…we’ll have nothing left to drink. Profitable "connections" will be no more and we will have nothing left of ourseflves to package and sell. We will have lost our appreciation for human spirit and the pleasantry of taking a stroll in a park, or having a drink at a bar with a friend. But we will have our MySpace friends and mash-ups.
The internet is a marvelous, powerful invention and tool that humankind can and does benefit from. Siegel doesn’t disagree. In an interview with Jon Stewart last month, he clarified that Against the Machine is not so much an attack on the internet as it is the commercial forces that have moved the internet in a direction away from what it could be. It is a critique of authors, theorists, and bloggers (eek, to tout bloggers with such esteem) who constantly defend the internet using only internet based jargon and who manipulate and misuse the ideologies of great philosophers to fit their defense.
Siegel constructs his argument with bricks of research that seem to include every book and blog he has read (granted, he believes blogs aren’t read and that the words are “watched” onscreen), every website he has visited, Youtube video he has watched, all the culture he has encountered, and media that he has consumed in his lifetime. But the framework of his argument, that is, a yearning for human nature to coexist with technology, is more impressive than the masonry of his research. A critic with values as rigid as Siegel’s seems rare in our day and age of digital-democracy that runs on misconstrued rhetoric and erodes the leisure of human spirit and true originality.
The core argument, which defends what it means to be human in the information age, rests on the notion that “the internet creates a vast illusion that the physical, social, world of interacting minds and hearts does not exist” (17). The book begins with a hypothetical trip to a Starbucks that is devoid of the nuances of human nature that café’s once had, that society and communities thrived on for so many years. Everyone around him is “bent into their screens and toward their self-interest” (16). Throughout the book, Spiegel makes quips about himself for seeming prehistoric, but only because he knows how progressive a thinker he actually is and how willingly many of his critics will look past this fact. Regardless, at the books end, Siegel recounts that “a real social situation, even when people are not talking to one another, is full of faces and objects caught sight of, gestures seen, sounds heard that keep communication going” (172). On the internet, identities are lost (some stolen!) and formed at the expense of true personality. I don’t think we need to fear the end of interpersonal communication, but if we do not pay mind to Siegel’s ideals and we continue to “breath life into the ghosts” in the machines in front of us, it won’t be long before we all turn without question to our computers for console, when all we really might need is a pat on the back.
After denouncing Stewart Brand’s idea of the WELL (a fluid boundary between public and private), Alvin Toffler’s “crude and simplistic” definition of the modern economy (prosumerisim), and the stock that the internet has invested in the “producing as we consume” mentality, Spiegel criticizes Malcolm Gladwell’s concept of the “Connector.” Spiegel acknowledges that “connectors” are legitimate and successful in winning audiences and selling ideas, attitudes and products, but brings to light the “malleable and servile” nature of such a person or institution, which would “bend without principle to satisfy the interests of the powerfully placed” (94). Too much faith is stored in morally lacking connectors, but I guess that is just one of the burdens of capitalism. In the viewpoint of many of the thinkers Siegel discredits, “human existence is wholly driven by commercial concerns…life is divided into manipulating winners and manipulatable losers” (95). This furthers the dehumanizing spirit of not the internet, but the individuals who cause the internet to flourish. Spiegel’s belief is not naive, but it is unique; few who are willing to recognize this flaw of consumerist nature also keep the faith that this should and can change. Siegel does, and with this book he attempts to start the dialogue.
Of all things, I will conclude with a quote from the aptly named Anton Ego of the Oscar winning animated film Ratatouille: “There are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new.” Sorry, Mr. Ego, but it would seem here that the contrary holds true as well. By warning us against the maladies of a grand technology, Siegel is defending something new of his own –a movement toward human nature and technology co-existing in a way in which neither is exploited.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Internet: A Double Edged Sword?
The internet … a recent technological innovation that has changed the world forever. Never before has information been so vast, as if almost endless, or so easily accessible. The internet makes things possible today that were not even thought of 15-20 years ago. Even with such a great technology, questions still exist on whether or not the internet is a good or a bad thing. How could something so helpful be thought of as a destructive tool? In Lee Siegel’s Against the Machine, we observed Siegel’s introduction into the internet world. Perhaps some criticism of Siegel’s original works caused him to write a book in the demise of the internet? While some may say that it is ridiculous to think that the internet does more harm than good, does Siegel have a point?
