There Is No Disinhibition Here: Blogging The Mind
Daniel Henninger's Opinion Journal essay is especially noteworthy today. If you are a blogger, or if you are a non-blogger who just can't help but peek in on the blogosphere, you might not only find Henninger's essay engaging, it might even give you pause.
I have already had my identity crisis regarding blogging, and I am now comfortable not only within the medium, I know my rôle: It is indeed performance art and someone has got to do it. (OK. It is more than that. I just wanted to use the word rôle for the sheer fun of using that little doo-dad over the O. Perhaps it is not so much performance art but digital graffiti. Alas, it all makes me rather circumflex. [That's a ridiculous pun.])
Not a few of you might find this prognostication all too prescient. If you have not yet viewed Epic 2014, then I urge you to swig Henninger's piece and chase it with Epic, a short film of considerable impact (it is particularly ominous when listened to with headphones). You can view Epic 2014 (you might need to follow a link or two) rather easily from RobinSloan.com, should my links not work satisfactorily. Then, try Epic 2015 - The Update. My guess is that, after watching these pieces, some of you might even consider to stop blogging altogether. Seriously. I am not suggesting that Epic is accurate. But I am suggesting that it is very interesting.
Earlier this year I asked the writer of the film, via email, why he did not include the new TV network, "Current TV", to his auguries. (In case you do not know, Current is partly the brainchild of Al Gore, and is a marriage between television and Google. It is an amazing thing to watch, particularly when you see how Google uses our Google searches to influence Current's programming and news.) Here is what I asked on January 9, 2006:
Dear Mr. Sloan,
I recently viewed both EPIC Flash pics, and I was impressed. But I am
curious as to why EPIC did not mention Current TV as another part of
the emerging behemoth of information. While it fits under the broader
umbrella of Google, I am surprised the piece did not mention it, as
Current seems to be equally vulnerable to the Orwellian-esque
predictions EPIC offers.
Bill Gnade
And here is the reply:
Hey Bill --
Good question! The real answer is that a) Current didn't exist when we
made the original piece, and b) it's not really big enough to play in
the same arena as Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc.
But you're right -- like any other media company, Current has got to
be smart in the next couple of years...
--
Robin
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Disinhibition, Epic 2014, Blogging, Robin Sloan, Daniel Henninger
Posts
13 comments:
Bill, ditto.
One thing struck me. None of the suppositions of this piece would be possible without the complex corporate structure that appears to drive the trends. It seems more about money than technology or media.
Wonder what Marshal McLuan would think.
Bill--
You're right, it's much creepier with headphones on. Surely this is how The Matrix began, eh?
My first response is that both Henninger's piece and Epic 2015--The Update will turn out to be overwrought musings and fearmongering (weren't we all supposed to be driving hovercars by now?). The basic fear expressed in the film is that some will benefit deeply from Epic, while for "many more" it will be a "shallow" experience.
Wouldn't those opposing styles of interacting with the world--depth and reflection vs. shallowness and reflexiveness--still be present even without the technological advances? It would appear at first glance that somebody is worried about what might happen if the power of creating content and interacting more fully with the events of the day is given to the "common man and woman."
However, the scenario presented at the end of the updated movie does give me pause as it depicts a grid of real-time "collective consciousness." Would we be able to stand the weight of such intimacy? Would we wilt beneath the constant barrage of depravity, purity, and mundane minutiae? Do we truly want to know the full extent of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
The film is right about one thing: we asked for it. We asked for it the first time we reached for the fruit and partook, and now we are reaping the harvest, for better or for worse.
And then this, the story of how this increased interconnectedness has apparently averted another Columbine. The light and dark side of everything is everywhere apparent.
Interesting comments, Mike and Kim. I also wonder what McLuhan might think about all this.
Mike, you have raised an interesting point. Right now, or so it appears, the blogosphere is a place without authority or controls: there is no one ruling things. (Although in a sense, that is not entirely true, since Google, who runs Blogger, does have the power to promote some blogs over others: I doubt, for example, this site will ever be listed among Blogger's "Blogs of Note.") But by and large this medium does permit many gifted and important people to circumvent the 'system' that controls the flow of information and ideas: None of us has an editor or publisher rejecting our contributions.
Extremist at Occasional Outbursts posted an entry that included this quote from writer John Spragens:
“If, as the saying goes, all politics is local, then what do you make of a medium that allows people to broadcast their most provincial, reactive and often vile thoughts to millions of people with the mere click of a button?”
OK. It's a fair question. But there is a latent elitism there: there is this sense that only certain people's voices really count, you know, professional voices that have a right to shape thought and move culture. "Who are you?" is perhaps the most politically charged question of our lifetime, for it is essentially anti-democratic, and yet it is the entrance-exam question into nearly any debate: You must be somebody special to be taken seriously.
As bloggers become more integrated (sort of like The Daily Kos), particularly as they gain more power in their little collectivized engines of ideas and opinions, and particularly if there is success among conservatives in this medium, there will be many who will want more limits placed on the blogosphere. That Google and other behemoths might indeed become the ruling forces in our world seems quite probable.
