News and commentary about the intersection of information technology, politics, and policy presented by the members of Digital Politics, a course at Hamilton College.
In Against the Machine, Lee Siegel talked about the inevitable descent of the internet into the dark abyss of pornography, amateur calls for attention, a diluted popular culture, and a complete take over of the “bohemian” business ethic, which only supports the “bourgeois” model. The question then arises: Is the internet a forum which provides for “equal access to information and instantaneous communication,” as Bill Gates observes, or rather more of a universe which does not support deep, irrational human needs and desires? With all the negative effects of the internet that Siegel points out, I still believe that the good outweighs the flimsy argument that the increased efficiency with which our world works today will wreak havoc on our minds, hearts and souls. Though I for one would never intentionally visit masochist.com during an idle moment, I understand Siegel’s point that a certain devolution in the merits of the internet has occurred since its conception. Importantly, though, I do not see this process as a universal one—the “public folding of the private, individual psyche” will not be a final frontier. The internet has changed my life in many ways—Facebook helps me remain connected with people already long gone from my circle of life, email ensures that I can contact someone last minute so that they know I won’t be able to make it to the concert, and homework assignments can be due on a weekday when no one has classes. These (the last one still in question) staples of my life are all positive effects of the “transvaluation” process I have undergone. In order to experience, or incorporate negative transvaluation into your worldview, you would have had to have made the conscious decision to inculcate the “bad habit.” The internet is an anonymous forum (for most of us who are not blessed with hacking skills) where honestly prevails—this anonymity can be an excellent way for young people to test where their strength and talent lies. According to Siegel, the “majority if YouTubers…never took the time to patiently master a craft.” Many who use video-blogging as a means of self-expression, and purport to calling it art afterwards may well be mistaken—but they are brought back down to earth through the comments section by their peers. It is much like the world of art itself—art is a call for attention. Successful painters and sculptors are the most talented of thousands of other “artists” who don’t make it. YouTube works in the same way, except those artists who are not up to par are also sometimes viewed (not necessarily popular). This is only the result of the immense efficiency of the internet. Siegel further argued that after watching amusing videos on YouTube, he “feel[s] bored and empty afterward.” What about partying with friends? Both are amusing at first, and both seem to exist for the same purpose afterwards—to generate conversation based on shared experiences or exposure. Being too cynical about the negative effects of YouTube-ing can be harmful—after all, television exists in the same way. YouTube is just more efficient at it and allows the average citizen to participate. It seems that Siegel argues against the radical improvement in efficiency the internet has facilitated. Businesses run more smoothly, people are more connected than ever before, convenience is catered to and entertainment is more accessible and antihiearchical. For all Siegel said, I’m glad that the internet has quickly become something that is “transvalued.”
Lee Siegel’s book Against the Machine laments the impact that the Internet has had on society. Siegel seems to believe that he is the only brave soul out there who is willing to criticize the internet and the culture it has created. While I disagree with many of Siegel’s ideas about the internet, I do agree with some of what he says, especially (ironically enough) about blogs, although I cannot claim to feel nearly as strongly as he does. At the same time, I feel I must reject many of his arguments based on my experience growing up in the internet age.
Although I have not suffered the ramifications of a “rollicking misadventure in the online world,” I do agree with much of Siegel’s arguments about the problems that exist within the blogosphere. I think there is truth to Siegel’s “Five Open Supersecrets” of the blogosphere (page 161) and I certainly see the truth behind the Time magazine quote Siegel refers to (page 163, “Web 2.0 harnesses the stupidity of the crowds as well as its wisdom., some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred.”). I agree that the quality of news stories has generally decreased in an attempt to achieve universal appeal, and that it is a shame that people have been getting news from blogs rather than from traditional sources like newspapers (“Newspapers, which report in the third person, break stories. Blogs, which comment in the first person, loudly obsess over them.” I also agree with most of the other arguments in this vein that can be found on pages 167-171). If Siegel is correct, which I think he may, to an extent, be, I join him in mourning the demise of the meritocracy (page 168 “As a barrier to the Internet’s ideology of total access, merit has become a social liability). In addition, I agree with Siegel’s belief that many people try to “package” themselves for sale on the internet. I have observed a form of this trend on Facebook and Myspace and do not doubt that it takes place on most Web 2.0 websites. Furthermore, I disagree with people hiding behind their screens and simply asserting a certain identity. If Siegel is correct in saying that more and more people have asserted themselves as something they are not and that what this “crude egalitarianism is doing, in the name of democracy, is allowing the strongest assertion to edge out the most conscientious talent,” I think that there is a huge problem with the way the internet is being used.
