[The exchange below was born out of a discussion about whether or not our current American culture is primarily ironic. My friend Josiah crafted one of the two perspectives. You can follow him on Tumblr here.]
A: Digital technology (which is bar-none the most ascendant bundle of consumer goods out there), I'd offer, is more conducive to irony than sincerity. Most of the subcultures made possible by digital technology foster/encourage/require impulsive, hyperbolic language (e.g., the difference between friends and Facebook Friends) and communication. This both (1) garners attention (which is what every isolated individual, i.e. technology user, is after) in the midst of the rising tide of proliferating language and (2) precludes linguistic accuracy. What is irony but strategic linguistic inaccuracy, not saying what one means to serve an alterior purpose? And, yes, it trades in simulcra, not unmediated reality.
B: When you say the that mediation through digital communication technologies is more conducive to irony as opposed to upbuilding sincerity, I think that what maybe you should be saying is that in a network of communication where a person has multiple anonymous identities and can switch between them at will there is a leveraged incentive for acting out one’s lowest and most powerful impulses without the tempering factor of real world accountability (reputation). So that the tendency towards corrosion is not an inherent quality of the technology itself but of the developmental stage of that technology. In other words, that it could be changed, and probably will be, through the integrating of simulated communication with one real world person. So, that an effective reputation mechanism could dissipate that concentration of irony?
A: I must have spoken inarticulately somewhere along the way. You have interpreted my wariness re: digital technologies as being rooted in anonymity. I agree anonymity brings with it dangers (I agree with your formulation), specifically the ability to dissociate from a reputation and being ostracized by a group for poor behavior. (It also has potential—less frequently performed—positives, as when donors give charitably on the condition of anonymity.) As to whether identities will become less flexible in the future as a technological corrective, I grant it could happen. Facebook strives to ensure you are a real person, just one, with a real name. Increasingly, web forums force you to identify yourself when commenting by signing in through Facebook. Administrators are empowered to keep things clean (although this can just remove the discussion a level, since, who watches the watchmen?). But, as a vocal faction of the the Reddit community made clear in the post-Violentacrez fallout, anonymity is seen as essential to the uniquely pure freedom inherent in the internet's freedom of speech. So, there's going to be push back to any attempt censorship.
The launching point for my wariness is not on the internet's Petri dish of vice. No, I'm more concerned with the way our interactions with and thinking about technology alters the way we interact with and think about people. I contend the devices/mediums tend to make us view others as being more interchangeable/less individually dignified or important. Starting with the cult of upgrades and updates (1.0, 2.0, 2.5, etc.), we are becoming accustomed to viewing what we want most as coming with expiration dates.
But that's innocuous (and not all that new—consumerism relies upon obsolescence) when compared to this: we are able to get what we want at all-time low prices. I can garner the attention of innumerable others easier than ever. Plus, I can walk away from an interaction more easily than ever. We relate On Demand. Textual (including old-fashioned pen and paper, I cede) exchanges offer much more power to the isolated writer and reader. I can respond if and when I want; you can read if and when you want. There are less stringent demands than if the exchange is vocal. This is easier, less confrontational, and so, naturally, preferable. How many people wish a happy B-day on Facebook instead of calling? I can fit a post into my schedule, but a phone call may involve what? 5 minutes at least? And who knows when I'll be ready for that. We are being conditioned by the ascendant modes of communication to be brief and uninvested.
Just like the creeping disintegration of sexual mores in light of technologies (i.e., contraceptives)--sex without the children and usually without diseases—we are able to get approval, acceptance, and interpersonal gratification without the hard work of relationship maintenance and discipline. Approval and acceptance available in digital forms are usually going to be ranked lower on the emotional intensity scale than those received in more physical forms (e.g., smiles, ink on paper written by a teacher, etc.), but they're still rank. That ranking, those blips on the pleasure graph, are completely and utterly necessary for human health, social creatures that we are. And if it's easier to count hits, Likes, retweets, etc. than to converse, challenge, and love--well, that's a new and powerful form of temptation. Temptation reveals what's already in the heart (which is where the techno-neutrality types stand such as yourself, I believe), but more temptation can skew the revelation. Give me an apple and I may not eat it because I'm not hungry at the time. But pile apples all around me and sooner or later I'll take a bite.
The amount and frequency of positive internet feedback can keep you from seeking offline feedback. (This tendency is similar to the damaging effects of pornography, specifically chronic masturbation leading to disinterest in copulation, even among married/involved humans.)
