After reading Brown, we considered the question of whether the ability to connect to anyone at any time -- made possible by the Internet -- is creating more unity among people with opposing worldviews or less. Brown’s suggestion was that neither conclusion is 100% accurate... while happenings like the Evil Bert Laden incident point us to examples of how massively distributable and reproducible media can cause considerable cross-cultural confusion over the significance of a single text or event, leading (in some cases) to potentially violent tensions, they also point us to the inevitability of ‘contact’ in the Internet age and the near limitless potential for peaceful dialogue inherent in such encounters with ‘the other.’ People can insulate themselves from the other in groups, but nowadays, the barriers that separate one group from another are becoming more and more manifestly fictitious. So what does Neuromancer have to say about all of this? For one, the notion of being able to swap sensoriums entails a total breakdown of the barrier between self and other -- one so complete that, if such a capability were to exist, distinctions between individuals would become pretty much moot, except for the purpose of shopping around to find that perfect set of eyes or hands or legs or whatever. Neuromancer is full of descriptions of people exchanging pieces of themselves -- in many cases, literally -- for pieces of other people. Though the technologies used to effect these exchanges are not all web based, one can see how the Internet is already enabling similar exchanges between disparate people, groups, and cultures. From what I’ve seen of WoW, it seems to be somewhat disproportionately populated by beautiful, thin, scantily clad elf women... a product, no doubt, of American culture’s obsession with certain female body types. And in analyzing these avatars, one can’t neglect the influence of Tolkien and D&D and, depending on how far they want to go, a thousand other cultural imports from many different areas of the world. In playing games like WoW and creating various web profiles and avatars across hundreds of other venues, we’re stitching new experiences from recycled material... just like the folks in Gibson’s book. In our world, it’s all virtual... but still, it’s a testament to the extent of our interconnectedness and to the flimsiness of the ‘barriers’ that keep us separate from one another.
So how long do we go on pretending like certain barriers exist when it’s becoming increasingly apparent they don’t, hiding away in groups that define their shared interests in opposition to everyone else’s? Gibson’s answer to this question would seem to be a long, long time. His descriptions of various religious groups, though rarely essential to the plot, nevertheless pass some interesting commentary on our human tendency to factionalize. Even with the technology to literally swap perspectives and the mind boggling potential for empathy and peace entailed thereby, people in Gibson’s world still turn to Zionism, Christian Fundamentalism, etc. ... systems of thought that preach the sanctity of remaining separate from ‘the other.’ The imputation is that there’s something natural about making enemies, just as there’s something natural about making friends. Gibson’s outlook is a bit discouraging if you’d prefer to think that the Internet is broadening our capacity for empathy rather than contracting it or leaving it unchanged... but at the same time, it’s a reminder that we can’t exactly expect our technologies to fix everything for us without any kind of effort on our parts. (Or can we?)
The us vs. them aspect to me will never go away unless something drastically changes relations between people to the point where we work together on finding a common goal. For example, maybe saving humanity from annihilation. It has to be big enough that no matter what is happening to an individual this even supersedes these personal quarrels. I guess this raises philosophical questions about whether world peace is achievable or at least can people get along to a point where wars don't exist. To me this seems impractical and the Internet opens a new domain to express feelings about each other in creative ways. We may not be using guns in the future but we'll probably have something like a hacking war or letting viruses run amuck.
ReplyDeleteGreat point. I think there's too much emphasis on technology doing the leg work for growing into a more peaceful world. Technology only enables and facilitates the spread of ideas. It's up to individuals to use that "data" (digital or otherwise) to inform their decisions. On the other hand, they can choose to ignore that opportunity and use access to information to reinforce their existing biases, as people do in Neuromancer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Goli's comment. I think it would be naive to think that the Internet or any other new technology can single-handedly end centuries of conflict and strife between factions and organizations. The Internet is just a medium for communication, and it is on the Internet where we still see a lot of conflict between groups.
ReplyDeleteThere can be no substitute for human nature. Any attempt to reform the world in a way that decreases conflict can use technology, but can't rely solely on it. It's up to the individual to determine whether he or she will feel empathy or animosity towards rival groups. However, the Internet can be used as a tool to bring people together, as long as people are willing.