Welcome to my blog about the ideas that I am finding especially interesting during the Interdisciplinary Conference that is currently taking place at King's University College. I will attempt to strike a balance between the things that are being said in the sessions and the thoughts they are stimulating in my head, though I believe I will tend to express my own ideas more fully.
Alright.
My best thought of the day occurred during the first lecture (Quentin Schultze, "We Are Multimedia") as a result of Schultze's comments about technology needing to "fit" the context it is introduced into. He made an example of how we would decide to add a certain technology to a worship setting. In this case we should ask: does the technology fit? Does it naturally complement and add to the worship experience and the elements already in place to create a worship service? He warned against fitting the worship into the technology. He made it clear that a technology should never be served but should do the serving.
This is a bit of a loose link, but here's what I began to mull over, and what I asked him at the end of the session. It seems to me that technology (especially technologies such as Facebook, Twitter, Instant Messaging, Online Dating Interfaces and so on) is consistently moving towards an attempted simulation of human intimacy. These communication tools are the distributors of personal information to the point where a status update is something the users are often needing to perform multiple times per day. There seems to be an inherent ideology that it is possible to actually share your day with someone, to actually get to know someone, to actually commune with another human being if only enough information is shared consistently. I can personally see these technologies developing to include multi-sensory experience and even more frequent sharing of personal experience in an attempt to actually simulate real life human intimacy. My main concern is that it might follow for these technologies to replace face to face human interaction.
My question is this: If technology really is moving in this direction, is there something inherently wrong or anti-gospel about relationships based in simulated intimacy and closeness replacing real flesh and blood, voices and eyes, fingers and skin, hearts and bones human interaction? As Christians, do we have a responsibility to interact with these technologies and use them as they "fit" in order to enhance relationships in whatever way possible? Or do we have a responsibility to decry technologies which may damage our society's relational abilities? Should Christians concern themselves primarily with creating alternate opportunities for real human interaction?
It seems to me at first glance that the premise for technologies that attempt to simulate intimate relationships is fear. After all, real human interaction puts us all in a place of vulnerability. In my mind, the extent to which technologies are used to bridge relationships would indicate the extent to which a person has withdrawn into fear of this vulnerability. It is the example Jesus set by making himself vulnerable and coming to the world to pursue real flesh and blood human relationships that causes me to question any compatibility or "fit" between technologies of this nature and a Christian worldview.
To sum up: Is attempted technological intimacy - the idea of having a felt reality of being "together" with others while actually being alone - in its very nature an aim that is opposed to the gospel of Christ? Your thoughts please.
P.S. I should mention that Quentin Schultze was actually delivering his lecture and responding to my question from Michigan via a satellite connection. As it happens I really liked what he had to say and who he seemed to be and I realized after the lecture that I had a craving to get to know him more and to continue the brief conversation we had started about this. In other words, I felt I wanted a real relationship with him. You could keep in mind and perhaps comment on the fact that I would never have met Quentin or wanted to pursue a relationship with him further if it weren't for a technology that is getting very close to creating a simulated experience of "closeness".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And wouldn't you know, I have a craving to get to know you better after reading your blog entry... ha ha.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, interesting thoughts... I do wonder about when it becomes too much - we incorporate a lot of tech into our lives just because "we can", and because of our vague notions of how it'll help people engage. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just adds one more thing on the list that we have to keep up with.
Re: tech replacing and/or enhancing human intimacy
The strength and weakness of all the social media is just that - connecting is easier than ever, but inherently more shallow. Nothing is as rich/deep/complicated/messy as face-to-face, but these other tools increase our options and help us stay in our comfort zones.
I like my comfort zone, but it's not going to stretch me.
Over and out.
Hmmmm.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of making sure we are not subservient to technology strikes me as important. Especially with church stuff.
A comment related tothe facebook/myspace stuff: Right now I am in a class called Photography and Modernity. A book that we just read is called Camera Lucida. Roland Barthes sets out to find what the essence of a picture is. To make a book into a short paragraph, he finds that there can indeed be something in the photograph which is real, something which pricks or wounds the viewer, the problem is that it is difficult to find and not all pictures carry this essence. Most photographs, he says, are just chemical reactions which might be amusing or interesting, but which can do nothing for our human relationships.
Maybe these other technologies are the same way; they are good but they have to be used with a really clear head.
Love,
Landon
I have 2 comments:
ReplyDelete1) re: wanting to get to know this preacher even though you saw him only through video conferencing. That is the case with any preacher. A lot of the church or christian experience and even the Jewish experience for the average citizen, was based on listening to a person speak from a distance. In this way, it was not necessary to experience intimacy with the speaker in order to have a spiritual experience (in so much as hearing words stirred up something inside and spurred towards some action).
There could be room for the technology to be used for spiritual goals even without being an intimate connection with anyone, i.e., technology used as a catalyst for intimacy.
The problem with Facebook and Friendster and those things are like you said, a simulation of intimacy in itself, which can actually deter from true intimacy. But it could still be used to be a positive addition to an already existing connection, e.g., view pictures of a friend's vacation.
2) I wonder what an appropriate equivalent to distance-causing technology would be in Jesus' day. You said he came to be vulnerable. However you don't have to hide behind technology to not be vulnerable. Technology might make it easier to hide, to pretend you are close but really aren't, but hiding is nothing new. On the other hand, technology can be a powerful tool to find people and help them come out of hiding. Those seeking help can find help more easily and initiate communication more quickly and easily.
I guess my conclusion is that technology is not anti-gospel when it is used as a catalyst for, not as a replacement of, intimacy. But in and of itself it is not anti or pro gospel.
i wrote a really long post and then couldn't get in to post it somehow.
ReplyDeleteit ended with this:
bazano said it well: "the only reason that i feel secure is that i am validated by my peers"
so often sadly true.