Siegel defines the success of the internet behind the idea of its “convenience”, and who can blame him. The ability to log on to an internet site to search for any sort of information or pictures gives people the everlasting ability to constantly expand their knowledge. The internet has undoubtedly made certain procedures much easier and quick than in the past, these procedures would still have occurred regardless of whether the internet was around or not. While I am an avid fan of the internet and all that it has to offer, I can not deny that I can see some disadvantages to it as well. Such advances in the world of technology as the internet and cell phones have taken away from some essential parts of life. The people of today live a much more inward life. Interactions with people have turned into Instant Messaging or E-Mails or any other sort of internet communication, rather than face to face conversation. Of course, this makes things easier, but is that necessarily better?
No one can deny that the internet is an integral part of our present culture. Without it, some people may not even be able to function. One flaw I see with the naysayers of the internet lies in the internet itself. This application is simply a tool. No one is making anyone use it or do certain things on the internet. I agree when Siegel states that ‘we can either passively allow it to abstract our lives or guide it toward the fulfillment of its human promise.” Furthermore, “the choice is ours.” Today’s society carries an enormous privilege by having the internet. The internet itself is not harming society; it is the people who let the internet take their personal lives over.
For some people, the internet allows them to live more ‘freely’ because it essentially masks the individual’s self. All that people see on the internet are pictures and words, not the actual face of the person. Some people simply can not carry themselves normally on an interpersonal level and more or less depend on such tools as the internet to function. These people truly benefit from the internet, but on the other side they are almost ‘giving up’ at a part of their life. Without the help of the internet, they can not express their true feelings. Regardless, these people have forfeited to the internet and in some way forfeited to being in the public eye.
Quite simply, the internet has changed the way that we live and will continue to change it in the future. The opportunities created by the internet are endless, but we can not let the internet take over our lives. Even has E-mailing and other internet communications continue to grow, people still need to be able to function when standing face to face with another individual.
Siegel defines the success of the internet behind the idea of its “convenience”, and who can blame him. The ability to log on to an internet site to search for any sort of information or pictures gives people the everlasting ability to constantly expand their knowledge. The internet has undoubtedly made certain procedures much easier and quick than in the past, these procedures would still have occurred regardless of whether the internet was around or not. While I am an avid fan of the internet and all that it has to offer, I can not deny that I can see some disadvantages to it as well. Such advances in the world of technology as the internet and cell phones have taken away from some essential parts of life. The people of today live a much more inward life. Interactions with people have turned into Instant Messaging or E-Mails or any other sort of internet communication, rather than face to face conversation. Of course, this makes things easier, but is that necessarily better?
No one can deny that the internet is an integral part of our present culture. Without it, some people may not even be able to function. One flaw I see with the naysayers of the internet lies in the internet itself. This application is simply a tool. No one is making anyone use it or do certain things on the internet. I agree when Siegel states that ‘we can either passively allow it to abstract our lives or guide it toward the fulfillment of its human promise.” Furthermore, “the choice is ours.” Today’s society carries an enormous privilege by having the internet. The internet itself is not harming society; it is the people who let the internet take their personal lives over.
For some people, the internet allows them to live more ‘freely’ because it essentially masks the individual’s self. All that people see on the internet are pictures and words, not the actual face of the person. Some people simply can not carry themselves normally on an interpersonal level and more or less depend on such tools as the internet to function. These people truly benefit from the internet, but on the other side they are almost ‘giving up’ at a part of their life. Without the help of the internet, they can not express their true feelings. Regardless, these people have forfeited to the internet and in some way forfeited to being in the public eye.
Quite simply, the internet has changed the way that we live and will continue to change it in the future. The opportunities created by the internet are endless, but we can not let the internet take over our lives. Even has E-mailing and other internet communications continue to grow, people still need to be able to function when standing face to face with another individual.
On Criticism
Like all major innovations, the internet is a tool, in this case, a power tool. It can be used to build shelter. But it can also be used to kill a spouse and make it look like a horrific accident.
The internet has enabled lots of positive changes with finance. It's enabled average people to trade in stocks and bonds, something most Americans have never had access to in the past. Whether or not giving average Americans the ability to lose all their income in the stock market thanks to internet trading isn't really in the scope this discussion.
