Inquiry@Queen's Undergraduate Conference 2009: Sin And Wikipedia

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

more share options
Embed For WordPress.com

Without related presentations

Hi, my name is Celine Song, a third year psychology student also seeking a minor degree in philosophy, and I am here today to talk to you about mass communication in the 21st century, using Gabriel Marcel’s critiques of the mass communication techniques as a jumping point.

Gabriel Marcel is a lesser known but nonetheless influential philosopher in the early 20th century whose major work Man and Mass Society warns us about the dangers of technology.

As technology advances in light speed, less recent communication techniques are becoming quickly obsolete in the face of the monster that is internet.Radio broadcasts are now rarely listened to and are turned into internet podcasts. Even TV shows are increasingly integrated into internet, through YouTube or streams on websites run by TV networks themselves. Everyday is marked by an even more user-friendly and faster access to the larger world – through the World Wide Web – than it was ever possible before. Marcel was fretting fifty years ago about the unruly power of radio. Imagine his horror now.

Although Marcel believes that technology and “technological progress in the strict sense is a good thing”, he rightfully warns us that there is a constant danger for it to be employed easily for the worst (41). Just as a harmless toenail clipper transforms into a weapon by violent intentions of the user, techniques seemingly “neutral in relation to human values” easily become “techniques at the service of sin” (71). The religious language used here is reflective of Marcel’s Christianity.

This view is a logical one considering the context from which it emerged. Radio was a major invention back in WWII that was expertly used by numerous fascist regimes as a primary means of propaganda. Propaganda has no respect for an individual’s ability to think for themselves and considers the people as the masses from which it needs to elicit a desired response.

Mass media is very powerful. And it is so powerful in Marcel’s opinion that it “[usurps] a prerogative which looks like a distorted analogue, a caricature, of divine omnipresence” (39). When every word of Mussolini and Hitler is heard throughout the city on every radio, it too closely resembles the omnipresent God for comfort – and Marcel worries that being in control of this kind of power has become way too easy. Before the invention of radio, despots have had to display corpses in high-traffic public spaces or send their representatives to deliver a message to their people. He argues that by using radios “man is attempting, without […] involving any real effort on his part, to transcend his human condition and the limitations it entails”, which he believes is hubris (40).

These however do not strike me as particularly relevant criticisms, fifty years after his book’s publication. Although his analysis of state-controlled mass media is insightful, I don’t think Marcel ever quite accounted for the possibility of everyone being given such powers. The nature of internet is that it is in the spirit of Do-It-Yourself, that it is increasingly interactive, that information on it is accessible to and controlled by everyone, anywhere and at anytime, as long as one is connected to the World Wide Web, and that the users can choose to be anonymous.

The information being communicated over the internet is generated by everyone and controlled by everyone, as opposed to by a private station or the state. Invention of internet is a radical turn in the history of mass media. It is a game changer.

And we already know the result of how the game changed. The available information to an average user of internet is overwhelmingly large in quantity. The quality of information is unregulated and therefore completely out of control.

The internet allows for open flow of information and gives everyone and anyone with an internet access to explore and express their ideas. This also allows for the idiotic and dangerous minds to express their ideas on the same level as intelligent and sane ones. There is truly nothing one cannot find on the internet; even universally taboo topics like incest are found, owing to the anonymity that is possible on the web. Resourceful websites of disgusting ideologies such as KKK is only a click away – I don’t know if you have been, but the Knights have a rather active presence online. The internet is farcically chaotic, and it can be very frightening at times to see the mess it is capable of.

Case in point, one of my personal heroes is Michael Kinsley who founded Slate, one of the first online magazines. In 2005, while he was working for the Los Angeles Times, he launched a project called Wikitorial. Using the wiki technology that Wikipedia is based on, this project allowed any internet user to edit a pre-written editorial online. The original article was an opinion piece about the Iraq war, called War and Consequences. During the 2 days it was up online, the 1000 word article was expanded to nearly 3000 words. Some people approached the issue with cohesive arguments and rational assertions, while others got angry, profane, and sometimes just outrageous.However, this fascinating experiment had to be shut down merely after two days, because the content quickly degenerated into disgusting child pornography, and then was just as quickly replaced with a popular internet meme called goatse, which is basically a large photo of a male anus. As you can see, now the site just says: Unfortunately, we have had to remove this feature, at least temporarily, because a few readers were flooding the site with inappropriate material. Thanks and apologies to the thousands of people who logged on in the right spirit.

However, once we get over the fact that the internet is a crazy and sometimes an awful place, we might realize that there is still hope. First of all, in a society practically ruled by the internet, propaganda – one of Marcel’s major concerns regarding techniques of mass communication – has become very difficult, if not downright impossible. The problem of “too much information” is a serious challenge to the users of internet, who inevitably run into contradicting opinions and information such as “Obama is a Muslim” and “Obama is not a Muslim”.

When the internet users come across these contradictions, of which there are plenty, they cannot help but realize that information online is subject to some doubt. We realize that these are not authoritative truths, but information that should be challenged and fact-checked. We realize that most of it is wildly unreliable. And once this seed of doubt is planted in an internet user, internet loses its potential to easily manipulate mass opinion, as its users become relatively skeptical and critical consumers of information.

Secondly, internet, believe it or not, self-regulates. Omnipresence is an uncontroversial and common attribute of an internet user. When I post on a blog, everyone with an internet connection can access my post, no matter where they physically live. When I edit an entry on Wikipedia, everyone with an internet connection can see it and refer to it. Realizing that this kind of power is in the hands of ordinary people, Marcel would consider it hubris and “sin” en masse.

