Friend to Information, Enemy to Thought?
13 June 2006 by Gil
I’m still a relative rookie when it comes to the blogosphere but I’ve been involved long enough to wonder about the way the medium of the blog sometimes affects the message. This was a bit of a concern from the start but I just chalked it up to my hyper-critical tendencies and decided to give it a go.
With that in mind I came across an article called ‘Goodbye Blog‘ by Alan Jacobs, an English professor at Wheaton College. Jacobs argues that blogs are a friend to information but an enemy to thought. I gather that blog-bashing is not all that unusual and sometimes a bit unfair but Jacobs makes a couple of interesting points, particularly on the ‘architecture’ of blog conversations. The ‘comments’ format is suspect, he argues, because it rules out the possibility of lingering over an idea or bringing new insights over a period of more than a few days. What if, he asks, I come across an article or other resource that would add to a conversation that happened two weeks ago? Is there any way to restart the conversation aside from emailing the blog’s author? This seems to be a real danger if the goal is to make real progress on understanding something more fully.
He also mentions the relative anonymity and ‘distance’ of blog conversations as an open door to extreme views and escalating tension. Probably the strongest criticism Jacobs has regards the constant demand for novelty and immediacy. This, he argues, makes it difficult to deal with an idea at any serious level because the clock is ticking and the ‘audience’ is restless. “In terms of how they treat substantive ideas, blogs are not very different from newspapers: they present an idea and then move on, as quickly as possible, to the next idea.”
Jacobs also targets those who blog from the academic realm (ouch) and have the utopian idea that the blog is a place where real progress can be made in the development of ideas.
“As vehicles for the development of ideas [blogs] are woefully deficient and will necessarily remain so unless they develop an architecture that is less bound by the demands of urgency—or unless more smart people refuse the dominant architecture… What happens more often than not… is the conversion of really good scholars into really lousy journalists.”
Solid critique or intellectual elitism? I’m still mulling this one over.
I think suspicion of technology is healthy as long as it does not blind us to the recognizing the opportunity that these things bring.
According to recent research we are sleeping an average of 500 hours less than we were in the early 1900’s as a result of the advent of electrical light. We are quite okay with that now even though some sociologists would say we are poorer for it as a society. We would with good reason scoff at those who would refuse electrical light (AMISH) especially if their main reason was that they were losing sleep over it. We recognize untold benefit to electrical light so most of us put up with a lack of sleep. Most of us don’t even know what we are missing…
We always lose something in change…
The rapid pace of technological advancement bothers us because we innately sense the loss. And whenever someone points to a piece of what is being lost we “fat-kid-on-a-smarty” all over that waving our woe about us. We also don’t trust that those who are at the helm of the technological steam ship have our best interests in mind. This too is somewhat of a fallacy. For as we all know technological advancement is only as virulent as the market it serves. If we shut off cell phones, turn off TV’s, shut-down our computers we regain control.
Is immediacy actually such a problem? I understand why waiting and thinking things through is beneficial. And I can see that we are in danger of losing some of that through this new medium. However, I would suggest that waiting can often be a very selfish and power hungry move as well. A reluctance to engage with competing immediate thoughts and voices in my mind signals a sort of arrogance or reclusion that is also unhealthy.
I can also see how people sound off half cocked at whatever fancies their stupid little fingers (this post included).
And I while I have fallen victim to the perils of thoughtless immediacy – I have very often been deeply enriched, challenged, even admonished through this little phenom.
I kinda like Mark O’s ideas http://www.ysmarko.com/?cat=8 about it being a discipline. I’m trying to make it more of that for me…
Hey Dale,
I’m not sure that technology is the culprit here. I wasn’t meaning to open that can of worms. Technology gives, technology takes away… learn to balance the two.
I think Jacobs was talking about blogging as a way of talking about things of significance. Obviously many blogs do not have that as a goal but many do.
Bottom line question: is what happens on blogs a legitimate dialogue (if dialogue is understood as a group of people trying to understand something more fully or truthfully)?
I agree that blogging tends to create short lived discussions which may be a bit frustrating at times.
I myself crashed into the bloggin world without any experience of it, and started with a pretty ambitious project, and my experience is mostly positive, but not so much for hte discussions as for what it has done to my thinking. The oportunity to get instant feedback on a text is very valuable. A problem I see is that it is difficult to so larger things, as I at least have trouble maintaining interest in a project streching over several days on someones blog. This means that short, clever sounding thoughts win over the deep and thouroughly worked out ones.
Ironically, I’d say that this post has actually made me think. Maybe not new thoughts but thoughts none the less. As a person who enjoys taking the time to think on something for days or weeks, I am sometimes frustrated by the fast-paced world of blogging. However, at the same time I have begun to expect and desire to see new things up to read every day or two. Once again I find myself a giant pile of contradiction.
Thankfully it’s not all about me. It’s not always important that I should be able to share my side or prove my point. What I think is important is that when I read a more academically minded blog (such as this one), I am made to think and consider the topic of the day. Though I might not have enough time to formulate an informed response, if I am made to think just a little it has accomplished something in my life. Perhaps provocation of thought should be the mandate of blogs like this, not exclusively expression of the same.
And we all have our own blogs anyway, so if we want to blab about something we still have our own place to do it.
Re: “Solid critique or intellectual elitism?”… clearly both sir!!!
Actually, defining Mr. Jacobs description of most bloggers as “intellectual elitism”, is putting it mildly.
Should I ever meet the man I will have no choice but to drink his beer, steal his woman and kick his ass!!
Paul “arrogant, ignorant, bullheaded” Johnston.