Are we, then, doing nothing but data entry for the Beast, creating, in a sense, a digital omniscience that will eventually become our master?
What do you think my answer is?
Peace to you both.
BG
You must be somebody special to be taken seriously.
I think this is a very profound observation. We have a love affair in North America with the "professional." Sometimes, I think one must not only be someone special, but that person stands a better chance of being taken seriously if he is a man. There are not alot of "big" female bloggers. That's especially true in some of the blog circles I travel in, i.e. of the reformed, evangelical tradition.
The Blogfather, Glenn Reynolds, already has a response to Henninger's editorial:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042506C
In a nutshell, Reynolds thinks Henninger is dissing the blogosphere because he's a newspaper guy. Bad behavior did not start with the Internet although the bar could be raised a little bit.
You must be somebody special to be taken seriously.
To an extent, I think this is true. I wouldn't use the word "special," but I would say "credible." When we ask "Who are you?" what we're really asking for is the person's bona fides.
Fore example, I wouldn't go to a plumber to have a cavity filled (unless he had stayed at a Holiday Inn the night before).
What's great about the Internet and Blogs is that it allows for access to many more experts than we would have through the mainstream media. But it is still up to each individual to be savvy and question the credibility of each proclaimed expert.
I agree with emaw_kc re: experts and credibility, but I do so with some reservations. There are all sorts of experts and credible folks out there who are just plain wrong. This, of course, is to state the obvious. But what is not so obvious is that my suggestion,
"'Who are you?' is perhaps the most politically charged question of our lifetime, for it is essentially anti-democratic, and yet it is the entrance-exam question into nearly any debate: You must be somebody special to be taken seriously..."
actually points to a form of ad-hominem fallacy, that fixation on who one is and not on what one has said. The question is a sort of litmus test, though often an acidic, burning one. For those threatened by the opinions of, let's say, Christopher Hitchens, it is not asked in order to defer to his credentials; it is asked to reduce him to a mere drunk. In fact, nearly every liberal I've ever read or spoken to regarding Hitchens -- if they disagree with him -- often refers to his alleged love of alcohol. His expertise doesn't matter one whit.(No one mentions that Hitchens mother died in a bizarre double-suicide, as that might elicit sympathies.)
Of course, this sort of thing happens irrespective of one's political or religious allegiances: People listen to people they like, and they usually like those folk who think like they do. It is a simple bit of mathematics.
But there is the fascination with celebrity and wealth that also relates to this. Should Madonna write a book about the Iraq war, it will find a publisher, even though Madonna has no bona fides other than her vast wealth and infamy. Should emaw_kc write such a book, even if brilliantly researched and synthesized, he will have to beg for an editor to simply return his phone calls. No one would care for Teresa Heinz Kerry's political inanities if she were not fabulously rich and married to a well-known senator: She could be the most brilliant person on the planet, but if she lived in a trailer park, loved NASCAR ("Who among us doth not love NASCAR?"), and boasted of chugging Boone's Farm Apple Wine for breakfast, well, she'd never be interviewed. Her only option, it appears, would be to get a blog.
So, expertise is not only often wrong, or is contradicted by other expertise, it is often trumped by the famous, the odd, the infamous, and always the rich. Barbara Walters rarely interviews experts, yet her interviews are nearly a national institution as we crane our necks to hear what some brand-name thinks on sex, war, God, love.
I had a magazine editor tell me that I'd have an easier time getting published if I was a transvestite survivor of a Turkish prison (or some such scenario) who had been abused by her Catholic priest uncle and her bi-polar mother, than if I had the most important manuscript ever penned on anything. In other words, I'd have to be somebody.
Wasn't Jesus Himself asked, with all due derision, "Who are you?"
Ironically, it wasn't the demons who asked Him that: They knew who He was all too well.
In ending, my point is that we, as interlocuters and analysts, are far too enamored of the person speaking or writing. We are not duly attentive to what is said: We shoot the messenger (or adore him). But we rarely speak to the message alone, which is what should be done.
Peace.
BG
Excellent stuff. Good post, comments, and links. I wanted to comment, but now I know it will be used to sell me stuff I really don't need…
But Brady, you really do need that stuff, don't you know? Life's intrinsic joy is to be found in spending money on things. Surely you are not so shallow as to think there is something deeper to life than that?
Blessings!
BG
Bill, I know you just want me to click on one of your "buy me now" links…
Brady,
Please realize that by clicking on my Comments tag, you've agreed to purchase one year supply of Swiss Mountain earthworms, which are guaranteed to turn alpine rock to perfect gardening soil; or, if used to catch fish, will only lure trophy-sized brown trout. And if you do use them for fishing, the cool thing is that you will need neither hook nor fishing pole: these are well-trained worms. What else would you expect from this website?
BG
PS. You have already ordered several years' worth of worms: Happy Composting!
Great. What am I going to do with the cans of worms I've already stuffed into the closet?
I believe, sir Brady, that should you look into your closet, you will not find a single worm left. As I said, these are very well-trained worms. Consider them worms of mass discretion. They really know where to go once hidden away ...
Peace.
BG
Post a Comment