social networking. Less than one hour per week reading and studying for class. Leisure reading, visits to museums, and visits to libraries (other than to use the public computers to get onto the Internet) is down according to Bauerlein in his interview. I haven't really researched any of this for myself; so I can only go on anecdotal evidence.
Baudelein seems concerned that teenagers are more interested in other teenagers on the Net rather than using this relatively new information medium to broaden their mental vistas. Is this technology's doing?
Hmm, I took a look at what some other folks had to say about other forms of communication.
Robin Dunbar, British anthropologist, evolutionary biologist, and source of the Dunbar Number[1] had this idea that gossip evolved out of social bonding needs. And then I recalled watching a Science Channel program discussing Dunbar's idea and one scientist postulated that one of the first uses of language was probably gossip, particularly about people's sex lives.
Later on, I read Eleanor Herman's "Sex With Kings" and came across this interesting little passage:
"The invention of the printing press triggered an explosion of literacy among the nobility. Letter writing became a favorite pastime for courtiers eager to indulge rustic relatives with juicy gossip."
So, according to my sources, for two different communication media (speech and writing), some form of porn became the one the most common uses when the general public first caught on. I think that's pretty interesting when you consider all the porn (pro and amateur) that became available when the Internet started becoming more accessible to the general public.
And complaining about how the general public use or misuse a new communication media has gone on long before Maxwell first wrote down those equations, never mind the advent of television or computers. According to Neil Postman, none other than Socrates himself objected to literacy in that "writing forces us to follow an argument rather than participate in it". Socrates was apparently concerned that people would stop relying on memory and stop thinking. In Socrates's view (and I'm sort of guessing from what I've read here), memory was the proof of wisdom in such that in a way, you really have to hold all the aspects of an idea in your head as best you can, rather than have a scroll handy to save you all that cognitive hassle. (In light of all the now obvious drawbacks to relying on memory alone, one can guess that I disagree with Socrates's assessment).
And complaining about how the general public use or misuse a new communication media has gone on long before Maxwell first wrote down those equations, never mind the advent of television or computers. According to Neil Postman, none other than Socrates himself objected to literacy in that "writing forces us to follow an argument rather than participate in it". Socrates was apparently concerned that people would stop relying on memory and stop thinking. In Socrates's view (and I'm sort of guessing from what I've read here), memory was the proof of wisdom in such that in a way, you really have to hold all the aspects of an idea in your head as best you can, rather than have a scroll handy to save you all that cognitive hassle. (In light of all the now obvious drawbacks to relying on memory alone, one can guess that I disagree with Socrates's assessment).
Socrates was apparently concerned that people would stop relying on memory and stop thinking? Hmm, sounds a lot like some technophobe's complaints about computers, doesn't it?
Now, to repeat myself, I'm not trying to defend the dumbocracy that seems to be plaguing Internet (and, by a vague extension, most modern) discourse. I'm simply wondering if what were seeing is just a normal human response to new communication media. I don't know about other people, but I think I'd like to know a little more about those responses and their importance (if any), rather than get too upset about what they choose to watch, listen to, talk about, blog about, or think about (if anything).
All that being said, I still wouldn't be too upset if MTV, Washington DC, Hollywood, and everyone of those useless high school and college student body governments suddenly disappear into a black hole one day and yank a hefty percentage of politics and pop culture in with them.
Now, to repeat myself, I'm not trying to defend the dumbocracy that seems to be plaguing Internet (and, by a vague extension, most modern) discourse. I'm simply wondering if what were seeing is just a normal human response to new communication media. I don't know about other people, but I think I'd like to know a little more about those responses and their importance (if any), rather than get too upset about what they choose to watch, listen to, talk about, blog about, or think about (if anything).
All that being said, I still wouldn't be too upset if MTV, Washington DC, Hollywood, and everyone of those useless high school and college student body governments suddenly disappear into a black hole one day and yank a hefty percentage of politics and pop culture in with them.
[1]I personally wish the Bernard-Kilworth number could get a little more press. I would be interested to hear what those of you into building intentional communities think about this.
© Copyright 2006-2010 Anthony Anderson
No comments:
Post a Comment