Monday, January 7, 2013

Severence

Continuing from Selves.

The Necessary Reaction to The Enclosure of the Commons

The most obvious profanity right now, Facebook, provides an example of how proactively and willingly humans will replace interaction with sterilized modes of it; how swiftly it will become normal; and, how seriously they'll treat the end result. Namely, people are willing to use Facebook primarily not as a buttress to, but as a replacement for, human interaction.

Not living close together to someone who had assisted you necessitated the thank-you visit, to show you cared--because a living community would include a constant tide of requests, fulfillments, and gratitudes. As the commons were enclosed, factories and lordships severed the worker from the land, and turned people into expendable free-floaters who had to "find" a job to survive. The advent of modern formal manners was in the creation of a thank-you "visit," a necessity when people who cared about each other began living in different places from one another so that they could till different sections of soil or hammer different lines.

Reconnecting with all of your middle school friends on Facebook is only a more advanced, cheaper, less personalized "catching up" than the catching up that already had to happen when lords shattered communities so that shifting populations of migrant workers would find less filial and communal support while filling the ranks of standing armies or factory shifts. Ergo the "thank-you visit," for showing gratitude to someone now across the street, now in another village.

As people became acclimated to less connection to other selves, the thank-you visit became a thank-you card, which became a thank-you e-card, which became a status update. The last vestiges of "personalization" are now vanishing, as holiday e-cards are sent to entire departments. Happy Valentine's Day, Human Resources & Accounting!

IRL

So yeah, obvious. But it's already deeper. Virtual interaction only modeled what was already there, in people who had learned, over the decades, to believe even more firmly in the self. If the self is detached, then communicating only by telegraph, or smell-sharing videoconferencing, is the way to go. It's cheaper, better, and loses nothing. There will, eventually, be nothing worthwhile about these hunks of cells, which should be discarded as soon as it becomes possible to sustain "self perception" through inorganic technology.

Computer programs scripting their own endless amusements, on a planet covered by a layer of solar dishes above the armored layer of ten trillion individuals' servers, would be far superior to the Earth we have now. Life, but without having to go to the bathroom; without having to feel blue; without having to be scared or worried or hurt about anything. If that stirring data is all there is to sensation, and there is no greater meaning, then we're on the right track. Elites exterminating the old and bringing in the new.

Facebook would never have been popular if people had not already been conditioned to shadow dance in their own IRL relationships. When "How are you?" became a meaningless equivalent to "Hello," and "conversation" became an opportunity only to share brand identity and coordinate calendars, why should the entire relationship not precede its host individuals by moving wholly online?

Call centers, hold music, technology expos, and waiting rooms could not have existed in a people already not prepped to compromise with them. Millions of young urban singles relying on a dozen pricey bars in any given section of city to meet that special someone could not have existed in cities not already prepped to expect no better. Where else are they going to go? All space is owned, so the space where the owner door-charges you and promises potential mates is the only option--outside of meeting a mate at the factory, or at factory training school, which are the two biggest sources of productive pairings.

FaceTime, even, could not have succeeded until people had learned to devalue their own presence. If being close to someone only matters because you can see and hear them, then of course, videoconferencing is the way to go. Accede to the ooze, give the zombies a foot in the door, and next year, it won't seem so strange. Your grandmother would turn over in her grave if she realized that people have such difficulty writing letters, now. One-liners and hook phrases are the "closeness" that abused technology offers. Computers, and e-mails, could have been used to salvage the errors of the past; to save written communication from the slow death of hallmark cards and telephone calls. Freeing hands from ink stains and wear, speedy, long, meaningful letters could have been sent. Great debates could have been had. Instead, the humans have used the technology as a further separation. Each friend, each contact, is now a colorful blurb.

Singing arm in arm, strolling about undressed, swiving whenever the urge arose, sleeping side to side--outdated to the quick hug, and puritanized to the warm handshake. Sanitized to the power lunch in the noisy restaurant, the phone call and the videoconference.

