Identity Reset

A few days ago we noted the conflicting opinions of Jeffrey Rosen and David Dylan Thomas on how much the Internet will or will not remember.  In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins, Jr., Google CEO Eric Schmidt appears to think the Internet will in fact have a very long memory:

“I don’t believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time,” he says.

A possible response?

He predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends’ social media sites.

Among the other things Schmidt said, also apparently seriously:

“I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions,” he elaborates. “They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”

Super.

Reinvigorating Friendship

For friendship these are the best of times, and these are the worst of times.  We claim, with a straight face, hundreds of friends on social networking sites.  Our cell phones contain scores of contacts.  Rare are the minutes when we are not somehow in touch with someone, whether virtually or in person.  It has never been easier to keep up with old friendships or to establish new ones.  And yet …

How many of us still experience an abiding sense of loneliness?  How many of our friendships surpass mere familiarity and convenience?  How many of our friends will we still count as such in ten, twenty, or thirty years? Is it not the case, to paraphrase poet Richard Foreman, that ours are “pancake” friendships, “spread wide and thin,” but with little or no depth?  Are we not, as Daniel Akst wonders in a recent essay in The Wilson Quarterly, “America: Land of Loners?”

This is not a new concern, and Akst is not the first to raise it; he is only the most recent.  Akst cites Robert Putnam’s well known Bowling Alone, published in 2000, which argued with extensive statistical data that in the late-20th century Americans were increasingly choosing to live in isolation.  Putnam’s work, in turn, recalls David Riesman’s earlier classic, The Lonely Crowd. Riesman wrote in 1950, and it was in the “seemingly placid 1950′s, when mass unhappiness and mass loneliness began” according to Ronald Dworkin’s recent article on “The Rise of the Caring Industry” which we noted here a couple of weeks ago.  Dworkin and Akst both observe that many of us now pay professionals for what in previous generations friends had supplied at the mere cost of reciprocity (which, admittedly, can sometimes be steeper than a therapist’s hourly fee).

Concern for friendship, of course, goes back much farther than the 1950’s, and Akst touches on this history briefly. He cites Aristotle who, while acknowledging the place of merely useful and entertaining friends, nonetheless viewed deep, meaningful friendships as an essential part of a good life.  And Aristotle is only the first in a long tradition:

The myth of Damon and Pythias and the biblical story of David and Jonathan resonated across the centuries, and in the Middle Ages knights bound themselves in ceremonies to comrades in arms. Cicero, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Sir Francis Bacon, Michel de Montaigne, William Wordsworth—the list of Western luminaries who have waxed rhapsodic over friendship is long enough to fill anthologies from both Norton and Oxford.

At present, however, we find ourselves in an unfortunate situation. We have the trappings of friendship all around us, and we can probably list more people we call friends than our parents or grandparents ever could. But somewhere along the way we seem to have forgotten how to transform at least a few of these relationships into the sorts of friendships that will sustain and enrich our lives over the long haul.

Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, authors of Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives (2009), surveyed more than 3,000 randomly chosen Americans and found they had an average of four “close social contacts” with whom they could discuss important matters or spend free time. But only half of these contacts were solely friends; the rest were a variety of others, including spouses and children.

Joseph Epstein, whose essay “My Friend Edward”  in Narcissus Leaves the Pool remains one of the more moving pieces on friendship I have ever read, wrote elsewhere that he “can think of exactly seven friends, very good friends, whose death or disappearance from my life would devastate me.”  He was there reflecting the ancient Roman historian Plutarch who claimed that one needs no more than seven good friends in a lifetime.  Seven seems better than two.  I wonder if even those two are of the sort Epstein and Plutarch had in mind —  “Close social contact” seems a bit sterile.

Akst explores a number of factors that in his view have contributed to our dearth of meaningful friendships: high rates of mobility, the press of busy schedules, divorce which split groups of friends as well as spouses, the American penchant for “self-reliance,” and the “remorseless eroticization of human relations” that inhibits male friendships in particular.  Akst lists a few more and we could think of more still — I wonder how many refuse close friendships because they are fearful of the emotional vulnerability involved — but you get the point.

Fundamentally, however, I wonder if we are not also dealing with a failure of the imagination.  Have we contented ourselves with shadows of friendship because we no longer remember what the reality looked like?  If so, then perhaps we are in need of reminders.  Gilbert Meilaender and Alan Jacobs have both written thoughtfully and evocatively on friendship and in the process offered us powerful images of friendship in its fullness.

In the past I’ve quoted from an insightful piece Meilaender wrote for First Things, “Men and Woman — Can We Be Friends,” and it is worth quoting again.  Meilaender concluded his article with the following poignant reflections on Katherine Paterson’s Bridge to Terabithia:

The friendship in the book is one between a boy and a girl, Jess and Leslie …. In different ways they are both outsiders in the world of their peers at school, and that very fact draws them together. They create — largely at the instigation of Leslie — a “secret country” named Terabithia, in which they are king and queen. This country — a piece of ground on the other side of a creek, to which they swing across on a rope — is, in Leslie’s words, “so secret that we would never tell anyone in the whole world about it.” And, at least at first, it must be that way …. [W]ere no friendships of theirs to be special and particular, were they to have no secret country that others did not share, they would never come to know themselves as fully as they do. Thus, for example, Jess finds that his friendship with Leslie opens up new worlds for him. “For the first time in his life he got up every morning with something to look forward to. Leslie was more than his friend. She was his other, more exciting self- his way to Terabithia and all the worlds beyond.”

