Jaron Lanier wants the Net Gen to know that they are not the mediums they use. But are they the message? Hmm…
In her 2010 New York Review of Books article “Generation Why?,” British novelist Zadie Smith reviewed Jaron Lanier’s novel, You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, and paralleled it to David Fincher’s film, The Social Network, which premiered in theatres around about the same time as the publishing of Lanier’s book. Smith captures the sentiment of a generation bereft of excitement; tired and jaded of hearing about “Generation Facebook.” She refers to The Social Network as a “movie about 2.0 people made by 1.0 people (Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher, forty-nine and forty-eight respectively). It’s a talkie, for goodness sake . . .” (Smith 2). Smith continues to contextualize her article with shrouded cynicism in a cool, disaffected tone, making on as if she is as slightly distressed, yet still not overtly concerned, as anyone over thirty-five should be for this new 2.0 generation that seems to be taking over the media. Smith then begins to question why. Her question, “why?” is imposed on everything about this generation: “Why? Why Facebook? Why this format? Why do it like that? . . .” (6) She never reaches a conclusion to her repeated question, but her sentiment does reach a desperate height of its manifesto when it breaks down and resolves the following:
When a human being becomes a set of data on a website like Facebook, he or she is reduced. Everything shrinks. Individual character. Friendships. Language. Sensibility. In a way it’s a transcendent experience: we lose our bodies, our messy feelings, our desires, our fears. It reminds me that those of us who turn in disgust from what we consider an overinflated liberal-bourgeois sense of self should be careful what we wish for: our denuded networked selves don’t look more free, they just look more owned (10).
Smith, the author of best-selling books such as White Teeth and On Beauty, makes a pointed argument in her resolution. It is climatic, intense, and resounding. Smith’s statement argues that Facebook, as well as nearly any other social networking site, is a false reality. Simply put, it is devoid of, not just Human 1.0, but Human altogether. Facebook, along with the digital media that previews it, cannot replace a touch, smile, the warmth of a kiss, sadness of grief, or gradual blossoming of a real relationship. Facebook is not us, but rather blue-and-white glimpses of us. It is plastic to the real world’s Real.
Indeed she is right and her sentiment still holds true. It also points out to another part of the digital divide not frequently addressed: the morality of our lives in the Digital Age.
A part of the digital divide is the moral issues that people have with digital technology. Some people believe that digitizing our lives is a dangerous, or maybe just sad and pathetic, prospect. For those already digitizing everything – supposedly “Human 2.0” people – the moral issues have escaped their consciences. They do not see the issue with spending one’s life in continuous login in, log out cycles: update status, update online cultural relevance. A vicious cycle, isn’t it? It breaks down time and place and makes everything entirely relative. You tweet at 4 am in the morning that you are hungry, or that you hate this and that. Nothing has any propriety or context anymore, just a blue-and paling white timeline of posts. It is similar to a game, where a gunshot isn’t really a gunshot; villains don’t really exist, and day and night don’t matter. Our virtual lives become our playgrounds. Yet, this is the game Human 2.0 lives in their daily reality. They are always using a technology ‘gadget’ of sorts, not just for chatting, but for gaming, loving, beautifying, breathing, and living (in no particular order). Human 1.0, or perhaps I’ll just refer to them as casual users, is Othered from this game by conscientious choice. They decide not to adhere to a lifestyle that attempts to replace actual social interaction with a screen. They decide to search for what Zadie Smith is searching for through all the blue-and-pale white profiles: humans and their messy selves, uncategorized on a screen.
Consider all of the personal content on the web. Far from wires, plastic, and hard drive, digital technology holds a world of information – a nexus of human thought and activity
The digital technology we use can be used right, for moral purposes, educational purposes, and so forth. I repeat, we must use this technology conscientiously, not avoid it conscientiously.
What Smith is not seeing is what many of her generation cannot see: what connectivity means nowadays. Connectivity nowadays is on screens and is direct communication, but on a global level. Connectivity is no longer a consequence of being online, it is a plus. You can mediate between the media you use and the Real you experience. It is mediation, not the media, which is needed to ensure people ‘really’ stay connected. Don Tapscott, in a recent article with the Toronto Star entitled “The Digital Divide: Corporate Secrecy and Personal Privacy are Opposites,” Tapscott address the issue of online privacy. He states, “Privacy is important to the formation and maintenance of human relationships, reputation, trust, and even ‘the self’ and its presentation in everyday life” (Tapscott). Tapscott argues that online social networking blurs the line between the public and private, making both seem transparent, unneeded, or without regulation. Even in a day when the Internet can reveal so much about any given topic, there is still the need to maintain secrets, or withhold information for the purpose of controlling one’s life. Tapscott’s point in his article is that users must mediate how they use media. It is as simple as that. Naysayers have a point. These people – casual users – are not Luddites and do recognize technology, but their fears should not simply be avoided. They should be addressed.
So far, in my blog posts I have created a motif: tha digital technology is a tool. Humans throughout history have created tools in order to improve their lives. Tools help us survive, thrive, and create more tools. The thriving part is still in the works. We can use an axe to build or to harm. We use a phone to call people and talk, to argue, to love, to be with when we cannot. Ultimately, it is up to us. In the classroom, digital technology can be used to harness an energy that is already in the air or it can ignore this energy and allow it to diffuse elsewhere. The Net Gen already has the tools (and the school isn’t the one who provided them; society is). Now, it is up to schools to realize the potential in this power before it overthrows them.
David Fincher ends The Social Network inconclusively. He leaves us hanging with Mark Zuckerberg (portrayed by neurotic, narcissistic Jesse Eisenberg) as he sits, after a long court battle, in his lawyer’s office. He sends a “friend request” to his former girlfriend, Erica. Then the cycle of waiting. Fincher’s end hardly portrays a lonely techie trying to get back with his girlfriend, but someone who may have a chance at connecting with a person they never could in a new way. The idea of a “friend request” breaks down that barrier of awkwardness since it generalizes the request: we all send and receive them, so, don’t feel alone on wanting a network. Net Gen/Gen Y: don’t feel weird at wanting to connect with the world – isn’t this an important message?
Generation Why is a generation of people who are breaking down the “why” questions and answering them. Digital media is helping them do this, not hindering their realities. In fact, Gen Y is going along with the flow that society is creating: to move to a more connected world; to create a Global Village of sorts. In doing this, all those frustrating, arbitrary – and sometimes deadly – boundaries that seperate us (i.e. religion, class, race, nationality, etc) are being broken down bite by byte. Zadie Smith never answered her own speculations, but continued to theorize, philosophize, and moralize. The answer to all those whys is simple: to connect, to stay connected, and to work together to communicate for more connection. Eventually, all the humming will die down and the networks we have create will be like quiet neighbourhoods that recognize a common need: to have a place to be no matter where you really are.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UhONY3-1os]
Works Cited:
Smith, Zadie. “Generation Why.” The New York Review of Books. November 25, 2010. 10 July
2012. < http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation-why/?pagination=false >
Tapscott, Don. “Digital Divde: Corporate Secrecy and Personal Privacy are Opposites.” The Toronto Star. July 14, 2012: Insight. Print.