Some people are going to benefit from this feedback because they are marginalized in the 3-D world. That goes in the Pro side of the Pro/Con table. Acknowledging this proves me rational and not a doom-and-gloom Luddite. The larger, more "normal" majority of people, though, relies on and is going to increasingly rely on that feedback in lieu of committed 3-D world relationships and the intense pain they can occasion.
(Confession: I have a fundamental belief that capitalism needs to disintegrate us. Fractured, isolated people are inherently more needy. Needy people buy more goods.)
B: I don't think that you were inarticulate. But, I do think that the argument you are making is a type of literary argument that is attempting to establish a sort of empirical and scientific conclusion which makes some of the juice behind the way that you reach the conclusion elusive.
Emphatically, I do not disagree with your conclusion, or at least the content of your conclusion, but I think that its more probable that the problem is not contingent upon any recent development.
Quick thoughts:
1. Why would you stop at a telephone call over a fb shout out? Then again, why stop at calling? Calls take slightly more effort but still are far less difficult than making a trip to be with that person, wouldn't it be an even more fraternal gesture to not just call the person on their birthday but make every conceivable effort to see that person and share your greetings face to face? Why does the telephone not meet the criteria? Or the telegraph, or the printing press, or the actual act of writing itself? I think that there is not a reasonable criteria that would give a satisfying answer to this question. Neither is there a necessary link between effort made in communication and the sense of the humanity of others. The attempt to solidify the link is an understandable leap but far too simplistic. For instance it discounts the instance of a liar who augments his powers through adopting the most effort heavy forms of communication to engender a sense of trust and affection but it is a mere set up for its exact opposite.
2. We are at the point where we each need to briefly summarize what we believe to be the others argument. And then have the other critique that summarization. That way we can better get a grasp on what we're talking about.
A: QT1: The Facebook post, text, phone call, card, and personal visit provide a rough scale of investment. I usually think of personal investment as temporally measured, since time is our most personal and most common resource. (Giving time is a sacrifice. This segues into my contention about the temptation of solely/especially relating through digital technologies and its capitalizing on the typical pain-avoidance by which people live.) Why the scale is "rough" is because certain examples of posts, texts, calls, cards, etc. can be outside of their normal/average range of time-investment. For example, I could write you one hell of a thoughtful/time-intensive Facebook post and I could do nothing more than have my secretary sign a generic birthday card. In those instances, the post and card are flipped. So, here as elsewhere, accurate analysis of specific actions requires a survey of the context, not just a priori judgments about the quality of interactions.
Now, where you rejoined was here: because of the increased personal availability made possible by the internet, cell phones, etc., I can keep connections intact that would have otherwise dissolved. I can wish more people a happy birthday as a result of being notified by Facebook of their special day. Since I can afford a 30 seconds or less act, I can type those 13 characters. Without Facebook Friendships and Notifications, our contact would have been severed after, say, high school graduation.
It seems the debate is won or lost is on whether or not digital technologies encourage or inhibit relationships. This, in turn, relies upon the definition of relationship, and so transitions to an age-old quantity v. quality debate. If a relationship is a state of exchange between two people, then DTs encourages. If a relationship is a state of meaningful exchange between two people, then a good case can be made that it discourages. So, to win, I have to convince you that "meaningful" is a real and important category, not how I so happen to prefer relate to people. I think meaning is a product of human nature’s relation to the Real (which is shorthand for all existent beings). Basically, I need to convincingly argue that human needs are underserved by the types of brief transactional exchanges DTs best foster.
Note: I am fighting against both the position the DTs encourage relationships (a common position) and have no effect upon relationships (closer to yours, perhaps).
QT2: B’s brief (presumed) position - Digital technologies, like all artifacts, are morally inert. There is nothing uniquely corrosive about digital technologies. They are advancements of previous communication mediums that were designed to facilitate the same ends (e.g., transmitting information between people). Criticizing DTs without criticizing their analog forebearers is inconsistent. The telephone, telegram, cassette tape, written word, etc. are no more noble vehicles than smart phones, Twitter, etc. Preferences towards "old-fashioned" modes are prejudicial/nostalgic.
B: B's response to A's summary of B's position – Spot on, except that I think that we need to go even further than analog all the way to the deeper biological developments of language, gestures etc. which serve the similar end of making interpersonal communication as easy as possible (still not very!) and would therefore fall under your criticism. Also, I would not stress the relative de facto nobility of any medium of communication because such classification is based on the assumption that we are disagreeing about. Whether or not new mediums mostly cultivate new space for communication or cannibalize and change the old space.
