Being Authentic in a World of Spin

A summary of:
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the High-Tech Heart: Living Virtuously in the Information Age. Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Chapter 5 - Being Authentic in a World of Spin

This chapter was somewhat less helpful, because it was full of the same old arguments about identities online being fake and harming the social fabric, blah blah (e.g.): "Cyberspace is one 'place' where people can create so many contradictory self-identities that they no longer have a coherent self and therefore no possibility for authenticity" (136). He does add some nuance to the argument in the sense that he articulates it as a moral problem with a religiously inspired solution: "If cyberspace is to avoid disingenuous persona-making, it must cultivate authentic communication anchored in shared commitments to truthfulness, empathy, and integrity" (117).

First about truthfulness:

Schultz writes that "McLuhan later transformed the concept of 'noosphere' into his own notion of the emerging 'global village,' a secular version of the Christian idea of the eventual unity of all believers. McLuhan imagined that the Almighty is present in technology, converting the world to a common faith" (119). The faith is in the belief that technology is wonderful, that it is our salvation. Jacques Ellul explained that symbol brokers create "explanatory myths," which tell us exactly why technology is good for us: "Regardless of whether they are true or false, these kinds of myths affirm our faith in information technology" (126). Perhaps I'm naive, but I didn't realize there were people whose job it was to be a symbol broker. I guess I thought - and still think - that we have elevated certain people to positions of authority based on charisma (although don't ask me to explain why Bill O'Reilly, for example, is charismatic - I think he's just really good at the Imperius Curse). These people are selected for elevation because they make sense for their time, i.e. they mesh with our growing understanding of the world around us. And when they speak, they confirm these preconceptions. It is a self-perpetuating, self-congratulating loop: technology is great.

I've been reflecting on this problem of authenticity/truth/trust a lot recently. There is no inherent trust in online relationships, and many people are working on the problem of how you can design artificial trust mechanisms into software/the Internet. One example is user feedback, e.g. Ebay. But even if we could safeguard our online relationships, all we are doing is removing the need to trust each other in more organic ways! There is something spiritual about trusting someone, I would argue. And it has nothing to do with whether other people have provided data points that show that this person is 98% trustable.

Next to empathy. "Empathy requires us to forego our own rhetorical agendas at times for the sake of considering others' interests rather than our own" (133). What it boils down to is again that technology promotes individualism and ultimately selfishness. The word comes down from the Greek empatheia, which means, "entering into the suffering, being 'in passion' with one another" (133). Schultze argues that in part the facelessness, the anonymity of the Internet makes it very difficult for us to experience empathy - I guess because we don't have a belief in the authenticity of those individuals who may be suffering: if my 'self' is not particularly real in this space, then other people are not particularly real either.

I shall end with this. Schultze, being random again, reminds us that "the Greek techne - the root word for 'technology' - is also the root for the word 'art'" (119). I wonder why it is that we don't treat technology development as an art; why it is devoid of this connotation. Would we be developing as quickly, without reflection, if we thought of technological development? What if we thought if it as a craft? - would we treat it with the reverence we should? - would we have a more spiritual relationship with the objects of our creation?