In beginning my reading of The Shallows by Nicholas Carr, I was at first skeptical of the prologue's claim that it is not the content of the media that shapes us, but the media itself. But then I recalled that Maryanne Wolf's Proust and the Squid gives much support that the development of reading has shaped the way mankind thinks. I have long been an instrumentalist, though I never had seen the word until I came upon it in Carr's work. An instrumentalist believes: "Our instruments are the means we use to achieve our ends; they have no ends of their own" (Carr, 46). A technological instrumentalist uses his tools to achieve good. At the other end of the spectrum, we have determinism. A technological determinist believes that "technological progress...an autonomous force outside man's control, has been the primary factor influencing the course of human history" (Carr, 46). The extreme view of determinism says even that our only role is to produce sophisticated technology, until technology is able to reproduce itself. "At that point, we become dispensable (Carr, 46).
First of all, I think that finishing my read of The Shallows will likely convince me that the idea that media shapes how we think. But at the same time, I will still see the way media content shapes who we are. Both are true. In regards to instrumentalism versus determinism, I have slightly altered my view and propose a balanced approach. It should not be unreasonable to say that the internet has made us text skimmers, books promote deep thought, that music gets us to listen to sound differently, and that movies orient us towards visuals and plot. But technology will never have ultimate control over us. In fact, instead of thinking so much in terms of control, maybe it would be appropriate to think in terms of a conversation. People make things that you may see or use, which can influence you via content or form of media. In turn, you create something which has been influenced by things made past. This can apply to more than just technology. It applies to all things - works of art, buildings, music. But you get to choose what to make, if you make it, how you make it. You get to choose your tool set and how you use your tools. Like our Creator, we like to create because its in our nature. But our creations are based on materials that are around us. Therefore, we listen and we learn, then we speak.
I think Rosen's chapter on "Getting High on Technology" can also apply to this. If you look at this phenomenon of constantly checking on the status of our technological lives from the point of view that it could be part of a mutually beneficial relationship that would exist under the beliefs of extreme determinism, you can start to get the idea that maybe the "high" we get from constantly using technology is some sort of "reward" for further progressing technological development.
ReplyDeleteClarifying: if one truly believes that humankind's only purpose is to further progress technology, then technology can almost (or actually, depending on your measure of disbelief) be thought of as a living being or force. Thus, it would make sense for the force of technology to enter a symbiotic relationship with humans, where it can more easily progress itself.
With this in mind, we can see why every form of technology might carry a form of addiction with its use. In fact, Rosen points to multiple forms of addiction: "Internet addiction,... television addiction,...[and] video game addiction." With almost every form of technology having a related addiction, Rosen introduces new studies that show technology, in general, can have addictive qualities. (63)
Rosen notes that the effects of not having technology around (withdrawals) are "similar to the consequences of chemical addictions such as drugs or alcohol." (67) With such extensive behavioral effects this seems all to fitting, for the extreme Determinist and I, myself, wonder whether or not the theory of Determinism attempts to predict the outcomes of our lives after technology can reproduce itself. Will we still live our actual lives, or will we live virtual lives in the symbiotic haven provided by technology? As long as we get our "needs" fulfilled every now and then we should be fine, right?