A’s brief (presumed) position - Digital technology, which is the Titan of our age, is the sort of thing that gets inside of its users and alters them. Specifically, it changes the way in which its users think about and act towards other people. It does this by taking the users’ perception of others as dignified and uniquely important and rendering less powerful, which reinforces the latent tendency to treat others as interchangeable objects. This is not due to the new levels of anonymity that DT makes possible, but to the unprecedented ease of access to human to human communication and the unprecedented ease of the discontinuation of that human to human interaction. This ubiquity of access and interaction create an on demand market of relationship which follows the laws of all such markets and seeks to find the most satisfying interactions for the least possible investment. The cost benefit analysis of DT's average user highly favors the cheap-to-play-big-win-pay-out stakes of DT over traditional biological interface. Thus, inevitably, more and more of human interaction that would have normally taken place in a traditional high investment biological interface is now being mediated by low investment virtual realities and succumbing to its inherent limitations. Convenience is king and his decrees are as whimsical and as wise as any fatuous toddler on a tooth decimating post-Halloween bender. There is a necessary inverse link between the value of an action and the level of that action's ease: the easier the thing the less valuable. Getting to be in relationship with other humans is now easier than ever, and therefore, in a real way, it is becoming less valued.
A: I can’t quibble with your summation of my position. At least now we can say we understand each other.
Digital technologies are changing the way we interact with and think about other human beings. These changes tend to be dissipative given the technology's ease of use and built-in curtailing of content (e.g., max character limits, tiny keyboards, etc.). With increased access to others, both from a duration standpoint (always being available to communication) and a population standpoint (having ever-widening social nets), there is a decreased need to commit or invest in friendship as traditionally conceived. Traditional friendship is built on intimacy. Intimacy involves knowledge of the other through which both meaningful acceptance of the other and as compassionate guidance takes place. DTs are not conducive to more than trivial knowledge of others or rarely facilitate correction (since correction in public makes the corrector look like a jerk).
Intimate contact is being crowded out by superficial contact. Intimacy, however, is a core human need. DTs supplement our relational diets like sugar supplements our bodily diets. It is harmless when used as a treat or a dessert, but it’s not harmless when used as the main course. People can feel more connected without nourishing friendships because of the volume of DT-based feedback.
Artifacts, I contend, are not created equal. Some are sloped, which is to say especially conducive to moral or immoral behavior. For instance, a graham cracker is not going to be used for murder as successfully as a loaded gun. While it is not the gun's fault, more graham crackers and less guns in the world would dampen murder rates.
I do not think the blame inheres in the technologies. The fault lies in us. But the environment shapes/limits our options. This is how artifacts can corral their users. Our environment is saturated with tools that foster brief, superficial exchanges between people. Their prevalence is unique in the history of technology. We have had phones but not phones in our pockets. We could send morse code but we didn't spend our days with our hands on a straight key (the thing that taps the code out according to Wikipedia). We could send letters but rarely had pen and paper or typewriter splayed out before us. Older Technologies, like DTs, dissociated agency of the writer/reader capturing information and being a courier. Unlike OTs, DTs dissociate even further. Previously, if I wanted to communicate, I needed to direct it to a specific person/group. Now, I can announce myself into the open auditorium of the internet. While this boosts our expressive outlets, it also allows us to find out about others without asking questions. We can fool ourselves into relational knowledge by the simulcra of statuses, for instance. Unlike DTs, however, older technologies required more intentional action from the communicators.
I submit the more accidental nature of our communication causes more superficial exchanges and, thereby, degrades the notion of friendship or other relationships. Unfortunately for us, changed concepts don't change our nature. New norms of relating don't change human requirements. Mercifully and profitably, DTs have an answer for our unmet needs: meeting other requirements. Humans are also knowledge-seekers. DTs satiate, whet, and satiate again our natural curiosity so effectively we are less apt to notice other, neglected needs.
B: The ways that we talk to each other are continually developing. This development is part of the criteria which contributes to the outline of a still new generation of developments. This is not a new process and the current phase is not unusually different from the previous phase. The economy of communication is not mercantile. There is not a set amount of space that new communication mediums have to fight for, nor is there a set amount of mental bandwidth in which ways of communicating have to be crammed. We live in a complex ecosystem of highly mutable communication styles and mediums. Adding new more accidental modes of communication does not reduce one's capacity to enter into deeper forms but adds texture dimension and accessibility. Gestural communication cannot supplant speech because it occupies another realms. And, moreover, in cases where it it required, gestures can bear the weight of far more than what one would initially believe.
[An irony: this debate over the side-effects of DTs has taken place primarily via email. This is proof that DTs do not necessitate low-quality exchanges. Most email, as with texting, however, is short/micro-form. What the participants bring to the exchange is a factor in the results.]
