Anthropologists are not really interested in whether there will be a utopia or dystopia. Instead, we try to understand how people think about the future. This ties into the idea of sociotemporality.
Sociotemporality: Anthropological Concepts
Cultural understandings of time
Our thinking and experience of time and space are deeply cultural. Conceptualizing this represents one of the hardest anthropological tasks. Scarcely anything appears more common-sense and as universal as the idea "I am here, now". Yet even Western philosophers have struggled to articulate what time consists in--how do we know for sure that time exists? And anthropologists have joined the chorus, showing that Western understandings of our existence in time are not universal. Rather, as this blog on different cultural understandings of time demonstrates, understandings of time differ between cultures. The concept "sociotemporality" might be used to describe the way experiences of time differ between cultures.Dialectic
When dealing with time, an important associated concept to recognize is "dialectic", which is covered in this presentation. "Dialectic" is a notion can mean different things, including
- A process that occurs when two people have a philosophical argument. If you argue that free will is impossible, I argue that it is possible, and we compromise: agreeing that our notion of "free will" is problematic and needs further work; we have a kind of dialectic according to the ancient Greek philosophers. I had an erroneous idea, you had an erroneous idea, and by arguing it out, we arrived at a mutual and superior.
- A process that pushes the world and universe towards perfection. The dialectic according to Hegel all physical, social, or other processes in the universe is an underlying principle. They are all progressing towards perfection.
- A historical process by which opposing forces are resolved into other opposing forces. The dialectic, according to Marxist thinkers, could be thought of as an equation (thesis + antithesis = synthesis). In ancient Rome, slaves (thesis) rebel against citizens (antithesis) in a revolution (synthesis) which provides a new kind of society, serfs, and lords in feudal Europe.
- A process by which opposites merge. In this non-specific sense, the term dialectic simply means when you get two opposites and they somehow merge into something new or better. That's kind of how it is used by Horst & Miller in this week's reading.
(In usages 2 & 3, "dialectic" is related to that idea of the triumphant march of history, which was so popular in the 1800s and still has its adherents today. Some academics, particularly Marxists, see the events of the world occurring in accordance with a dialectic.)
Cultural visions of the Future
We can see that conceptions of time are culturally determined by looking at the idea of the future. Many of the above models of past time provide a model as to what will happen later or after. For Javanese aristocrats, the future would be an endless cycle, the goal of life being to dissociate or rise above suffering and joy. So bearing in mind the cultural nature of visions of the future, let's consider digital futures as anthropologists. In other words, let's consider 'digital futures' as a deeply cultural concept."Digital Futures"--dystopia and utopia
Digital 'futures': dystopia
What impact will digital technologies ultimately have on us? What changes and what stays the same? . Some visions are dystopic. This means that the visions are of a terrible future, for example, where robots take over the world or someone 'flicks the switch off '; the Internet collapses; everyone buys crossbows; chaos reigns.
Fictional stories like Orwell's Animal Farm or Atwood's The Handmaids Tale imagine dystopian futures
Around the 1990ss, many people were anxious about digital technologies. Some scholars even expressed fears about the digital world. As noted in Howcroft and Fitzgerald's 1998 overview, such dystopian scholarship feared that technology 'had the capacity to exacerbate human misery'. In summary, many dystopian scholars saw virtual or digital social connections as 'shallow, impersonal, and often
hostile'. This fuelled one of their main fears that these new technologies would engender wide-spread alienation. Additionally, as discussed in our course section on work, there were also many worries over the internet's impact on our ability to learn and retain information. Anthropologists view these ideas not so much with skepticism but rather as culturally specific visions. Why?
Fears of new technologies
When a new technology arises, fears always seem to emerge. Maybe Douglas Adams sums up our attitude:
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things
New technology: automobiles and cinema
The cinema and cars, in the decades when they first became popular are an example of this fear of the new. Tales from the Deadball Era describes the perception that movies and cars were ruinous to the health of baseball players:
These days cars are both despised for their impact on health (obesity and pollution) and the environment. However, considerable fascination persists with new models, car shows, motor racing etc. attracting considerable interest. Thus, as the technology becomes incorporated it seems less threatening.