I cannot, however, really claim to be joining the ranks of Siegel’s anti-internet crusade because there are too many arguments presented in his book that I do not agree with. Perhaps, in the tradition of the blogger, none of what I have to say is “original” or “meaningful.” I have simply responded to several of Siegel’s beliefs and examples that I thought stood out when I was reading.
One of Siegel’s basic arguments is that the internet can be (and is) used as a way to “keep the most creative, intelligent, and original voices from being heard.” This seems to go along with his conviction that fame and merit have completely given way to popularity and “bigness,” and that this aspect of the internet has fostered a society of copycats. I certainly see why he believes this is the case, and again, agree with him in some areas to a certain extent. I do believe, however, that the internet is more of an outlet for creative, intelligent, and original voices than Siegel thinks. There are very few people in the world with truly creative, intelligent, and original ideas. Therefore, any medium that allows a majority of people to communicate their ideas will most likely be filled with ideas that are less than brilliant. It does not mean that the few people who have an original idea will automatically be shut out. Despite Siegel’s belief that status based on page views has silenced innovative, intelligent people, many of them still manage to get their voices heard both online and in reality. Original books written by brilliant authors get rejected by publishers every day, and are sometimes rejected hundreds of times, before someone recognizes the book’s value. This practice is certainly nothing that has sprung up recently as a response to the internet. Against the Machine has convinced me that there are many ways in which the internet (more specifically, the culture that has grown around the internet) promotes unimaginative content (one needs only to look at the number of “reaction videos” to popular YouTube videos), and I do believe that perhaps, if used differently, the internet could have been developed into a tool that fostered more original creative efforts. To accomplish that goal in a way that Siegel would have liked, however, would have required that many people be denied access to the internet (at least denied the extent to which they are given now) because the truth is, the majority of people do not create brilliant works or come up with innovative, life-altering ideas or profound insights. This has to do with being human, not with being online. Would Siegel be opposed to this slimming down of internet users? I think not. But I see more value in many aspects of the internet than Siegel does, and can’t help believing that in many cases, the internet can be used as a tool to help people better themselves (and yes, it is “convenient”—is that really such a terrible thing?). Having to choose what is relevant, meaningful, and factual is necessarily a part of having a successful medium for “expression”.
One of Siegel’s examples that resonated with me as a college student was the example on pages 135-137 (“College students used to be the active arm of society’s conscience. Now they tremble helplessly before the internet’s Alice-in-Wonderland, truth eliding, boundary busting juggernaut…Politically active students appear in long threads on political blogs as “hits” rather than as real bodies protesting in the streets”). Siegel is correct about politically active students appearing on political blogs as “hits” but he also fails to acknowledge the “hybrid” organizations that Chadwick writes about, that use the internet to recruit students (and others) to participate in more traditional movements for change. Siegel does not discuss MeetUp.com or MoveOn.org. I think that these kinds of sites hold much promise, especially in light of Siegel’s arguments about the negative effects of the internet in terms of relationships, coming up with original ways to accomplish goals, and engaging young people in meaningful endeavors.
Finally, I question Siegel’s argument about the distinction between information and knowledge. I agree that there is a difference between the two, and even agree with Siegel’s definition of each. I take issue, however, with his point about how the internet is causing knowledge to “wither away” into information. I understand that the internet contributes to “information overload” and the negative effects of popularity culture on the spread of information. Maybe I am being optimistic, but I think that there are many ways to use the internet to help transform information into knowledge. I think that there are many discussion boards, and some types of (reputable) blogs, websites, and groups online that contribute to our understanding of information and that the internet could, in fact, be one of the best tools to help someone turn much of the information they hear into useful knowledge.
Against the Machine brought many important aspects of the internet into the spotlight to be examined and analyzed, perhaps (as Siegel claims), for the first time. The extreme ideas presented in the book, while often rooted in fact, did not encourage me to change my stance on the internet. I think the most important lesson that can be learned from this book is that internet users should be cautious when using the internet so as not to fall into any traps that may exist.