The things to remember out of all this are:

1) Social networking didn't cause the problems. It was just another way for the problems to express themselves. Shallow bar talk, depersonalized professional culture, and socializing based on brand preference evolved naturally into the little glowing screen versions. Asking people to get off the Google+ does little unless they still remember what it was like to communicate with a person. Not to share cute or interesting anecdotes you read in a newspaper, stock reports, or professional game results, but to communicate.

2) Social networks are not, themselves, evil. They provide an efficient way for elites to store all communications for later sifting and penalizing, and they encourage people to self-celebritize. Everyone's a celebrity on Facebook, where your trip to Nebraska, and all the meals your kids ate there, can be displayed in 2550x1600 resolution. But the people who do these things would express themselves in similar ways absent the computer tools to do so. Secret police will monitor, and bland partyboys boast, if secret police and bland partyboys exist.

3) The five senses are not total. Even when video conferencing has become virtual reality conferencing, and worldwide MMOs have integrated entire populations in an environment that includes sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste; even when bliss to orgasm to mild disapproval to fresh tofu curry has been encapsulated in the brain, an intangible something will be missing. The living experience will not have been duplicated. The misery of living in the shadow world will, in fact, be worse than the growing disconnect of living in the "please continue to hold, we value your call" world now available to subscribers--but with less chance for the prisoners to recognize their own prison. A deep seated feeling of lacking connection will plague the virtual life, even as it forgets that it is virtual; even as children know nothing but it. Trapped by doubts whispered from senses that they're told do not exist, the new prisoners will strive in vain to find a "place" to "move" to for freedom.

The problem was there, long before Hallmark was incorporated. We remain vulnerable to even more intrusive versions of allowing us to express our problems. Blaming each symptom as it arises, in the true American way, reaches neither cause nor cure.

If getting an e-card from the Division Head in Delaware doesn't feel quite as good as a hug from your mother, then you're still able to tell a difference of one kind. Make that perception a fractal model, and use that model as an overlay to illuminate the differences between the virtual world, the five senses, and what other unities you might be currently missing.

13 comments:

  1. not to take away from your broader point (on meaningful connection), but how did people ever meet in the celebrated before?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can safely presume that there were bad things happening in the celebrated before, too--say, tribal connections or parental contracts leading to enforced child-bearing unions. Similarly, we may presume that good things are happening in the lamented now.

      What makes the "now" so interesting is that technology will soon be comprehensive enough that it shuts out the ability to use the five senses to perceive a problem. For example, you can sit at your computer, spend three hours using Facebook, and "prove" to yourself that something is lacking, based on the way you haven't hugged or spoken to or been near the people with whom you supposedly interacted.

      Once virtual reality has taken hold, though, all those senses will be compromised--they'll all prove to you that you are enjoying that togetherness. It will become difficult, if not impossible, for people inside the system to explain what they feel is missing.

      Social ritual creates a similar, though far less comprehensive, illusion. Consider a corporate team-building mountain retreat. Is it just the same as camping out? What's the difference? For the people who are genuinely enthusiastic about the company, it can be difficult (or impossible) to understand that the weekend really wasn't about developing the relationships of everyone there, but about instilling managerial control or concealing downsizing. Illusions may be more or less powerful.

      More directly on point to your question is the core issue, "How is it good to meet?" In any way--even through a terrible medium--the connection can be made. Two fans of the Superbowl could be tailgating, engaged in the most ritualistic of the empty advertising events, and be moved through instinct and spirit to recognize something greater, and connect. That doesn't mean that "professional football" or "eating off a car and listening to the radio because a ticket is expensive" are good manifestations of that particular culture.

      (Similarly, two people could be introduced by loving friends at a NAFTA-protesting flash mob, and still devolve into a $30K wedding, artificial insemination corporate couple, and it wouldn't mean that NAFTA is a good thing or that loving friends encouraging relationships is a bad thing.)

      Absent social strictures codifying the ways people should meet, or so limiting the avenues for meeting that it becomes something you can only do through working or paying, people will meet just fine on their own. It's the fear that they won't that causes them to rely on workplaces, bars, and match.com.

