The Reluctant Blogger?

The Reluctant Blogger?

It was a few years ago when I first set up my blog site, the result of being asked by friends to share with them my stories, which frequently included tales that often received the reaction  . . . “that could only happen to you, Jenn.” So, with restrained enthusiasm I decided to give in, I would create a blog. This happened to coincide with the beginning of a PhD program for me and I was being inundated with ideas, concepts, and theories that made little sense to me at the time. There were all of these –isms and –ologies that I had to learn and understand, many of which I had heard before and use as a part of my daily lexicon. I decided that I would blog about my experience of grad school and that’s how it started.

That was two years ago now, and that’s why I am questioning my reluctance. What’s happened in those two years? A lot of changes, to be sure . . . I’m not as daunted now by all of the –isms and –ologies now, in fact, I’m teaching them to my own students now. But, my reticence for social media has remained.

Having grown up in one of those towns where people have little more to do than gossip, I understand and cherish the value and peace of mind that a little bit of privacy offers. I don’t want to be misunderstood, or categorized into a box where I am shallowly understood. I want people to ask if they want to know something, not deduce from a limited amount of information that someone THINKS they understand about me. I suppose that my hope is that I’ve moved beyond caring what people think about me, but the reality of the situation is that I do care. I guess that’s why I’m reluctant. That’s why I’ve never been one to sign up for the latest social media craze, that’s why I’m not on Twitter, that’s why I’m not on Facebook . . . nor do I have any plans to be.

I’m agitated by the idea of being misunderstood in case you missed it. But, I’m also a bit agitated by the idea that the depth with which we are connected with one another is becoming more shallow, even though our social networks might be expanding horizontally. I want to go beyond the superficial and I want to know what is at the heart of someone, not just what is presented on their Facebook profile. In 1964, Herbert Marcuse was describing the link between mass media and the shallowing of society in his renowned book One-Dimensional Man. He remarks:

Indeed, in the most highly developed areas of contemporary society, the transplantation of social into individual needs is so effective that the difference between them seems to be purely theoretical. Can one really distinguish between the mass media as instruments of information and entertainment, and as agents of manipulation and indoctrination? Between the automobile as nuisance and as convenience? Between the horrors and the comforts of functional architecture? Between the work for national defense and the work for corporate gain? Between the private pleasure and the commercial and political utility involved in increasing the birth rate?

I could go into a deeper analysis of Marcuse’s critique of media’s impact on culture but, I will save that for another day. The point is that mass media has a large role to play in the creation of a one-dimensional society. Of course I realize that information one gives out on these sites is optional and that if I were to participate more, I don’t have to post information about my entire life on the Internet. In fact, I don’t have to partake in social media AT ALL but, it seems that the choice to opt-out comes with a consequence.

I’m not talking about being called technologically backward (as some have suggested) or missing out on information about where friends are meeting up . . . I don’t really care about those things. Perhaps the consequence is greater: a wholesale disconnect from anyone who doesn't put effort forth to send an email, a text, or to make the occasional phone call. I wonder sometimes what I am missing out on but should I really care if these people aren’t willing to invest a bit more into my life? Why should I make it so easy? Although I feel comfort in knowing that those with whom I maintain my bond are those whose roots grow deeper into my life, whose lives are intimately entangled with my own, but I still have to question whether I’m complicit in the same behavior as those who choose to participate . . . am I shallow for not putting forth more effort to get to know the factoids and tidbits of information that friends want to share with me?

I’m not sure that I can answer this question. But, I’m sure I will return to it.

All of this leads me to a foray into the topic of technological fetishism—the first –ism that I will explore. The basic premise of this idea is that we (humans) place human attributes onto technology (a non-human thing). Remember not too long ago the Green Revolution in Iran, the so-called Twitter Revolution? The coverage of the event is consistent with infotainment that our society so readily relies on to know what’s going on in the world but, calling the Green Revolution the Twitter Revolution not only introduces questions of technology fetishism but also questions of agency. There were people behind the movement, real people, like Neda Agha-Soltan, remember her? 

David Harvey, famed social theorist and critical geographer, calls this phenomenon the “fetishism of technology.” In The Fetish of Technology: Causes andConsequences he states: 

By fetishism I mean the habit humans have of endowing real or imagined objects or entities with self-contained, mysterious, and even magical powers to move and shape the world in distinctive ways. The technological changes that we see all around us are, of course, very real. They are a constitutive feature of how we live our daily lives. We do not imagine them, so in this case, the fetish does not attach to some fantasy like “lady luck” or fate. The fetish arises because we endow technologies—mere things—with powers they do not have (e.g., the ability to solve social problems, to keep the economy vibrant, or to provide us with a superior life). But if technologies cannot do these things, then why do we attach so great an importance to technological innovation?

The importance we attach to technological innovation has to do, in my opinion, with the easing of life’s burdens. Just like the vacuum was supposed to make life easier for housewives, the automobile has made it easier for us to move from place to place, the Internet has made it easier for us to gather research, and the atom bomb has made it easier to decimate entire populations in warfare. But, these innovations carry a cost: the clunky vacuum has to be lugged up the stairs, there are vehicle accidents and pollutants, it’s just as easy to find false information online as it is to find credible information, and nuclear capabilities can lead to arms races. This is not to say that these innovations are negative technologies but, to raise the point that there are unforeseen consequences to the innovations we make.