But it is also incredibly difficult for an internet user to be powerful when everyone with a connection to internet is omnipresent. State-controlled radio announcements in WWII were powerful enough to be considered by Marcel as a “sin”, because no one could present the opposite point of view alongside it. Every piece of information was presented like an irrefutable fact, and people were reduced to “masses”, passively listening and reacting. Internet, on the other hand, is increasingly interactive. Everyone can be an active participant of the mass communication technique, producing and challenging the information exchanged through it. This allows for expressivity with the level of freedom that was not previously possible before.

If everyone can be omnipresent by simply creating a facebook profile or commenting on a blog, an individual internet user’s power is greatly reduced. An internet user is kept humble by the fellow omnipresent internet users who constantly monitor the content of their information. If I post a distortion of the truth online, hundreds of people will make chastising and angry comments on it within hours. If I write an opinion without any sources to back up the arguments, hundreds of readers will either mock me or destroy my argument. If I support a presidential candidate by creating a YouTube video, hundreds of videos that contradict it will emerge. On the internet, our vanity is kept in check by each other. The sense of divine omnipresence is arguably still present in an internet user, but the power and implications of this is made insignificant. When the source of information presented is not one –as is the case for state-controlled radios – but millions, many of Marcel’s worries about the possible “sin” are eliminated.

But one of Marcel’s criticisms does strike home. He says that “what starts off as a collection of means put together to serve an end [might suddenly] be valued and cultivated for its own sake, and in consequence […] become the centre, the focus, of an obsessive cult” (53). This is a fairly accurate description of our generation’s relationship with internet. How dependent we are on internet is easily demonstrated when it is taken away from us. Without internet I cannot receive or send emails, chat casually with friends on Msn, check facebook, browse Wikipedia, or visit websites and blogs – and these are devastating losses. When internet fails I am made practically and psychologically impotent. Marcel would then assert to me that internet exists no longer as a means to an end or in servitude of its creators.

This is reflected in the very recent industry study in Germany. Apparently 84 percent of respondents aged 19-29 said they would rather do without their current partner or an automobile than forego their connection to the Web. Living without a mobile phone was also unthinkable for 97 percent of those questioned in that age range.

We know about the frightening possibility often explored in sci-fi novels and films, of technology evolving to self-justifying, self-serving, and independent entities that revolt and eventually destroy the human race. These are imaginative extension of Marcel’s criticisms of the dependence we have on technology, which, unless we “make a truly ascetic effort to master [them] and put them in their proper subordinate place, [would] assemble themselves, […] organize themselves, around the man” (195). In fact it is difficult to deny that my facebook account and blog have become self-justifying ends in themselves. I could probably respond to his criticism that I opened the facebook account because it is very convenient, which is true; but he would then point out that I survived without a facebook account back in high school. I would also be reminded that I survived without internet altogether back in public school.

However, I believe that the danger of my dependence on internet is substantially decreased because of my awareness of the fact. Marcel does not in fact believe that destroying our inventions and treading backwards in history is the solution; his solution to the potential “sin” is a balance between efforts to better our techniques and “an effort at inner conquest, directed towards an even greater self-mastery” (40). In fact, I believe that this effort “at inner conquest” is made among many users of internet, at least to some degree. Because we actively participate in internet, we are forced to examine and reexamine our relationship with the mass communication technique, even if it is only so that we might control it better.

Although we are reliant on internet, we are at least conscious of this reliance. We colloquially call our impotent state in the absence of internet “withdrawal”, alluding to our own addiction to it. Because we are all in such an active relationship with internet, we cannot help but think about and discuss its nature – and I think this is enough for us to remain in control of the technology and not let it get completely out of hand. The Matrix (from the Matrix trilogy) has little power over those who are conscious of its presence. When the brain in the vat realizes that it is a brain in the vat, it is no longer ruled by the scientists. Likewise, if we are aware of the power and nature of internet, we are still in control.

Of course, he would argue in response to my optimism and enthusiasm for internet that because I am so deeply entrenched in the technique, I am “suffering from a distress so deep that it no longer even recognizes itself as such” (140). He might even mock me for having so much faith in my generation’s ability to control the unruly mass communication technique. However, I would retort that this is a rather unfair claim, which one could never truly refute and that he is just an old man from 50 years ago.

Thank you.

Favorites, Groups & Events

Inquiry@Queen's Undergraduate Conference 2009: Sin And Wikipedia - Presentation Transcript

Sin and Wikipedia: Mass Communication in the 21st Century
Presented by Celine (Ha-Young) Song
ArtSci ‘10
Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973)
Published in 1958
Radio as a new invention aimed at improving the mass communication technique can easily and readily be utilized for terrible sin!
“[usurps] a prerogative which looks like a distorted analogue, a caricature, of divine omnipresence.”
“man is attempting, without […] involving any real effort on his part, to transcend his human condition and the limitations it entails.”
The Nature of Internet is:
In the spirit of Do-It-Yourself
Increasingly interactive
Accessible to everyone, anywhere and at anytime, as long as one is connected to the WWW
Controlled by everyone, anywhere and at any time, as long as one is connected to the WWW
Users can choose to be anonymous
The Result:
Information available is overwhelmingly large in quantity and out of control in quality
Propaganda is very difficult/impossible
VS.
2. Users self-regulate
A Relevant Criticism
“What starts off as a collection of means put together to serve an end [might suddenly] be valued and cultivated for its own sake, and in consequence […] become the centre, the focus, of an obsessive cult.”
“make a truly ascetic effort to master [them] and put them in their proper subordinate place, [would] assemble themselves, […] organize themselves, around the man” (195).
Marcel’s Suggested Solution
“an effort at inner conquest, directed towards an even greater self-mastery.”
You are suffering from a distress so deep that it no longer even recognizes itself as such.
Thank you!
Questions? Comments?
Marcel, Gabriel. Man against Mass Society. South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2008.