3 comments:
In Against the Machine, Lee Siegel talked about the inevitable descent of the internet into the dark abyss of pornography, amateur calls for attention, a diluted popular culture, and a complete take over of the “bohemian” business ethic, which only supports the “bourgeois” model. The question then arises: Is the internet a forum which provides for “equal access to information and instantaneous communication,” as Bill Gates observes, or rather more of a universe which does not support deep, irrational human needs and desires?
With all the negative effects of the internet that Siegel points out, I still believe that the good outweighs the flimsy argument that the increased efficiency with which our world works today will wreak havoc on our minds, hearts and souls. Though I for one would never intentionally visit masochist.com during an idle moment, I understand Siegel’s point that a certain devolution in the merits of the internet has occurred since its conception. Importantly, though, I do not see this process as a universal one—the “public folding of the private, individual psyche” will not be a final frontier.
The internet has changed my life in many ways—Facebook helps me remain connected with people already long gone from my circle of life, email ensures that I can contact someone last minute so that they know I won’t be able to make it to the concert, and homework assignments can be due on a weekday when no one has classes. These (the last one still in question) staples of my life are all positive effects of the “transvaluation” process I have undergone. In order to experience, or incorporate negative transvaluation into your worldview, you would have had to have made the conscious decision to inculcate the “bad habit.”
The internet is an anonymous forum (for most of us who are not blessed with hacking skills) where honestly prevails—this anonymity can be an excellent way for young people to test where their strength and talent lies. According to Siegel, the “majority if YouTubers…never took the time to patiently master a craft.” Many who use video-blogging as a means of self-expression, and purport to calling it art afterwards may well be mistaken—but they are brought back down to earth through the comments section by their peers. It is much like the world of art itself—art is a call for attention. Successful painters and sculptors are the most talented of thousands of other “artists” who don’t make it. YouTube works in the same way, except those artists who are not up to par are also sometimes viewed (not necessarily popular). This is only the result of the immense efficiency of the internet.
Siegel further argued that after watching amusing videos on YouTube, he “feel[s] bored and empty afterward.” What about partying with friends? Both are amusing at first, and both seem to exist for the same purpose afterwards—to generate conversation based on shared experiences or exposure. Being too cynical about the negative effects of YouTube-ing can be harmful—after all, television exists in the same way. YouTube is just more efficient at it and allows the average citizen to participate.
It seems that Siegel argues against the radical improvement in efficiency the internet has facilitated. Businesses run more smoothly, people are more connected than ever before, convenience is catered to and entertainment is more accessible and antihiearchical. For all Siegel said, I’m glad that the internet has quickly become something that is “transvalued.”
Lee Siegel’s book Against the Machine laments the impact that the Internet has had on society. Siegel seems to believe that he is the only brave soul out there who is willing to criticize the internet and the culture it has created. While I disagree with many of Siegel’s ideas about the internet, I do agree with some of what he says, especially (ironically enough) about blogs, although I cannot claim to feel nearly as strongly as he does. At the same time, I feel I must reject many of his arguments based on my experience growing up in the internet age.
Although I have not suffered the ramifications of a “rollicking misadventure in the online world,” I do agree with much of Siegel’s arguments about the problems that exist within the blogosphere. I think there is truth to Siegel’s “Five Open Supersecrets” of the blogosphere (page 161) and I certainly see the truth behind the Time magazine quote Siegel refers to (page 163, “Web 2.0 harnesses the stupidity of the crowds as well as its wisdom., some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred.”). I agree that the quality of news stories has generally decreased in an attempt to achieve universal appeal, and that it is a shame that people have been getting news from blogs rather than from traditional sources like newspapers (“Newspapers, which report in the third person, break stories. Blogs, which comment in the first person, loudly obsess over them.” I also agree with most of the other arguments in this vein that can be found on pages 167-171). If Siegel is correct, which I think he may, to an extent, be, I join him in mourning the demise of the meritocracy (page 168 “As a barrier to the Internet’s ideology of total access, merit has become a social liability). In addition, I agree with Siegel’s belief that many people try to “package” themselves for sale on the internet. I have observed a form of this trend on Facebook and Myspace and do not doubt that it takes place on most Web 2.0 websites. Furthermore, I disagree with people hiding behind their screens and simply asserting a certain identity. If Siegel is correct in saying that more and more people have asserted themselves as something they are not and that what this “crude egalitarianism is doing, in the name of democracy, is allowing the strongest assertion to edge out the most conscientious talent,” I think that there is a huge problem with the way the internet is being used.