However, the internet has also made it easier for malicious traders to engage in so-called "pump and dump" schemes. A nefarious trader purchases many shares of a security with low value, then goes online to promote the security, promising news of a major announcement in an effort to drive the stock price up. They go online to investor chat rooms, often the same type of chat rooms that are used by pedophiles to prey on children, or message boards, and under a false persona give unwarranted praise and credit to the stock. When the readers are conned into purchasing the phony stock and raise its value, the nefarious trader sells all his shares for a profit.
I'm not comparing Lee Siegel to a pump and dump trader, having promoted his own writings under a false identity on The New Republic's Talkback section of its website. Resorting to ad hominem attacks and rhetorical tricks to persuade isn't what this post is about.
It should be pretty clear by now that I'm not a huge fan of Siegel's, though I've been reading him since before he was banned (and later reinstated) from writing at The New Republic. His sensational writing is extremely entertaining and provides interesting commentary, though his portrayal of the implications of democratic social media as portrayed in Against the Machine is fatally flawed.
It seems to be a hot trend to rail against the internet, but not in the neo-luddite sense that Ted Kaczynski would, but in a rather hip way centered around the idea that technology isn't just dangerous to what makes people fundamentally human, but that it devalues "art". Like Cult of the Amateur author Andrew Keen, Siegel makes a rather perverse and often baffling argument which centers on the antidemocratic notion that all people should not be given access to the same empowering forms of expression as the present social elite.
Leaving aside Siegel's flawed notions such as that the principal interactions of the internet are driven by commerce, it is architected in such a way that there are no longer social barriers (and thus cues), etc., the continuous undercurrent is that allowing individuals to amplify their interactions is harmful.
As the vilified Doug Rushkoff has asserted, the rise of the internet and the simultaneous cultural changes are tantamount to a rennisance in that it has brought about a shift in the way we think about perspective. The printing press was revolutionary because it empowered the broad dissemination of knowledge in an inexpensive way. It then empowered more individuals to disseminate knowledge. The internet empowers us all to be writers, publishers, creators. We don't realize that what we do as humans is disseminate information, even when engaging in physical trade. In the essence of every object is an idea, the Platonic form, which, when manifested is the physical good. We've always lived in a world where the survival of ideas was paramount. Only now the spread of ideas is democratized, and those who can get their ideas to spread best are the ones who will thrive. Only now, it's not physical force, but the ideas spreading largely by their own merits. We've created a way for ideas to spread semi-organically. It also happens to empower social relations. It also happens to enhance education. It also happens to aid in bringing a higher standard of living.
Now note that throughout this criticism, I've done little more than criticize based upon my own assertions and prior knowledge. I do little to take some of Siegel's assertions and spin them my own way. Granted, some of these are exaggerated to bring light to some of Siegel's techniques, but fundamentally, I've engaged in a similar practice to his writing. Sometimes it's just too easy.
p.s.
Lee, if this sets off your Google Alert, I just want you to know that I don't hate you.
The internet has enabled lots of positive changes with finance. It's enabled average people to trade in stocks and bonds, something most Americans have never had access to in the past. Whether or not giving average Americans the ability to lose all their income in the stock market thanks to internet trading isn't really in the scope this discussion.
However, the internet has also made it easier for malicious traders to engage in so-called "pump and dump" schemes. A nefarious trader purchases many shares of a security with low value, then goes online to promote the security, promising news of a major announcement in an effort to drive the stock price up. They go online to investor chat rooms, often the same type of chat rooms that are used by pedophiles to prey on children, or message boards, and under a false persona give unwarranted praise and credit to the stock. When the readers are conned into purchasing the phony stock and raise its value, the nefarious trader sells all his shares for a profit.
I'm not comparing Lee Siegel to a pump and dump trader, having promoted his own writings under a false identity on The New Republic's Talkback section of its website. Resorting to ad hominem attacks and rhetorical tricks to persuade isn't what this post is about.
It should be pretty clear by now that I'm not a huge fan of Siegel's, though I've been reading him since before he was banned (and later reinstated) from writing at The New Republic. His sensational writing is extremely entertaining and provides interesting commentary, though his portrayal of the implications of democratic social media as portrayed in Against the Machine is fatally flawed.