New technology: writing
We can even see the fear of new technology in relation to writing. Socrates feared the effects of writing on humanity. As Gershon shows, in "Unfriend my heart", an article we read in our section on selfhood and identity of this course:
Socrates' concern that writing, as a new technology, threatens intimacy in the ways it alters relationships and how knowledge circulates: "Writing parodies live presence; it is inhuman, lacks interiority, destroys authentic dialogue, is impersonal, and cannot acknowledge the individuality of its interlocutors; and it is promiscuous in distribution ... Communication must be soul-to-soul, among embodied live people, in an intimate interaction that is uniquely fit for each participant" (Peters 1999:47). Peters argues that for Socrates, disembodied dissemination undermines the care and attentiveness to personal perspectives with which ideas should be transmitted. Writing lacks, Socrates felt, attentiveness to one's audience that in-person communication encourages. As such, writing can be distributed willy-nilly without being anchored to a particular time and place. As Peters points out, Socrates' concerns about the havoc writing will wreak on intimacy resonates with the anxieties about intimacy that often seem to travel alongside the introduction of new communicative technologies (see also Marvin 1988, Gitelman 2006, Sconce 2000, Umble 1996).
Many of us now take writing technology for granted.
Anthropologists should understand Socrates' dilemma. Firstly, we value 'hanging out' face-to-face with people. We assume that there is something different about immediate contact. That's our method. On the other hand, our discipline exists mostly in writing. We mostly spread our ideas by writing. We place a high value on conferences, seminars, ethnographic films, and non-written forms of communication, but regardless we are wedded to writing primarily. So - technologies do impact human life but, as Horst & Miller show, in contradictory ways.
 |
 |
Fictional stories like Orwell's Animal Farm or Atwood's The Handmaids Tale imagine dystopian futures
Around the 1990ss, many people were anxious about digital technologies. Some scholars even expressed fears about the digital world. As noted in Howcroft and Fitzgerald's 1998 overview, such dystopian scholarship feared that technology 'had the capacity to exacerbate human misery'. In summary, many dystopian scholars saw virtual or digital social connections as 'shallow, impersonal, and often hostile'. This fuelled one of their main fears that these new technologies would engender wide-spread alienation. Additionally, as discussed in our course section on work, there were also many worries over the internet's impact on our ability to learn and retain information. Anthropologists view these ideas not so much with skepticism but rather as culturally specific visions. Why?
Fears of new technologies
When a new technology arises, fears always seem to emerge. Maybe Douglas Adams sums up our attitude:I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things
New technology: automobiles and cinema
The cinema and cars, in the decades when they first became popular are an example of this fear of the new. Tales from the Deadball Era describes the perception that movies and cars were ruinous to the health of baseball players:
These days cars are both despised for their impact on health (obesity and pollution) and the environment. However, considerable fascination persists with new models, car shows, motor racing etc. attracting considerable interest. Thus, as the technology becomes incorporated it seems less threatening.
These days cars are both despised for their impact on health (obesity and pollution) and the environment. However, considerable fascination persists with new models, car shows, motor racing etc. attracting considerable interest. Thus, as the technology becomes incorporated it seems less threatening.
