Why We Disconnect Matters

A little over two weeks ago, The New Republic ran a piece by Evgeny Morozov titled “The Mindfulness Racket.” Comments that accompanied links to the article on social media suggested that Morozov had torn into the advocates of mindfulness and critics of digital distraction with the sort of eviscerating rhetoric that we’ve come to expect from him. The title reinforced the expectation.

When I finally got around to reading the article, however, I found that this was not exactly the whole story. Morozov does take issue with the “digital detox crowd,” but not because of their desire to disconnect or their uneasiness with the new “attention economy.” Rather, he takes aim at their motives and their strategies. For instance, Morozov points out that many advocates of mindfulness urge us “to unplug—for an hour, a day, a week—so that we can resume our usual activities with even more vigor upon returning to the land of distraction.” Unplugging and the pursuit of mindfulness, if it is only practiced in order to re-immerse oneself in the same regime of distraction and technocratic productivity, if it does nothing to change the conditions that gave rise to the need to disconnect in the first place–such practices simply do not go far enough.

Approached in this way, disconnection functions analogously, although inversely so, to the place of carnival in medieval society. Carnivals playfully overturned the expectations and assumptions ordering society. They inverted political, religious, and social expectations. They were temporary eruptions of disorder that ultimately functioned to preserve the order of society. They did so by operating as safety valves releasing the tensions, frustrations, and desires that were ordinarily repressed by the existing moral order. Extraordinary moments of controlled disorder, in other words, served to preserve the ordinarily existing order. On Morozov’s reading, disconnection as practiced by many of its advocates functions similarly. Disconnection is a moment of order that functions to sustain the ordinarily disordered status quo.

Morozov also alludes to Nathan Jurgenson’s critical essay, “The Disconnectionists,” and Alexis Madrigal’s similarly suspicious piece, “‘Camp Grounded,’ ‘Digital Detox,’ and the Age of Techno-Anxiety.” But Morozov’s brief discussion of these pieces is a hinge in his argument. After citing Jurgenson and Madrigal, both of whom raise important considerations, Morozov adds,

“Note that it’s the act of disconnection—the unplugging—that becomes the target of criticism, as if there are no good reasons to be suspicious of the always-on mode championed by Silicon Valley, what is called ‘real-time.’”

A little further on he warns, “critics like Madrigal risk absolving the very exploitative strategies of Twitter and Facebook.” From there Morozov suggests that the problematic aspects of social media should not be viewed as a natural price to pay for the enjoyment and benefits we derive from it. Rather, he thinks we should scrutinize social media as we would slot machines: “With social media—much like with gambling machines or fast food—our addiction is manufactured, not natural.”

Finally, Morozov is right to stress the fact that “why we disconnect matters.” “We can continue in today’s mode of treating disconnection as a way to recharge and regain productivity,” Morozov suggests, “or we can view it as a way to sabotage the addiction tactics of the acceleration-distraction complex that is Silicon Valley.” Of course, it is the latter option that Morozov urges us to adopt.

I trust that this has been a faithful summary of Morozov’s argument, but I encourage you to read the whole piece. Critics like Jurgenson, whose essay from last year I’ve long meant to write about, and Madrigal raise important concerns, but it has always seemed to me that the net, perhaps unintended, effect of their criticism was to suggest that there is no real problem with the way that our digital lives are ordered. In my view, Jurgenson and Madrigal are most useful when they are pointing out the self-serving and self-righteous tendencies in some of the digital cultures critics. Morozov does the same, but in doing so he does not suggest that the problem itself is illusory. In fact, the most serious failure of the disconnectionists in his view is their failure to fully understand the scope of the problem. Consequently, they have not been serious enough in their efforts to redress it.

9 thoughts on “Why We Disconnect Matters

  1. Actually Michael, this was an enlightening take on what seems to be a misunderstood piece by Morozov.

    Thank you for your insight.

    “Why are we?” is precisely the question we need to ask when disconnecting. I would almost challenge that “disconnecting” is becoming more of a media topic (e.g. “get your 15 minutes of fame) than it is a genuine discussion.

    I’m hoping for more of a genuine discussion IN the media.

  2. I appreciate your clear review of Morozov’s excellent article. Morozov’s point also seems to apply to the general human tendency, not exclusive to social media and technology, to seek relief from poor conditions in the world rather than changing the conditions.

  3. ‘Critics like Jurgenson, whose essay from last year I’ve long meant to write about, and Madrigal raise important concerns, but it has always seemed to me that the net, perhaps unintended, effect of their criticism was to suggest that there is no real problem with the way that our digital lives are ordered.’

    Very well said. I make a similar observation about some of Zeynep Tufekci’s essays in ‘Super Lonely Semi-True Internet Stories: The Debate Over Sociability and Social Media Continues’ (see http://tinyurl.com/n8ld75f ). There are elitist and cooptive and apolitical disconnectionists. But that hardly describes everyone who calls for greater technological mindfulness.

  4. It seemed as a read the Morozov piece that he was trying to provoke people, so that many missed his basic thesis is unsurprising. As you noted, his use of the word “racket” in the title started things off. And, his comments on Buddhism’s lead to the phrase “reactionary tendency”. This is followed immediately by a reference to Zizek who a achieved considerable notoriety among Buddhists for his cartoonish “analysis” of Buddhism and it’s supposed role in creating a politically apathetic West.

    His last sentence, “We must be mindful of all this mindfulness.” is in fact an integral part of the Buddhist approach to this tool. Mindfulness is only as good as the purpose it is applied to.

    So while the underlying thesis is important, it is pursued in a way to in fact distract from this message and seemingly alienate potential allies on purpose.

  5. Based only on my reading of this piece, it seems his title was wrong. More appropriate would be “The Disconnectionists Racket.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s