Jess says that Leslie is his way not only to Terabithia but also to “all the worlds beyond,” but he learns that truth only slowly and with great bitterness. When the creek is swollen from a storm and Jess is gone, Leslie still tries to cross to Terabithia on the rope. It breaks, she falls onto the rocks, and is killed. Grief-stricken and alone, without his alter ego, Jess can barely come to terms with what has happened. But he does, finally, and in doing so learns something about the purpose of all friendship.

“It was Leslie who had taken him from the cow pasture into Terabithia and turned him into a king. He had thought that was it. Wasn’t king the best you could be? Now it occurred to him that perhaps Terabithia was like a castle where you came to be knighted. After you stayed for a while and grew strong you had to move on. For hadn’t Leslie, even in Terabithia, tried to push back the walls of his mind and make him see beyond to the shining world-huge and terrible and beautiful and very fragile?”

Jacobs closes his “Friendship and Its Discontents” with a justly famous and equally moving passage from Montaigne.  In it Montaigne remembers a friend whose death had indeed devastated him:

.. our souls mingle and blend with each other so completely that they efface the seam that joined the, and cannot find it again.  If  you press me to tell you why I loved him, I feel that this cannot be expressed, except by answering:  Because it was he, because it was I.

Jacobs adds,”Few people in any age and in any culture have had a friendship like this one; how many people in our world can comprehend, or even imagine, the experience Montaigne describes?”

We have no guarantee that we will find and sustain such friendships in our lifetime, friendships that help us to see beyond our own secret countries; but it would be very sad indeed if we did not even know they were possible and consequently never searched them out.

“You have to be somebody before you can share yourself”

Will the Internet make it impossible to make clean starts in life?  Will every word and every picture we have posted, however ill advised, find a way to haunt us?  This is the fear legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen articulated in his NY Times piece, “The Web Means the End of Forgetting.” That is the same piece that led me to wonder several days ago if we might need a new economic statistic to track social media induced unemployment.

According to David Dylan Thomas at In Medias Res, the real problem might actually be the opposite of what Rosen feared.  In a post titled “The Myth of Online Inertia,” Thomas argues that “things disappear from the web” all the time.  The evolution of hardware and file formatting renders much of what is produced potentially inaccessible with the passage of time.  “As a web manager,” Thomas explains,

I’ve overseen the overhaul of many a content management system, and there’s always a compatibility issue which forces editors and technology teams to ask the same question. How much? How much will it cost (in time and money) to convert how much information? Do we really want to bother reformatting 400 news stories that were published in 2000 to a whole new format on the off chance that someone will search for them? The answer is almost always no. And that’s just 10 years.

My sense is that both Rosen and Thomas are on to something and that if they were to sit down together to discuss their positions, a synthesis preserving elements of both arguments would emerge.  Regardless of how powerful the Internet’s long term memory proves to be, however, its short term memory is quite good and potentially quite damaging.  Consequently, we are becoming increasingly self-conscious and cautious about what we post and where.

Some are concerned enough to implement tools such as Google Goggles that are designed to keep us from sending that stupid drunken email that ends up costing us our job or a relationship.  A great deal of time and money is also being spent to keep individuals from not only ruining their own reputations with a misguided tweet, but also tarnishing the image of the institutions with which they are associated.  In a recent story about the effort colleges are putting forth to manage the social media activities of their student athletes, a consultant gave the very basic rule he tries to instill in student athletes:  if you would have a problem with your mother reading or seeing it, don’t post it.

This is good advice as far as it goes, I suppose.  Although, it would depend a great deal, wouldn’t it, on the sensibilities of each particular mom.  In any case, this all brought to mind a recent article in The New Republic by Jed Perl.  In “Alone, With Words,” Perl laments the loss of writing that  begins as and remains a private act.

Writing, before it is anything else, is a way of clarifying one’s thoughts. This is obviously true of forms such as the diary, which are inherently solitary. But even those of us who write for publication can conclude, once we have clarified certain thoughts, that these thoughts are not especially valuable, or are not entirely convincing, or perhaps are simply not thoughts we want to share with others, at least not now … I believe that most writing worth reading is the product, at least to some degree, of this extraordinarily intimate confrontation between the disorderly impressions in the writer’s mind and the more or less orderly procession of words that the writer manages to produce on the page.

Most of what is made public in the arena of social media was never private in Perl’s sense, at least not for very long at all.  We are becoming used to the idea of providing a more or less real time feed of our thoughts and actions to the world.  The process of clarification and crafting that Perl describes has been replaced by the urge to publicize immediately.  Little wonder then that some of what we make public is damning and much of it is quite inane.

Citing Jaron Lanier, Alan Jacobs makes a point that we seem to have forgotten:

“You have to be somebody before you can share yourself.” And the process of becoming somebody takes time, effort, discipline, and study.