New technology: writing
We can even see the fear of new technology in relation to writing. Socrates feared the effects of writing on humanity. As Gershon shows, in "Unfriend my heart", an article we read in our section on selfhood and identity of this course:Socrates' concern that writing, as a new technology, threatens intimacy in the ways it alters relationships and how knowledge circulates: "Writing parodies live presence; it is inhuman, lacks interiority, destroys authentic dialogue, is impersonal, and cannot acknowledge the individuality of its interlocutors; and it is promiscuous in distribution ... Communication must be soul-to-soul, among embodied live people, in an intimate interaction that is uniquely fit for each participant" (Peters 1999:47). Peters argues that for Socrates, disembodied dissemination undermines the care and attentiveness to personal perspectives with which ideas should be transmitted. Writing lacks, Socrates felt, attentiveness to one's audience that in-person communication encourages. As such, writing can be distributed willy-nilly without being anchored to a particular time and place. As Peters points out, Socrates' concerns about the havoc writing will wreak on intimacy resonates with the anxieties about intimacy that often seem to travel alongside the introduction of new communicative technologies (see also Marvin 1988, Gitelman 2006, Sconce 2000, Umble 1996).
Anthropologists should understand Socrates' dilemma. Firstly, we value 'hanging out' face-to-face with people. We assume that there is something different about immediate contact. That's our method. On the other hand, our discipline exists mostly in writing. We mostly spread our ideas by writing. We place a high value on conferences, seminars, ethnographic films, and non-written forms of communication, but regardless we are wedded to writing primarily. So - technologies do impact human life but, as Horst & Miller show, in contradictory ways.
Digital futures: utopia
On the other hand, in another deeply cultural way of imagining the Internet and digital technologies the resembles a utopia--where technology improves humanity. Such utopian visions are often made in big claims by Internet 'visionaries' and futurologists.
Anthropologist Wesch presented an "Anthropology of YouTube". This presentation, posted on YouTube and garnering more than 2 million views, might be the most famous example of anthropology in decades:
We could see Wesch's view as part of a larger school of Internet Visionaries. Early internet 'visionaries' advanced an idealistic and utopian vision of what the Web might mean for human connections and relations. It would be anarchy (in the positive sense!): freedom, self-expression, and sharing.
The future of the Digital: summary
In summary, From the 1990s to the 2000s, scholars, commentators, pundits, cultural critics, maybe even your dad, thought of the Internet in contradictory terms. Some believed that digital technologies democratized access to information thus allowing a new era of political action and involvement. Class, race, gender distinctions would break down. We'd be uncoupled from offline divisions that racked humanity. We were heading for Utopia! Others believed that digital technologies brought out the worst in us - anonymity allowed
allowed for bigotry, hatred, chauvinism to expressed without repercussion.
Analyzing digital futures
Miller treats these visions as deeply cultural:
Digital anthropology therefore has to contend with the way culture itself has grown in scale and form, including new dreams and new nightmares about who we are becoming, and who or what should be regarded as modern or traditional
It is no coincidence that Miller's article has an image of people using 'smartphones':
Anthropologist Wesch presented an "Anthropology of YouTube". This presentation, posted on YouTube and garnering more than 2 million views, might be the most famous example of anthropology in decades:
We could see Wesch's view as part of a larger school of Internet Visionaries. Early internet 'visionaries' advanced an idealistic and utopian vision of what the Web might mean for human connections and relations. It would be anarchy (in the positive sense!): freedom, self-expression, and sharing.
The future of the Digital: summary
In summary, From the 1990s to the 2000s, scholars, commentators, pundits, cultural critics, maybe even your dad, thought of the Internet in contradictory terms. Some believed that digital technologies democratized access to information thus allowing a new era of political action and involvement. Class, race, gender distinctions would break down. We'd be uncoupled from offline divisions that racked humanity. We were heading for Utopia! Others believed that digital technologies brought out the worst in us - anonymity allowed allowed for bigotry, hatred, chauvinism to expressed without repercussion.Analyzing digital futures
Miller treats these visions as deeply cultural:Digital anthropology therefore has to contend with the way culture itself has grown in scale and form, including new dreams and new nightmares about who we are becoming, and who or what should be regarded as modern or traditionalIt is no coincidence that Miller's article has an image of people using 'smartphones':
 |
| This image, from Miller's article, seems in line with Miller's vision of the internet |
So if Miller analyzed this evocative image of an exciting new ethereal technological world...
