We didn’t see it coming – this bizarre new e-world. Back in the day we thought that past 2000 we’d be zipping about in air cars and robots would doing all our work – we didn’t predict that the greatest change would be a crazy proliferation of communication with millions of people all round the world texting, emailing, blogging, pxting, flickring, twittering, tweeting, digging, tumbling, stumbling and frittering their lives away.
In a recent interview NT Wright, famous author and Bishop of Durham expressed his concern that hours in front of the screen could become a dehumanizing/isolating alternative to spending time in the physical world with “huggable people”. He described it as cultural masturbation – self stimulation that doesn’t relate to real action in the real world. While he happily embraces texting and emailing, Wright warns us to be shrewd about how far we go with social media and suggests we should reflect on the meta issues involved.
Wright’s observations seem entirely reasonable. Of course we must analyze any new social phenomenon, identify the pitfalls while utilizing the advantages. But Wright’s interview has sparked a good deal of criticism. Julie Clawson for example attacks the worthy cleric in an article on the excellent Sojourners blogsite.
Clawson accuses Wright of ‘jumping on the “caution people about the perceived dangers of the Internet” bandwagon.’ She lumps Wright in with those reactionaries ‘going off on modern technology, putting their own particular “it’s the end of the world as we know it” spin on the matter.’ This is hardly fair. Wright is far from “going off” about anything. He’s much too English for that. And he certainly does not claim that e-communication will have any apocalyptic effect. He simply points out a few of the potential dangers posed by social media and who can really doubt that such dangers exist?
Clawson presents a naïve and rosy view of social media. She claims that internet users are more likely to socialize in the real world and that “social media builds community.”
She chooses to ignore the fact that for every person engaged in community building and intelligent discussion there are two wasting time with trivia and three pursing porn.
Two middle aged guys indulging in cybersex, both pretending to be teen lesbians, is sadly more common on the net than Clawson’s honest emotional and intellectual interchange.
Before you write me off as another latter day Luddite I must strongly assert that I love the net. It’s my primary research tool and a great source of entertainment. I relish being able to look up Luddite and in seconds confirm that it is the word I want or watch a video of a friend’s toddler taking his first shaky steps in Wales. I spend many hours each day online and therein lies the problem.
We all have a limited amount of spare time. Many people today describe themselves as “time poor” so how we spend our time becomes extremely important. If I spend hours and hours pimping and primping my Facebook page or playing the latest MMORPG (massively multi player on line game) that’s time I do not then have for worthwhile practical activities in the real world. E communication can easily become a vortex which sucks up our time with nothing much to show for it.
Yes I can make friends with people on the other side of the world, perhaps partake in pseudo communities but wouldn’t I be better to try building real community among my neighbours who I barely know? Wouldn’t it be better to visit a friend in hospital than tell the world what I had for breakfast? Wouldn’t weeding the garden be more worthwhile than finding out what sort of American muscle car most suits my personality type?
Social media is both time greedy and addictive. Restraint and wisdom must be applied. Always ask yourself – is this a good use of my time, is this constructive work or have I just allowed myself to become distracted again. (But I’ve got to clock up a top score before I quit!) Is this important communication or am I merely contributing to the vast flow of drivel?
There’s also God time to consider. If you’re a Christian then your time is not your own. Ask yourself would Jesus blog or would he be out meeting the real needs of the down and outers? Would he be online in an internet café or out with the street people? Jesus was God incarnate, physically present in a real world, not God’s avatar in a virtual reality.
To self controlled, well organized people like Julie Clawson who manage both an active, socially engaged life in the real world along with a stimulating and worthwhile interaction through social media I say congratulations. I envy you. I have to admit I’m readily distracted by time wasting activities. In the past I’ve watched far too much TV. I’ve played far too many computer games. I could easily become totally sucked into the vortex of social media. So for me, and those like me, NT Wright’s caution is timely and vital.
Related posts:
I enjoyed promoting this article on two Twitter accounts and via my Facebook profile and a Facebook page. I’ll also be finding other social media outlets to let people know it’s here. I should quote it on my Tumblr site and see if there’s any way I can point to it from my Flickr account. There’s a glaring irony in that
This is an interesting issue and I would probably fall on the side of Julie with this one, though I appreciate your honesty, Drew.
I liked your point about Jesus being God incarnate, physically present in a real world and not an avatar in a virtual reality, but I think the analogy also serves those who would argue in favour of social media (something distinct from other forms of the internet such as porn). God’s reality goes well beyond our own – what Jesus experienced was a reduction of his own reality to enter ours – he was, in some sense, an avatar of God in a world that does not offer the breadth and depth of his own wondrous existence. Yet he still entered a reality.
Social media is somewhat similar – by its very nature and as its name indicates, it is social. It exists to allow humans to communicate with one another and cannot exist without this taking place. Sure, it is a reduction of our reality, but it is still a reality because it involves real human beings.
Are there pitfalls? Most certainly, but I would argue, alongside Julie, against the stereotypical view of the social media adherent as being someone who is socially inept and point out, as she has, that the research says otherwise – though we must carefully note that this research relates to the use of social media, not things like porn, which takes up a large portion of the internet and its use.
Whilst interaction via social media cannot compare to face to face interaction, though it has a great place in serving it, how does it compare to letter writing (snail mail), telephone conversations or two people sitting in a room, both reading separate books or watching TV?
Every form of human communication has its pitfalls and dangers. Even with face to face interaction we have to be cautious at times. Everything carries dangers simply because we are human, social media is no different – but social media offers the potential to connect in ways we have never been able to before – that’s why Facebook is so popular with mothers who spend much of their time in the home – it gives them a tool to reach beyond what might otherwise feel like an isolated situation. It gives us ways to organize social gatherings like we haven’t been able to before, it gives a way for everyone to share their opinion where the loud few dominated before, it gives us ways to connect with loved ones in distant places instantly… it offers a lot and there’s more to come. With my eyes wide open, able to see its pitfalls and my own weaknesses, I say bring it on!