That process also tends to happen when we have preserved  a certain private space for our selves.  Social media and the Internet have given us an unparalleled ability to make our thoughts, our writing, our  pictures, our very selves public.  Our task now may be to carve out and preserve a private space that will help render what we make public meaningful and worthwhile.  Or, at least not potentially disastrous.

Follow Ups

Often valuable  material related to earlier posts I had written comes to my attention.  Rather than attach the new stuff to the original posts which are by then buried beneath more recent items, it made more sense to collect the new material and from time to time devote  a post to these follow ups.  So here you go:

Following up on “Hitchens and Prayer,” here is one of the more thoughtful reflections I’ve come across on the topic:  “The Most Pressing Question” by Damon Linker at The New Republic.

Following up on “Parenting and Its Discontents,” Jason Peters at Front Porch Republic writes on the importance of extended families in “The Orphans of Success.”

And following up on “Technology Sabbaths and Other Strategies for the Digitized World,” I found that Erika Kosina had also written a great post, “Time for a Technology Sabbath?”, at Yes! with some very helpful suggestions.

Dot, Dot, Dot

Recently it struck me that I have been using ellipses (. . .) quite a bit in my informal writing.  Like most people I compose at least a few emails each day and while, by most standards I am an infrequent texter, I do send out a modest amount.   In both of these formats I’ve been dot, dot, dotting left and right.  And after sharing this observation with a few people and following up with a quick search on Goolge it became clear that I wasn’t alone.  The ellipsis is the darling of new media.  So this led me to wonder if there was some significance in this grammatical development, or if it was just some combination of convenience and coincidence.  An intuition of sorts formed in my gut telling me there was something deeper going on.  So why is it this particular mark of punctuation has suddenly become so prominent?

Within the world of emails, texts, and chat rooms a certain grammar has evolved.  It’s not the King’s English, but it isn’t quite anarchy either.  Rules and established usages have emerged, and within this emerging grammar the ellipsis functions in certain defined ways.  For example, it can signal that the sender is still awaiting a reply after an unusually long break in a text exchange, as if to say “Still waiting . . .”  Or, it can signal that another text will follow to complete the present thought, “Hold on, more to come . . .”  And in some other cases still it may be used to express awkward silence . . .

As I kept thinking about my own use of the ellipse I realized I was also using the dots in some more subtle ways.  For example, Seinfeld came to mind.  This isn’t all that unusual, after all the show about nothing sometimes appeared to be about everything.  So it struck me that the dots sometimes functions in much the same way as the phrase “yada, yada, yada” made famous on the sitcom, as a way of saying “etc. etc.” with a certain bored indifference. At still other times I was using the ellipsis as a stream of consciousness device, stringing together thoughts that may not be formally or self-evidently related, but that nevertheless flow one from another in some weird associative way . . . in my mind.  And as that last line suggests, sometimes one may use the ellipsis, as my wife noted, as a way of getting the reader to read in a dramatic pause, often for comedic effect.

All of these ways of using the ellipsis, however, were not getting at my gut instinct.  These were all still fairly utilitarian uses of the mark, but I sensed that something more was going on.  I suspected the dots somehow signaled some shift in our way of thinking and expressing ourselves, that perhaps it was a symptom of our cultural condition surfacing through our writing.  Then it dawned on me.  I realized that at times I used the ellipsis to communicate a certain vagueness and ambiguity in what I was saying.  I used the dots to convey hesitancy and indeterminacy.  It was the mark of a thought that refused to assert itself.

Classic example:  On Facebook, where ellipses run wild, I might post a link on someone’s wall with the note, “Thought you might like this . . .”  If you were to put what the ellipsis communicates into words you would get,

Thought you might likes this, maybe you will, maybe you won’t, I’m not too sure exactly, actually I don’t like it so much myself, well maybe a little, but don’t think me stupid if you don’t like it …

The ellipsis gives expression to a habit of ironic detachment and preemptive indifference.  And here is where I found the point of contact with larger cultural trends.  The mood of ironic detachment that has settled over so many of us was manifesting itself in three simple dots.  With those dots we were evading conviction, giving off an apathetic vibe, and guarding ourselves from seeming unfashionably earnest.

Thinking about the ellipsis brought to mind a performance by Taylor Mali, “Speak With Conviction.” It’s meant to be heard so watch the video below, but here is the part that comes to mind:

Declarative sentences … so called, because, they used to you know … declare things to be true … ok … as opposed to other things that are like totally … you know … not … They’ve been infected by this tragically cool and totally hip interrogative tone … as if I’m saying, “Don’t think I’m a nerd just ‘cuz I’ve like noticed this okay … I have nothing personally invested in my own opinions … I’m just like inviting you to join me on the bandwagon of my own uncertainty …”

In writing the ellipsis captures nicely the tone that Mali identifies and lampoons in his performance.  These three dots are the punctuation mark of an indeterminate age.  We are becoming Eliot’s hollow men and this is the way each thought ends,

Not with a bang but a whimper.

I think . . .


If you’ve appreciated what you’ve read, consider supporting the writer.