The digital world is increasingly allowing us to only be exposed to the thoughts and ideas that we like or agree with.
I can’t stop thinking about Jonathon Harris.
His latest project World Building in a Crazy World is based on a series of 15 vignettes about the reality of life in a digital world. Its beautiful, simple and intriguing thoughts and ways of understanding, although not new, are welcome reminders.
I have been reading about homogenization: to make equal, uniform, corresponding, or matching. It’s an idea that permeates all discussions surrounding culture, always has and always will. The process of homogenization is sometimes referred to as the McWorld or the McDonaldization of culture that promises to bind us together through consumption of so-called “cultural” commodities.
Should we think digital culture would be any different? If content is created simply with the intent of responding to and re-hashing similar and popular ideas with the goal of attracting page views, why would we think we have access to a broad range of new ideas, theories and thought?
The digital world provides the opportunity to have access to “everything” at anytime. All the information we could ever hope for is at out fingertips. But is it?
Maria Popova tells us that “the smart and systematic culling of off-mainstream interestingness” is the method to counter this imbalance.
Harris talks about this in Our Digital Crisis.
“Most online experiences are made, like fast food, to be cheap, easy, and addictive: appealing to our hunger for connection but rarely serving up nourishment. Shrink-wrapped junk food experiences are handed to us for free by social media companies, and we swallow them up eagerly, like kids given buckets of candy with ads on all the wrappers.”
And as humans we will still tend to act in very human ways.
Have you read Jonathan Harris lately?
In Part 2 I give an example of what I found while doing a little curating for off-mainstream interestingness of my own.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Dead on! Every time you “personalize” your news from a news web site, you are contributing to the homogenization of thought. When you advocate for the death of newspapers, you are contributing. The political polarization of cable news is contributing. When you silence debate with shouting and ranting, you are contributing.
Why is there a “news cycle?” New things happen all the time, all over the world that never make the news. Why am I watching MSNBC and the SAME DAMN STORY that Chris Matthews covered in Hardball is the same one Olbermann will cover in Countdown and Maddow will cover in TRMS? Three hours of the same thing. And, they repeat all night long! Fox does that same thing with their point of view.
The balloon boy media show should never have happened. CNN, Twitter, Huffington.. all endlessly picking up each other’s crap, over and over and over. Complete “I’ll have a #1 with extra crazy neighbor interview, hold the sanity.”
Technology changes, people don’t. Fast, cheap, easy will almost always win over detailed, in-depth and nuanced. In the end, nobody really cares about you or your creative thoughts. But, they do care how much you can move a stock needle or a twitter stream. But, not long before some other shiny thing catches…..
True true. We just have to keep digging deeper, being always on the lookout and try not to contribute too much to that watered down “thought”.
Thanks for stopping by, nice to see you here.
Kathryn,
I would add that we have some homogenization because of a digital divide. People on the margins are not necessarily online. And I’m not sure the answer is getting everyone online. It might mean us sharing outside voices and telling stories of overlooked people. Look forward to your next post…
Tim
I think of that often. There are many withOUT access to this digital world – many. I even question the term access since having access seems to imply that people not online, those in the margins, can choose to be because, sometimes, there is “access”. So much more complicated than that……
Thanks!
Excellent post! I fear the social media space is turning into an exercise in shallow back-slapping. We end up pandering to our readers/users, for fear of tackling difficult subjects and unpopular opinions, for fear of being unfollowed online.
Everything becomes flavour of the moment; heat & serve, to be quickly consumed, and just as quickly forgotten. Our minds are never stretched, and our assumptions are never challenged
Yes, the McDonaldization of Society is seeping into our Web Culture too.
Let’s just call it the McWeb, and McBusiness now.
I see Tim Bursch’s point, about ‘access’ for the marginalized members of our society, but don’t those of us with ‘access’ and ‘intelligence’ just have a greater responsibility to be more authentic in our own writing and creating for the web? The web would be more diverse and inclusive, if that’s not a total tautology, if those who are on it would stop blindly following the watered-down gurus of web success. It’s the paint-by-numbers approach that is causing the massive homogenization of content and business strategy out there.
The web has given us all an unprecedented access to knowledge about things that we once had to get by without, like stats on our visitors’ reading habits and keyword optimization. So that people are no longer writing about what fires them up, or creating sites that are just damn bloody cool and superbly designed, but busy installing plugins that will help them to spread their influence more swiftly, with basically less effort. Artificial inflation of outcome.
I wonder if Rufus is right (In the end, nobody really cares about you or your creative thoughts), but I don’t think he is. Sooner or later, people tire of the formulaic stuff, the homogenous content, and crave for innovation and individuality. And then maybe some of us will be out there with the really cool stuff, ready to receive them.
Kathryn, I’m intrigued by your use of the term “off-mainstream interestingness” ~ I’ll have to pop back and read more soon.
Sam – really interesting points you made. First, although I would love to claim that phrase ” “off-mainstream interestingness” I cannot. It belongs to Maria Popova from brainpickings. It takes time, but is always well worth it, to find where you belong out “there”. I love the notion of greater responsibility and personally believe it to be true but “humans will be human after all” and that argument is a lengthy any ancient one. Thanks for stopping by
We will always fall prey to homogenization, because it is in our nature to feel comfortable with self-validation and drawn by like-minds. In many ways homogenization creates strong culture and is a good thing. In others, it limits expansion and hinders necessary change. Online as in any human interaction we need to make a conscious effort to entertain marginal thought and ideas different from our own. The first step is knowing that we can disagree and still learn from each other. Understanding my own take on life so that I do not feel threatened by contrary thought helps, and further than that even: being open to change in myself from processing non-homogenous ideas. In my book, “Otheresteem: Regaining the Power to Value Others” I explore the possibility that at the heart of learning more about myself is fostering my own ability to accept others, instead of just tolerating them. When the invisible becomes visible, the world widens and enriches. Thanks for this thought-provoking post on a fascinating subject.
Thanks Monica. “The first step is knowing that we can disagree and still learn from each other” So true. Conflict is one of those areas most people avoid. You must have learned a lot while writing your book – sounds very interesting.
I’ve never read Jonathan Harris, but have added him to my Read This list. You’re post hit a nerve with me, mostly because it made me face the face that I have become a comfort searcher.
Not so long ago I would search for something that I was struggling to understand, something that was making me uncomfortable; a new idea, a political agenda, a food source. I would read pages of information until I understood another’s point of view, even if I didn’t agree with it. Understanding didn’t always make me less uncomfortable, but it did make me less ignorant.
Now I find myself searching only for things I am interested in, things that make me comfortable, and I believe there is danger in that. There is certainly the propensity for insulation and ignorance. Your post is a great reminder that knowing a book exists is not the same as reading it. I’m going to search for something that makes me uncomfortable today.
Oh, wow. I really typed you’re instead of your. Sigh.