It seems to be a hot trend to rail against the internet, but not in the neo-luddite sense that Ted Kaczynski would, but in a rather hip way centered around the idea that technology isn't just dangerous to what makes people fundamentally human, but that it devalues "art". Like Cult of the Amateur author Andrew Keen, Siegel makes a rather perverse and often baffling argument which centers on the antidemocratic notion that all people should not be given access to the same empowering forms of expression as the present social elite.
Leaving aside Siegel's flawed notions such as that the principal interactions of the internet are driven by commerce, it is architected in such a way that there are no longer social barriers (and thus cues), etc., the continuous undercurrent is that allowing individuals to amplify their interactions is harmful.
As the vilified Doug Rushkoff has asserted, the rise of the internet and the simultaneous cultural changes are tantamount to a rennisance in that it has brought about a shift in the way we think about perspective. The printing press was revolutionary because it empowered the broad dissemination of knowledge in an inexpensive way. It then empowered more individuals to disseminate knowledge. The internet empowers us all to be writers, publishers, creators. We don't realize that what we do as humans is disseminate information, even when engaging in physical trade. In the essence of every object is an idea, the Platonic form, which, when manifested is the physical good. We've always lived in a world where the survival of ideas was paramount. Only now the spread of ideas is democratized, and those who can get their ideas to spread best are the ones who will thrive. Only now, it's not physical force, but the ideas spreading largely by their own merits. We've created a way for ideas to spread semi-organically. It also happens to empower social relations. It also happens to enhance education. It also happens to aid in bringing a higher standard of living.
Now note that throughout this criticism, I've done little more than criticize based upon my own assertions and prior knowledge. I do little to take some of Siegel's assertions and spin them my own way. Granted, some of these are exaggerated to bring light to some of Siegel's techniques, but fundamentally, I've engaged in a similar practice to his writing. Sometimes it's just too easy.
p.s.
Lee, if this sets off your Google Alert, I just want you to know that I don't hate you.
Splanwiki going viral?
Splanwiki had almost 500 visits in its first day! Now we need more content and repeat vistors.
Lee Siegel got hurt by a mean blogger and has decided to attack the Internet as a result
In Lee Siegel’s Against The Machine, he has an irreverent approach to the new technologies of the Internet. It is obvious that he was hurt by the “mean” blogs posted about some of his previous works, and has decided to attack the foundations of the Internet in general so he could be like Ralph Nadar in his attack on the automobile industry. Cars were the cause of death of tens of thousands of Americans every year and the car manufacturers were covering up their ability to decrease these numbers. There is no such conspiracy behind the Internet, and although it may be true that the new technologies are creating more individuals, it is not causing mass death covered up by the moguls in the field.
Siegel is also incorrect in his analysis of the “mega-democracy.” He defined mega-democracy as “democracy about to tip through perversion of its principles into its opposite” (Siegel 79). The increased number of active participants of democracy on the Internet will not turn the United States away from a democracy. If it does anything, it will make more people interested in the democratic workings of our country and make The US even more so a government run by the people.
His attacks on Web 2.0 are also inaccurate in that he believes the new social interactions of people on the Internet are problems. Even if people are communicating in person less and less, they are making up for it by communicating with each other online. It is true that the Internet is a permanent technology, and if we stop its social networking progress, the social interactions will be greatly reduced, both in person and online.
Siegel is also incorrect in his analysis of the “mega-democracy.” He defined mega-democracy as “democracy about to tip through perversion of its principles into its opposite” (Siegel 79). The increased number of active participants of democracy on the Internet will not turn the United States away from a democracy. If it does anything, it will make more people interested in the democratic workings of our country and make The US even more so a government run by the people.
His attacks on Web 2.0 are also inaccurate in that he believes the new social interactions of people on the Internet are problems. Even if people are communicating in person less and less, they are making up for it by communicating with each other online. It is true that the Internet is a permanent technology, and if we stop its social networking progress, the social interactions will be greatly reduced, both in person and online.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Splanwiki launched
As far as we know, splanwiki is the first student driven wiki for strategic planning. Splanwiki is a revolutionary tool that empowers students to chart Hamilton's course for the next five years.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)