Dr Aleks Krotoski has put together an interesting series in The Virtual Revolution which holds together well, but it’s rather poor when it comes to analysis. I couldn’t help cringing every time she mentioned how many years she’s been writing/researching the internet. Alas, the many years do not make up for lack of depth.
For Dr Krotoski the ‘virtual revolution’, the technological revolution of the internet, is all about freedom: freedom of information, freedom of expression, and freedom to link with the rest of the world. This is certainly an aspect of the internet, but the ‘virtual revolution’ is a revolution of means of communications and, to an extent, of means of production, not a revolution of ideas. By conflating ideas with means one gets a distorted picture of what is going on and how changes are affecting us. Naturally, changes at the technological and production level will impact on ideas, but they are two separate issues and the distinction needs to be made.
The programme tries to cover the opportunities and the ‘dangers’ of the internet, such as addiction. Parents are concerned about the time spent by their children in front of the computer, but it gets dismissed as no more than a whinge, after all, they would have done the same if the internet had been available when they were teenagers. That might be the case but it does not counter the concerns over the effects of prolonged internet use. To interact with others ‘virtually’ is very different from interacting in real life. Its effects are at least something worth pondering about.
The programme is nice and swish in presenting this ‘new’ world but rather crass in understanding it. The point is not about 'internet = good or bad?' It is not even 'internet = good and bad'. The point should be about asking questions, such as how does technology change how we live, work, interact with others and how we think?
Dr Krotoski does not engage with criticism and seemingly dismisses Prof Greenfield’s concerns as ‘extremist views’. As I have written before, I think that the panic over what the internet is doing to our brains is over the top. Nevertheless, the ‘new’ technology changes how we interact with others, with information and how we view ourselves. There’s no point in pretending that we are not being changed by it. Dr Krotoski does not suggests this, but by omitting analysis, one is not sure what on earth she’s suggesting aside from ‘the internet is (deep down) a good thing, there are dangers (e.g. cyber terrorism), but the overarching idea is a noble one’. Well, that’s tosh.
Greenfield’s accusations of a culture of immediacy, where everything is literal and there’s no place for meaning, are not completely flawed. There are clear similarities with the invention of the printing press. The introduction of the printing press has revolutionised the world. It has made knowledge open to people who, until then, had been excluded. It has also changed how we read a text. There are, of course, positives and negatives.
On the one hand, such availability allows people to interpret the text contrary to the interpretation of the established authority, thus challenging dogmas and even the make up of the authority. It can lead to further democratisation and freedom of conscience, speech and expression. On the other hand, unmediated access to the text (which now can be video/audio etc.) can lead to fundamentalist readings based on literalism. This type of fundamentalism relies on the lack of reflection and criticism over how the text has been put together and interpreted throughout history of interpretation. In the case of contemporary texts, the lack of concern for how it has been edited, written/produced and, in many cases, manipulated leads people to follow blindly the message without exercising critical judgement.
The internet allows more diversity which means more clashes and more accommodation of views. It allows propaganda and accurate information. It allows niche markets of information/products that otherwise would have been very costly (I can watch Murnau for free on youtube!). It’s great, it’s dangerous and is the seed for a new world. That's why it deserves some proper research!
25 February 2010
24 February 2010
BBC Documentaries - The world in my telly
I’m a bit of a documentary junkie and the Beeb is my friend issuing more and more. The best so far was The Love of Money, tracing the unfolding of the financial collapse of the Lehman Brothers and the ensuing economic crisis. The third and final episode was inevitably ‘weaker’ as it attempted to look into the future and make sense of it all. Yet, the series as a whole was simply excellent: no frills, no propaganda, just a coherent and gripping account. So far, the best documentary.
Andrew Marr’s The Making of Modern Britain and History of Modern Britain were really good too. Marr can’t conceal his biases but he does not twist facts nor does it ‘spin’ a message (not much at any rate). He is a bit too rushed to fit the few episodes he’s got. As a result one gets snippets of history rather than a good thorough analysis. It's still enjoyable and fairly persuasive, although not all would agree.
The programmes are about Britain and are seen from the ‘inside’, which ends up discounting how connected we all are to the rest of the world. I would have liked a little more on how world’s trends and events have influenced British politics and life. At times, Marr can’t help being a bit too ‘nationalistic’ for me (or maybe patriotic). It’s the socialist version of nationalism where the nation is built around a specific idea of society. He’s not over the top, he has just a touch of pride. I liked the programmes and it’s a shame they didn’t produce DVDs with other languages so that I could have got it for my mum (another documentary junkie).
I shall blog on more documentaries soon.
