Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
Earlier this week, I wrote about why mom--Marilyn Haggerty--went viral, and suggested that the internet is, click-by-click, democratizing pop culture away from snobbishness and toward authenticity.
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan has another take on the democratizing tendencies of the internet. Like Tocqueville, she points out that the more democratic a culture gets, the more it tends to level things down. Of particular concern to Noonan, and for good reason, is how coarse the rhetoric surrounding women has gotten in the media:
This week marks the 20th anniversary of the Year of the Woman, declared by someone in 1992 to mark and encourage the entrance of so many women into American politics.
At the exact same moment something else was happening in our public life, and it had equal or greater impact on our culture—the rise of the Internet.
Suddenly, by the mid 1990s, there was a new public place of complete freedom. Suddenly everyone—in blog posts, on personal websites, on news sites, in comment threads—had an equal voice and was operating on an equal field. The Internet became—this is America, we have a certain DNA—a bit of a Wild West. It was exciting and invigorating, a new frontier, but it held dangers, too, and darkness.
When anyone can say anything, anyone will. When the guy in the basement having his third Grey Goose finally got a telephone line on AOL, he found out he could take his Id out for a ride. He could log on, indulge his angers, and because it was anonymous he never had to stand by his words, or defend them. He never had to be embarrassed in front of his kids.
Internet is a breakthrough in human freedom. But over the past 20 years it has had a certain leveling effect. It hypes the cheap and glitzy, it reduces the worthiness of a thought to the number of clicks it gets.It has helped set a new cultural tone. It is not a higher one than we've enjoyed in the past.
Our comics and commentators went with the flow, but it only flows downward. . . .
Interesting food for thought. It raises a fundamental question about American democracy: Is the democratization of our mass culture--as represented by the internet--concerning because it drags the culture down to the lowest common denominator, or is it good because, in its driving populism, it serves as a check on elitism?
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
" When the guy in the basement having his third Grey Goose ..." Stoli maybe, but not Grey Goose. That stuff is expensive.
Aug '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
Well at some start points, it is about strength, firepower, the most cattle, etc. pretty basic things. That is democratizing because the acquisition of those things comes down to hard work at some point in some generation.
As to the digital equivalent of that, if we think about the MSM as the Old Europe with it's hidebound bias, closed doors to more than half of society, and inability to change, then most of us have already sailed.
As we arrive on the shores of the New World, we are working through the Indian wars, the disease, and the hurriedly constructed communities. Some of those communities, like LGF were Jamestown. Others like Ricochet may well turn into Cambridge. The society will civilize itself and naturally evolve into institutions that mirror our desires.
The Old World, kicking and screaming, sends out their Hessians in an effort to rein us in, but there are a couple of Valley Forges yet to be seen. And from here the Delaware looks to be full of ice.
Edited on March 16, 2012 at 2:27pmJan '11
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
It can only work - but it will work - if we bring prudent skepticism to the opinion marketplace.
The reason why we fear to unleash free expression is because so much of it is drivel, wrong, vitriolic instead of truthful, and mere noise to attract attention than it is to offer intelligence. Some people long for the halcyon days when public expressions were pre-sanitized by some media or TV network. That way, we could believe what was out there.
Then we realized the sanitizers were as biased, and occasionally as stupid, as the rest of us. The past was a time of fake security, believing that there were objective guardians of truth and taste who could make all public expressions safe and digestible.
The internet changes the procedure. Do your own sanitizing. Don't expect anyone else to do it for you.
In the long run, intellectually, I prefer an un-sanitized world. It forces you to do some actual thinking, rather than just swallow and regurgitate what others feed you.
May '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
@KC "Occasionally as stupid as the rest of us? " Very charitable in your assessment.
Jun '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
At best, it's a wash. Everything good about the internet you need to weigh against the proliferation of pornography, and the access that younger and younger children have to pornography. Frankly, I'd rather that youngsters smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, than to get so comfortable viewing pornography, and then proceeding to act it out. We've been poisoning our culture in a big way, and we're starting to see the consequences of it now.
Feb '12
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
The sad part is the extent to which the so-called upper crust of professional commentators have adopted the tone, style and vocabulary of the infantilized trolls in their parents' basements. Unfortunately, it is true on both sides of the debate. I'd prefer it if some of the conservatives I follow on my private Twitter stream didn't toss the f-bomb out every third tweet; I'd like to be able to leave my phone lying out where my kids can see it.
We can't kid ourselves, however, that things were better in the past. The LCD was always there, lacking the eloquence to express their opinions in any other way than spewing bile at whoever they disagreed with. They didn't make it into the mass media, because there were standards. Those who were serious and aspired to leadership complied with those standards, and drove the discourse to a higher level. That's why it is important to have places like Ricochet that impose standards. In the end, these spaces, not the bleacher seats, are where minds will get changed.
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
I'm deeply torn about this. In the long run, KC, I agree with you. In the short run, I don't see enough evidence of "prudent skepticism" in the opinion marketplace to feel confident that this will all work out okay.
Nov '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
You know how water naturally runs down hill? I think human culture is the same way. How do you get water to run uphill? First omeone has to decide it should go uphill. Then it takes effort to go against the natural instincts. I do not think that the Internet is facilitating the downward slouch so much as it is highlighting it. You only have to look at Ricochet to see that in actual fact the Internet can be a huge force for good in society, bringing people together who might never interact otherwise, lifting us up and deepening our understanding g of ourselves and the world. But Ricochet takes effort by each of us. It strikes me as I am writing this that one of the things I want about Ricochet, that it be easier, probably isn't necessarily a good thing. It should take some effort to participate in Ricochet, because you get something really good out of it, more than just a cup of coffee (which I've given up, by the way). And if it were easier everyone would do it and it wouldn't be as good...and I've just argued myself out of my point....dang it!