(image from: https://teachingandlearningindigitalworldweb.wordpress.com/)
...he would treat the above image as a deeply cultural way of understanding the digital and not necessarily the reality of the internet.
How are the two images different?
The first image is more like how Miller conceives of the digital world. One reason for this might be that there are people in the picture. As can also be seen in the "Introduction" to the book he co-edited with Horst, Miller argues that not much has really changed with the growth of digital technologies. The main reading for the section is Horst and Miller "Introduction". If you would like, you can also read my summary of Horst & Miller's chapter.
So if Miller analyzed this evocative image of an exciting new ethereal technological world...
(image from: https://teachingandlearningindigitalworldweb.wordpress.com/)
...he would treat the above image as a deeply cultural way of understanding the digital and not necessarily the reality of the internet.
How are the two images different?
The first image is more like how Miller conceives of the digital world. One reason for this might be that there are people in the picture. As can also be seen in the "Introduction" to the book he co-edited with Horst, Miller argues that not much has really changed with the growth of digital technologies. The main reading for the section is Horst and Miller "Introduction". If you would like, you can also read my summary of Horst & Miller's chapter.
Internet of Things: Dystopian fears, Utopian hopes
The Internet of Things (IoT) is another topic that is often described in dystopian or utopian terms. In the 'Internet of things', things around the house and in our lives (fridges, cars, sprinkler systems) are connected to each other through the Internet. These gadgets form a networked assemblage of uniquely identified devices able to transfer data without human interaction. For example, this polished and positive ad for Google home demonstrates an imagined near-future in which the internet of things is fully integrated into our everyday home lives:
Though not all-encompassing, another way to think about the Internet of Things is that it can refer to a network of 'smart' devices. In the case of a typical Western home, this could include smartphones, smartwatches, smart TVs, smart vacuums, smart fridges, etc. It is important to note that all these devices - while connected to each other - are also connected via a collection of servers owned by companies such as Amazon or Google. These companies collect the data produced by our interactions with these devices. This collection of servers is also known as 'the cloud'.
This positive ad from IBM, like the ad above for Google home, demonstrates a utopian vision for the Internet of Things. It posits that the integration of devices and mass collection of data allows for smoother 'user experience', in this case, of driving and maintaining a car:
In contrast to the imagined utopian integration of smart devices into everyday life as proposed by Google and IBM's videos above, the dystopian imagined near-future described by Kashmir Hill and Surya Mattu is one where everyday life is tracked, collated and quietly surveilled in aid of data-gathering and market research. The video below references possible dystopian repercussions of the Internet of Things: invasions of privacy and a lack of control over personal data.
"Time" and "the future" are deeply cultural concepts. We must bear this in mind when we consider predictions of our digital future.
Though not all-encompassing, another way to think about the Internet of Things is that it can refer to a network of 'smart' devices. In the case of a typical Western home, this could include smartphones, smartwatches, smart TVs, smart vacuums, smart fridges, etc. It is important to note that all these devices - while connected to each other - are also connected via a collection of servers owned by companies such as Amazon or Google. These companies collect the data produced by our interactions with these devices. This collection of servers is also known as 'the cloud'.
This positive ad from IBM, like the ad above for Google home, demonstrates a utopian vision for the Internet of Things. It posits that the integration of devices and mass collection of data allows for smoother 'user experience', in this case, of driving and maintaining a car:
In contrast to the imagined utopian integration of smart devices into everyday life as proposed by Google and IBM's videos above, the dystopian imagined near-future described by Kashmir Hill and Surya Mattu is one where everyday life is tracked, collated and quietly surveilled in aid of data-gathering and market research. The video below references possible dystopian repercussions of the Internet of Things: invasions of privacy and a lack of control over personal data.
Summary
"Time" and "the future" are deeply cultural concepts. We must bear this in mind when we consider predictions of our digital future.
No comments:
Post a Comment