Andrew Marr’s The Making of Modern Britain and History of Modern Britain were really good too. Marr can’t conceal his biases but he does not twist facts nor does it ‘spin’ a message (not much at any rate). He is a bit too rushed to fit the few episodes he’s got. As a result one gets snippets of history rather than a good thorough analysis. It's still enjoyable and fairly persuasive, although not all would agree.
The programmes are about Britain and are seen from the ‘inside’, which ends up discounting how connected we all are to the rest of the world. I would have liked a little more on how world’s trends and events have influenced British politics and life. At times, Marr can’t help being a bit too ‘nationalistic’ for me (or maybe patriotic). It’s the socialist version of nationalism where the nation is built around a specific idea of society. He’s not over the top, he has just a touch of pride. I liked the programmes and it’s a shame they didn’t produce DVDs with other languages so that I could have got it for my mum (another documentary junkie).
I shall blog on more documentaries soon.
01 February 2010
What is religion?
In the Anglo-American world, there seems to be this undying belief that science and religion are opposed and in competition. As I argued previously (check labels 'science', 'religion'), this is simply nonsense.
Science explains the physical world, how nature ‘works’ and hypothesises general laws of nature. Scientists make many assumptions on how nature works, but these are also subject to change when the theory doesn’t fit the data. By contrast, religion delves into the meaning of existence, why we live and, above all, how we should live. Religion, especially in the past, has encompassed many different phenomena: such as a legal system, practices and customs to bind a group together, philosophy and morality. Religion is also a ‘sentiment’ which finds expression in the arts.
Alas, in the Anglo-American media (I include twitter, facebook and blogs) the dominant narrative is that religious people believe in the supernatural and think that the supernatural is the explanation for the physical world. This assumes that religion and science are in competition and that religion is superstition or, at best, pre-scientific knowledge which needs to be replaced by science. This is called the “Walt Disney Theory”. It’s sweet but sucks.
The bible is neither a manual nor a scientific book explaining nature. The literal interpretation of the bible, in this way, is a relatively recent phenomenon (about 200 years), which arose in response to the liberal theology of the 19th century. To think that religion is all about belief is also something originating mostly in Protestantism where faith is central. It seems that the ‘militant atheists’ are following Protestant fundamentalism when it comes to religion and science. As a result, they misunderstand both science and religion.
The bible itself is not simply a collection of stories but contains philosophical ideas, moral principles, and reflections on the social, economic and legal conditions of the situations described. Biblical commentaries have always used logical rules to interpret the text, and theology has developed philosophical thinking for well over 2,000 years. Thus, reason has always been central in developing theology and religious laws. This is how human beings function. Religion is neither rational nor irrational, human beings are. That aside, life is not a series of calculation. Life is about morality, emotions (which play a part in knowledge), strivings … religion, art, music are ways to understand the whole of human life, not just its physical aspects. To pit science against religion or art or music or literature is proper of a prosaic mind.
Next episode might be on science.
Science explains the physical world, how nature ‘works’ and hypothesises general laws of nature. Scientists make many assumptions on how nature works, but these are also subject to change when the theory doesn’t fit the data. By contrast, religion delves into the meaning of existence, why we live and, above all, how we should live. Religion, especially in the past, has encompassed many different phenomena: such as a legal system, practices and customs to bind a group together, philosophy and morality. Religion is also a ‘sentiment’ which finds expression in the arts.
Alas, in the Anglo-American media (I include twitter, facebook and blogs) the dominant narrative is that religious people believe in the supernatural and think that the supernatural is the explanation for the physical world. This assumes that religion and science are in competition and that religion is superstition or, at best, pre-scientific knowledge which needs to be replaced by science. This is called the “Walt Disney Theory”. It’s sweet but sucks.
The bible is neither a manual nor a scientific book explaining nature. The literal interpretation of the bible, in this way, is a relatively recent phenomenon (about 200 years), which arose in response to the liberal theology of the 19th century. To think that religion is all about belief is also something originating mostly in Protestantism where faith is central. It seems that the ‘militant atheists’ are following Protestant fundamentalism when it comes to religion and science. As a result, they misunderstand both science and religion.
The bible itself is not simply a collection of stories but contains philosophical ideas, moral principles, and reflections on the social, economic and legal conditions of the situations described. Biblical commentaries have always used logical rules to interpret the text, and theology has developed philosophical thinking for well over 2,000 years. Thus, reason has always been central in developing theology and religious laws. This is how human beings function. Religion is neither rational nor irrational, human beings are. That aside, life is not a series of calculation. Life is about morality, emotions (which play a part in knowledge), strivings … religion, art, music are ways to understand the whole of human life, not just its physical aspects. To pit science against religion or art or music or literature is proper of a prosaic mind.
Next episode might be on science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)