Jul '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
I agree with etoile. It's not that these things never existed, but the internet has made them accessible to a degree not seen before. So for every worthwhile venture like a Wikipedia to broaden knowledge, there is yet another site reveling in human degradation. If you want to see something, good or bad, someone somewhere is already livestreaming it.
Mar '11
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
There's a saying I have when it comes to free speech: Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that doesn't mean every opinion is equal. I may have an interest in physics but that surely doesn't mean what I have to say about it has the same weight as what Stephen Hawking would say (or type, I guess it would be).
However, what has happened with the Internet is that it has instantly, somehow, made everybody into experts. Worse yet, they're mostly anonymous. And if that passes for democratization, I'll pass.
I know that makes me sound completely snobby but I don't think people who've never studied a subject leading people in a particular direction is healthy. These people can sound completely legitimate if you're somebody who doesn't know anything and looking to actually learn something. And the Internet gives these sophists a highway right into a curious person's mind.
I compare it to filmmaking in early 2000's. Everybody said digital cameras would democratize filmmaking because it would be cheaper, easier. etc. No it didn't; it only caused more bad movies to be made.
May '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
The best and worst thing about the internet is that it exposes us to so much information and so many contrary ideas. It overloads us. The internet is a driving factor behind the rise of multiculturalism and nihilism, because people are exposed to so much so fast that they can't sort it all into a cohesive worldview. On the other hand, it helps people with solid intellectual foundations to see a bigger picture and catch glimpses of one's own culture from the outside.
The internet is a tool. Powerful tools enlarge and diversify the choices we can make, but also make the world more chaotic and difficult to navigate. To whom much is given, much is required.
Jun '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
I was going to write a long post, but etoiledunord said it. The technology is neutral, but results rarely are. At best, it's a wash. Ricochet is one of the really good things.
Oct '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
When was this golden age of a genteel public square, again? (Examples of political artwork and rhetoric through the ages since before Ancient Greece omitted as being CoC violations.)
Sep '11
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
The internet rewards raw popularity in a way that seems damaging to our culture. The question "Is it fashionable" seems to win over "Is it true." Think about the anti-bullying campaigns. They run on the same fuel as bullying--popularity is true unpopularity is false. Think about Kony 2012. The video spends little energy on the moral case against Kony, but great energy on the fashionable case against Kony. Kony 2012, Anti-bullying 2011, Occupy Wall St, Obama 2008 all go great guns on the internet because they harness all the power of a "report as offensive" or "dislike" button. The problem seeps into culture when mere disapproval from peers translates into a spate of teen suicides. Bullying is as old as time, but why are kids now killing themselves when their colored contacts go unappreciated? The internet increases the social power of peer approval, minimizes the power of reason, and culturally intensifies the power of bullies. The internet, more than any other phenomenon in our culture values "everybody's doing it" over truth.
Edited on March 16, 2012 at 7:59pmFeb '11
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
Govicide...."However, what has happened with the Internet is that it has instantly, somehow, made everybody into experts."
Actually, I think the Internet has made it far easier to access the opinions of **real** experts. Previously, our national dialogue had to be conducted via the intermediation of people with journalism degrees and/or television-suitable-hair. It wasn't likely that most of these people would be able to comprehend the realities of energy policy, military tactics, economics, or whatever, and indeed most of them didn't.
Oct '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
This reminds me of what I've read about the political volatility in France and Germany after World War I. Lots of little groups that congregate together, push their agenda, and form short, fractious coalitions in the political system. Except instead of meeting in tea or coffee shops, people meet on Twitter.
You know much more than I on that topic, though. Sometimes I think what we're experiencing is the breakdown of the postwar social consensus, and the start of a decades-long evolution towards a new social compact. But who knows; I could be full of it.
Oct '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
GOVICIDE:
However, what has happened with the Internet is that it has instantly, somehow, made everybody into experts. Worse yet, they're mostly anonymous. And if that passes for democratization, I'll pass.
I don't know. I think that's an American thing (none of my foreign friends seem to have that in their cultural DNA), and I suspect it predates the rise of the Internet. When there's 300 million of you governed by mostly-unaccountable Washington power brokers, there's a strong incentive to take interest in the issues of the day.
Jan '11
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
Not to mention that very little information came through those channels. I used not to follow presidential campaigns because the papers wouldn't tell me anything substantive about a candidate, they just reported on the horse race.
Now, alas, I'm not following the campaign because (sob) I'm exhausted and I just want it to be over!
Apr '11
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
I can see why the ability of trolls to comment on opinion pieces would seem like a near existential problem to Noonan, but most of us can get by with the small life lesson that one should generally not read the comments, particularly not those in all caps.
Ricochet is lovely, and the best of the private spaces carved out of the internet that I've been involved in, but it's far from the only one. The internet also means that I regularly read magazine articles from organs like First Things, which I would barely have heard of had my media access gone through my local newsagent.
Aug '10
Re: Is the Internet Good or Bad for Mass Culture?
Once again, Dowd unconsciously reveals her elite NYC snobbishness.
Her vision of the proverbial "guy in his basement" drinks Grey Goose?!?!
Seriously?!