I cannot, however, really claim to be joining the ranks of Siegel’s anti-internet crusade because there are too many arguments presented in his book that I do not agree with. Perhaps, in the tradition of the blogger, none of what I have to say is “original” or “meaningful.” I have simply responded to several of Siegel’s beliefs and examples that I thought stood out when I was reading.
One of Siegel’s basic arguments is that the internet can be (and is) used as a way to “keep the most creative, intelligent, and original voices from being heard.” This seems to go along with his conviction that fame and merit have completely given way to popularity and “bigness,” and that this aspect of the internet has fostered a society of copycats. I certainly see why he believes this is the case, and again, agree with him in some areas to a certain extent. I do believe, however, that the internet is more of an outlet for creative, intelligent, and original voices than Siegel thinks. There are very few people in the world with truly creative, intelligent, and original ideas. Therefore, any medium that allows a majority of people to communicate their ideas will most likely be filled with ideas that are less than brilliant. It does not mean that the few people who have an original idea will automatically be shut out. Despite Siegel’s belief that status based on page views has silenced innovative, intelligent people, many of them still manage to get their voices heard both online and in reality. Original books written by brilliant authors get rejected by publishers every day, and are sometimes rejected hundreds of times, before someone recognizes the book’s value. This practice is certainly nothing that has sprung up recently as a response to the internet. Against the Machine has convinced me that there are many ways in which the internet (more specifically, the culture that has grown around the internet) promotes unimaginative content (one needs only to look at the number of “reaction videos” to popular YouTube videos), and I do believe that perhaps, if used differently, the internet could have been developed into a tool that fostered more original creative efforts. To accomplish that goal in a way that Siegel would have liked, however, would have required that many people be denied access to the internet (at least denied the extent to which they are given now) because the truth is, the majority of people do not create brilliant works or come up with innovative, life-altering ideas or profound insights. This has to do with being human, not with being online. Would Siegel be opposed to this slimming down of internet users? I think not. But I see more value in many aspects of the internet than Siegel does, and can’t help believing that in many cases, the internet can be used as a tool to help people better themselves (and yes, it is “convenient”—is that really such a terrible thing?). Having to choose what is relevant, meaningful, and factual is necessarily a part of having a successful medium for “expression”.
One of Siegel’s examples that resonated with me as a college student was the example on pages 135-137 (“College students used to be the active arm of society’s conscience. Now they tremble helplessly before the internet’s Alice-in-Wonderland, truth eliding, boundary busting juggernaut…Politically active students appear in long threads on political blogs as “hits” rather than as real bodies protesting in the streets”). Siegel is correct about politically active students appearing on political blogs as “hits” but he also fails to acknowledge the “hybrid” organizations that Chadwick writes about, that use the internet to recruit students (and others) to participate in more traditional movements for change. Siegel does not discuss MeetUp.com or MoveOn.org. I think that these kinds of sites hold much promise, especially in light of Siegel’s arguments about the negative effects of the internet in terms of relationships, coming up with original ways to accomplish goals, and engaging young people in meaningful endeavors.
Finally, I question Siegel’s argument about the distinction between information and knowledge. I agree that there is a difference between the two, and even agree with Siegel’s definition of each. I take issue, however, with his point about how the internet is causing knowledge to “wither away” into information. I understand that the internet contributes to “information overload” and the negative effects of popularity culture on the spread of information. Maybe I am being optimistic, but I think that there are many ways to use the internet to help transform information into knowledge. I think that there are many discussion boards, and some types of (reputable) blogs, websites, and groups online that contribute to our understanding of information and that the internet could, in fact, be one of the best tools to help someone turn much of the information they hear into useful knowledge.
Against the Machine brought many important aspects of the internet into the spotlight to be examined and analyzed, perhaps (as Siegel claims), for the first time. The extreme ideas presented in the book, while often rooted in fact, did not encourage me to change my stance on the internet. I think the most important lesson that can be learned from this book is that internet users should be cautious when using the internet so as not to fall into any traps that may exist.
Post a Comment