The New Yorker, February 13, 2011
An article with the subtitle “How the Internet gets inside us” by Adam Gopnik might seem a bit radical and borderline creepy for hesitant readers of The New Yorker magazine. This notable periodical publishes all kinds of independent stories, academic articles and news pieces with a similar bite. But this piece particularly stands out to a generation which Marshall McLuhan might categorize as a “global village” (Reardon, 2011). Gopnik says optimists in this generation are “proclaiming the coming of the digital millennium.” (Gopnik, 2011). We are a society of constant awareness and technological innovation that never take a break from live streaming news, gossip, whatever you call it. Gopnik provokes concepts of technological determinism and aspects of social penetration theory through his an interesting analysis of internet users on the cusp of a proclaimed “digital millennium”.
Technological determinism is a concept coined by Marshal McLuhan stating that “inventions in technology invariably cause cultural change” (Reardon Lecture 2011). With regards to Adam Gopnik’s perspective, this invention would be classified as the internet. It might be considered a stretch to claim that the World Wide Web is a recent invention when it’s been conducting traffic since 1996, even earlier in smaller concentrations (Wood & Smith, 2005). However, the cultural change is a growing phenomenon, and according to Gopnik it’s growing inside of us.
Ann Blair of Harvard makes a comment within The New Yorker piece saying that “what we’re going through is like what others went through a very long while ago.” (Gopnik, 2011). Blair would therefore agree with McLuhan’s idea that the 2011 generation is a replication of an era he coined as the “tribal era” in which people understood one another aurally and orally (Reardon, 2011). McLuhan makes the argument that this feature was replicated with inventions like the telephone. We transitioned, however, into an entirely new era with the invention of quick, efficient and accessible internet, where time and space have completely disintegrated creating a global uniformity within cyberspace. Ann Blair comments that an “information overload” is occurring (Gopnik, 2011). Constant innovations create new ideas at a quicker rate than we are able track. So what do we do? Invent something to keep up! Up-to-date news feeds, tweets and research keep an internet user constantly on their toes searching for more. How far does a user delve into current information before jumping to the next new tab?
Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor developed the Social Penetration Theory which conceptualizes the idea that a gradual relationship develops through each person’s willingness to share and receive information through a defined process (Reardon, Social Penetration Theory, 2010). This interpersonal communication perspective heavily draws from face-to-face relationships. Although a communication student could also apply this theory to internet information transferring. Adam Gopnik boldly states in his piece that “…it’s hard not to conclude that as we adapt to the intellectual environment of the Net our thinking becomes shallower.” (Gopnik, 2011). A significant piece to Altman and Taylor’s theory is that an individual often discloses more in the early stages of a relationship but only goes so deep with their disclosure; breadth vs. depth. So while Gopnik may have his opinion of our shallow thinking, one might argue that this lack of depth provides greater opportunity for various, differentiated knowledge.
Mr. Gopnik references two men by the name of Andy Clark and Robert K. Logan who argue the definition of our capacity for knowledge. They argue that “[knowledge] is a constant flow of information, memory, plans and physical movements in which as much thinking goes on out there as in here.” (Gopnik, 2011) A reader might instantaneously conclude that the internet is all knowledgeable, which is most regards is true. But with the constant flow of information and the swiftness of our society, one could argue the impossibility of depth on a particular topic in an ever-changing environment. We are accustomed to live-streaming content, and with new material constantly in the palm of our hands, our breadth, or expansion, of information is substantial. We know everything all the time. However, we might stay shallow in our willingness to dive into new information to gather all the details. The USA Today is an example of our preference for breadth over depth. Headlines are in big and bold, stories are a few paragraphs and the pictures are quickly informative. As a typical consumer, that’s as far as the news goes for us. And as the newspaper adapts online, companies like USA Today, and even The New Yorker only provide portions of stories on homepages to entice readers but that’s often as far as we go.
Adam Gopnik is witty and revolutionary in his categorization of people; the Never-Betters, the Better-Nevers and the Ever-Wasers. The Never-Betters, one could argue, are firm believers in McLuhan’s technological determinism. Gopnik says they believe “we are on the brink of a new utopia, where information will be free and democratic…” (Gopnik, 2011). This generation is seeing prime examples of that with developments like LinkedIn and the trillions upon trillions of independent websites and blogs. Anyone can share information at any time. This information reaches us through different variables, the strongest one being breadth in which we know a lot of topics but can only go so deep in explaining them. This information sharing connects us to form a sense of a “global village” where we are all knowing all the time. But both of these ideas lead the Better-Nevers to believe that there is a problem with the capacity and availability of the internet. “…our children are having their brains altered by too much instant messaging and the like…” (Gopnik, 2011). Is it the Better-Never’s internet anxiety that controls their technological hesitancy? How much information is too much? Adam Gropnik airily defends both of the extremists sides of internet lovers and internet haters when he says “The trouble come when one side is right and other side is wrong and doesn’t know it.” (Gopnik, 2011) A spacey argument to question what is right?
A new thing comes along every day; ew social media, a trending tweet topic or advanced computer systems to simulate human life. We adapt, respond and move on. Technological determinism has been theoretically proved so far. It seems unfathomable to what degree we can advance in what we already know. The internet was a huge revelation of information processing and sharing. To think that there will be something more efficient is not far fetched. Gutenberg with the printing press; Graham Bell and the telephone; Gates to Microsoft and now Zuckerberg with Facebook; they’ve all thought of the next big thing. Adam Gopnik is wondering who’s next?
Works Cited
Gopnik, A. (2011, February 13). The Information: How the Internet gets inside us. The New Yorker, p. 9.
Reardon, D. M. (2010). Social Penetration Theory. Lecture. Charleston, SC.
Reardon, D. M. (2011, February 7). Technological Determinism. Lecture. Charleston, SC.
Wood, A. F., & Smith, M. J. (2005). Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity, and Culture. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrensce Erlbaum Associates.
