by Lisa Peyton
I
n the past, I have not been a HUGE fan of social media. I don’t spend hours a day on Facebook or any social media platform and I have often pondered how this new media will impact our psyches. My recent media psychology work has forced me to take another look at how I view digital media and how it may be effecting us. Nancy Baym’s book, Personal Connections in the Digital Age, outlines a NEW way to approach digital media. Her dissection of how media is perceived by the public alerted me to my own biases and helped to hone my critical eye when reading articles on the subject.
By defining and giving examples of technological determinism (‘machines change us’), SCOT or social construction of technology (‘people have the power’) and social shaping and domestication of technology, she built a solid case defending technology from those that are fearful of its negative effects (Baym, 2010). It is historically apparent that new methods of communication have always been feared initially, until these new methods have been so widely adopted that the masses simply take them for granted.
As she outlines, the Internet is one such recent example, where in its early days many thought that it spelled the end of blissful interpersonal relationships, as husbands and wives were sucked into ‘cyberspace’ (Baym, 2010). Today, the Internet has been widely domesticated and many of its early skeptics would concede that they can’t imagine life without it.
As new means of communication and media are created, this technological determinism and its resulting rhetoric can be easily spotted on such publications as the New York Times, The Huffington Post and various other online news publications. Texting has become a modern form of communication adopted by teens and young adults and serves as a good example of this phenomenon. Headlines such as ‘Experts Agree Text Messages are Bad for Interaction and Health’ and ‘Let Your Smartphone Deliver the Bad News‘ link to articles chock full of rhetoric bemoaning the fear that texting will turn us all into flakes (Tell, 2012. New York times) or create problems in relationships and hinder activities of daily living (Simo, 2012. The Daily Journalist).
Another more recent example of this approach was published on The Verge. Their article entitled ‘Facebook isn’t making you depressed but the internet is’ , uses the same tired rhetoric. The post garnered many interesting comments, including one of my own:
I applaud your efforts to debunk the thin research citing the negative effects of Facebook. The daily show’s Jon Stewart took a few swings at the researchers himself, you can read more about that here: http://www.lisapeyton.com/jon-stewarts-satire-rightly-counters-facebook-addiction-fears/.
HOWEVER, your title BLAMING the Internet for depression is just as unfounded as blaming Facebook. The Internet use has all the same complexities surrounding usage as Facebook does. Framing the article around how digital media EFFECTS us disregards how WE effect media. We have created Facebook and the Internet because there was an unmet psychological and social need. As you say, blaming Facebook and the Internet for our psychological woes is not only scapegoating but oversimplifying an extremely complex issue.
Less easy to spot are those adopting an alternate viewpoint or one that more closely aligns with social shaping and eventual domestication of these new technologies. Despite the reactionary title of the article, (Experts Agree Text Messages are Bad for Interaction and Health), the first quoted EXPERT has a much more balanced view of texting and its potential harms. Simeon Yates, Professor of communication and technology at Sheffield Hallan University, is quoted as saying that texting is nothing new in the world of communication, “but another process of social interaction.” He continues to explain, “We did the same with the phone, or letters etc. Managing face to face is a key part of all social interaction and texting is just another medium/option available to us.”
So where then IS the expert that AGREES that texting is BAD for interaction and health? Lisa Merlo, Ph. D. in Psychiatry of University of Florida, is cited as believing that texting “can create problems in relationships.” However, this is only part what she has to say on the subject. She also is hopeful that eventually the trend of NOT interacting face to face will fade and that people will rediscover the value of in-person interactions. The article does continue on to quote other experts but by only referring to the negative comments provided, the title creates an inaccurate representation of the article’s content.
I’m excited to continue exploring public perception of new media as filtered through the lens of these framing techniques. My own beliefs and biases have been uncovered based upon Baym’s point of view. Now maybe I can help you uncover your own.
References:
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, UK: Polity press.
Simo, J. O. (2012). Experts agree text messages are bad for interaction and health. thedailyjournalist.com (http://thedailyjournalist.com/theacademic/experts-say-text-messages-are-bad-for-interaction-and-health/)
Tell, C. (2012). Let your smartphone deliver the bad news. The New York Times. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/fashion/let-your-smartphone-deliver-the-bad-news.html)
Well written Lisa. I have a slightly different view than many of the researchers in the field. I think that the development of social norms has not kept pace with the speed of technology and therefore the onus is on us to shape the behavior of our young digital natives with whom these behaviors appear to be a part of the accepted social dance. It’s only because we allow this to happen that it does.
For example, my children and I went out to eat dinner. During the first 30 minutes or so I watched my daughter drop multiple conversations with those at the table to react to text messages she had just received. As a result, I felt it necessary to institute a new rule of no texting or calling during dinner/family time. Initially she was not happy with me, but the quality of our relationship improved over dinner.
It we don’t create our social norms where technology is concerned, we must accept what it appears technology will create instead. Cheers!
Honestly, I think it’s worse then you realize. The evolution of communication has always seemed to shake the fabric of society. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt nailed it back in the 90’s with their networks and netwar talk. Granted this is from the perspective of national security, but the understanding is transcends to all industries and actors that engage in the digital environment.
“Cover: In Athena’s Camp
The information revolution — which is as much an organizational as a technological revolution — is transforming the nature of conflict across the spectrum: from open warfare, to terrorism, crime, and even radical social activism. The era of massed field armies is passing, because the new information and communications systems are increasing the lethality of quite small units that can call in deadly, precise missile fire almost anywhere, anytime. In social conflicts, the Internet and other media are greatly empowering individuals and small groups to influence the behavior of states. Whether in military or social conflicts, all protagonists will soon be developing new doctrines, strategies, and tactics for swarming their opponents — with weapons or words, as circumstances require. Preparing for conflict in such a world will require shifting to new forms of organization, particularly the versatile, hardy, all-channel network. This shift will prove difficult for states and professional militaries that remain bastions of hierarchy, bound to resist institutional redesign. They will make the shift as they realize that information and knowledge are becoming the key elements of power. This implies, among other things, that Mars, the old brute-force god of war, must give way to Athena, the well-armed goddess of wisdom. Accepting Athena as the patroness of this information age represents a first step not only for preparing for future conflicts, but also for preventing them.”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR880.html