      /ironic hug

      Delete
    2. the s-o watches trash tv. one show in particular sorta relevant to this conversation. catfish (first the movie, now a tv show). the drama that ensues when people meet irl the people they've only thus far been "in a relationship" with online.

      Delete
  2. Pummeling your prospective mate on a football (soccer) field is a quite interesting (and satisfying) way to meet your intended other. ;)

    I'm SO very glad to hear that I'm not the only one feeling absolutely miserable with FB "interactions." On the one hand, there's the incessant crowing crowd, where life is absolutely full of career rainbows and pink unicorns; on the other, there's only despair, shit, and black rain. And those who express political views there feel as if they can unleash a whole torrent of bile on you if you disagree; there is a feeling (rightfully so) that they are shielded from suffering any social consequence.

    Blogs for me, are becoming preferred method to social media, as the form doesn't feel (so much) like a intellectual sideswipe. There's investment there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. happens to be how i met my s-o.

      Delete
    2. Heehee. :)

      FB allows people to condense the in-person interactions down, making the solidified form easier to identify. Whereas it might take two hours in a restaurant with someone to realize all they wanted to talk about was their food and football, now you can do it in only a ten-second glimpse at their last two status updates. Which may mean that Facebook IS an improvement--in efficiency, at least.

      Facebook could be wonderful, just like "cars" or "long range planes" or "fission" could be wonderful. Right now, it's a demonstration of the adage that our wisdom has yet to catch up to our technology. Blogs can be used well (see puppylander) or abused, and as long as humans linger and tinker, they'll come up with more tools to use and abuse. Ergo the inquiries of greatest merit will always be with ourselves, to understand why and how we should use whatever tools may become available. Let us hope we all find, somewhere, tunnels to light.

      Delete
  3. Isn't it funny how capitalism builds inefficiencies into the system, and then heroically solves them (for a small charge, of course)? And makes us forget we've even been dealt an inefficiency to begin with.

    So agog are we at the ability to share pictures of our babies with our grandparents in Florida and our siblings in Seattle that we've forgotten to be upset that our grandparents are in Florida and our siblings are in Seattle to begin with.

    I watch women online commiserate about the housework piling up and the exhaustion of caring for kids. It's nice that we can share our feelings with women thousands of miles away, but it seems to escape us that we now have to stop what we're doing and peer at a commercially purchased product, and access a commercially purchased service in order to connect with friends that are largely the products of shared commercial experiences, in order to get the same feeling our grandmothers might have gotten while sitting in a quilting circle, or while sharing the burden of the washing.

    We are fractured tribes, unable to shake the feeling that we should be joined to others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, yes, more please...

      This would be why communal living has been tried many times in the recent ages, only to be crushed by the intrusion of individually-based property-rights systems that are designed expressly to pit one human against others, with a loss if you don't play along. Once people are split up, you can charge them for mediating the process of reaching out, and they'll pay you for the privilege of discovering that other people exist, out there.

      For all we might look down on arranged marriages--and rightly so--there is something to be said of having a community of people seeking to make sure you have a role in the world. The suicides and lashing out of so many independent western kids may just be correlated.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Well, the obvious rebuttal to my point is the whole "well, I wouldn't WANT my siblings right up in my business all the time, and my grandparents are nice but they're much happier in Florida" or something along those lines, just as there's the obvious "people are happier in marriages where they love each other." But then I wonder--is there something we're missing out on by not forcing ourselves to deal with bothersome relatives, or neighbors that don't just move in and out, or lives that aren't easy to pick up and move to locations that are pretty much devoid of unique features? What character development occurs when you are forced to learn to love the stranger you married, that we are now cheated out on because we picked out our mates (and friends) based on objective, filterable criteria? How astonished would be our hypothetical medieval peasant to find his favorite watering hole duplicated down to the pictures on the walls in every other village! Would he be pleased, or dismayed?

      Delete
  4. Props for use of the verb swive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hear, hear. This is a verb that deserves to come back. :-)

      Delete