| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Social VS Convenient Animals | >
> | Social Animals VS Digital Feudalists | | | | |
<
< | -- By DanielaWeerasinghe - 11 Mar 2022
Aristotle once said that “man is by nature a social animal” and thus naturally seeks the camaraderie of others as part of his well-being. According to the Society for Neuroscience, “decades of research in the neuroscience realm has largely supported his thoughts on the matter” (Kayt Sukel, In Sync: How Humans are Hard-Wired for Social Relationships, Dana Foundation, November 13, 2019).
Not really. You're working two languages away from what he wrote in the first chapter of Politics, which is that man is an animal whose telos, whose highest purpose, is to live in a polis, a city: that man is a political animal.
| >
> | -- By DanielaWeerasinghe - 15 April 2022 | | |
My previous essay “Freedom of Thought VS Democracy” analyzed and depicted the broken link between human’s capacity to think autonomously and to contribute to a democratic society, by reason of the former’s growing deterioration. I advanced the argument that we emerged into a “machine-directed society” “thanks to” having been/being “other-directed”, i.e., in need of assurance that one is emotionally in tune with others; willing to accommodate others for their endorsement (David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd). | |
<
< | This paper aims to further develop this argumentation. I will critique Eben Moglen’s theory that today’s unfreedom is caused by the social pressure of perceived “convenience”, i.e., “the surrender of anxiety to the machine [i.e., the big data feudalists Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon & co]”. More precisely, I will strive to explain why human being’s natural tendency to be social trumps and precedes the natural preference for convenience and thereby represents the ultimate catalyst of today’s “economy dominated by privacy invasion subcontractors” (Eben Moglen).
But this is not my idea: it's a straw man. I haven't said that unfreedom is caused by convenience. I have not even said anything about convenience as ordinarily defined, except to say that other people report that they find destructive technologies "convenient." I said that "convenience" as a self-reported experience actually means the surrender of an anxiety to the machine. This, the software entity we built to maximize "engagement" with surveillance capitalism rewards us for doing by returning to us new and different anxieties. In this way, the anxiety-relief of "convenience" actually never relieves any anxiety, just transforming one into another.
How this is supposed to amount to arguing that convenience causes unfreedom I don't understand.
| >
> | This paper aims to further develop this argumentation by way of analyzing, understanding, and suggesting ways to address the key forces behind our addictive usage of social media on smart devices (i.e., our social nature, peer pressure, anxiety, and risk underestimation). | | | | |
<
< | Why our social nature preprogrammed us for digital exploitation | | | | |
<
< | I take as a starting point Aristotle’s assertion -corroborated by neuroscientific evidence- that we are “social animals”. We fundamentally value family, friendship, and romantic relationships. That is, we cherish and feel a need for companionship. As a natural corollary of this social human character, we crave belonging to a community and thus perpetually seek out connectivity. And digital feudalists have been exploiting our social character: unlike the society that Aristotle lived in, where meetings were organized orally or via handwritten letters and took place in person, today everything happens digitally. It used to be a privilege to meet friends on certain days and a rarity to meet people from other cities or countries. Never has mankind been afforded the opportunity and indeed luxury to connect with everyone, at all times, everywhere, and at little or no cost as in today’s digital age. It is thus of no surprise that our social inclination has let us become overstimulated by and addicted to those devices that enable perceptively fulsome connection. | >
> | Social Nature
I take as a starting point the empirically supported assertion that human beings are a ‘social species that relies on cooperation to survive’ (The Cooperative Human, Nature Human Behavior Journal 2 427-428 (2018)). We fundamentally value family, friendship, and romantic relationships. That is, we cherish and feel a need for companionship. As a natural corollary thereof, we crave belonging to a community and thus perpetually seek out connectivity. And digital feudalists have been quick to capitalize on our social character: unlike societies before the 19th century, where meetings were organized orally or via handwritten letters and that took place in person, today everything happens digitally. It used to be a privilege to meet friends on certain days and a rarity to meet people from other cities or countries. Never has mankind been afforded the opportunity and indeed luxury to connect with everyone, at all times, everywhere, and at little or no cost as in today’s digital age. It is thus of no surprise that our social inclination has let us become overstimulated by and addicted to those devices that enable perceptively fulsome connection. | | | | |
<
< | Our social character used to build strong communities. In today’s internet society, however, it seems to act as a destructive force, rendering us increasingly socially depleted. We no longer dedicate time and effort to our immediate, physical community and keep swiping on tinder for a new one-night partner. After all, we “can” always find a new connection somewhere else. Smart devices have given us a false sense of belonging and have replaced our inherent urge to be connected with people, with devices. We feel satisfied with a zoom call or Whatsapp chat and long-distance relationships with family and friends are the norm. | >
> | Social Class
Having the latest iPhone and MacBook? is perceived a must, if one considers oneself part of a certain social elite. The reasoning goes that those paying thousands of dollars for an Apple smart device are richer and cooler than those buying cheaper, non-Apple devices. After all, if you can afford it, why wouldn’t you opt for the beautifully designed Apple gadgets like all your peers? | | | | |
<
< | Why understanding the ultimate driver of our digital behavior matters | >
> | Anxiety
Eben Moglen argues that convenience as a self-reported experience means the surrender of an anxiety to the machine (i.e., Apple, Facebok, Google etc.): this, the software entity we built to maximize engagement with surveillance capitalism, ‘rewards’ us by returning to us new and different anxieties so that the anxiety-relief of convenience actually never relieves any anxiety, just transforming one into another. The pandemic-induced physical isolation in the past two years has amplified various anxieties and hence our online behavior. | | | | |
<
< | This poses the question of whether this satisfaction derives from us being “social animals” or from us choosing convenience i.e., surrendering anxiety to the machine. It seems that the two questions are interlinked. On the one hand, one might consider our social character to be THE cause of feeling anxious alone and hence choosing conveniently smart devices that allow for constant, albeit manipulative, connection. It is questionable, however, whether our social nature is the reason for feeling anxious alone. Indeed, pre-digital age, the smartest minds spent a significant amount of time at home alone, by themselves. The pandemic-induced physical isolation in the past two years has augmented this anxiety and hence our smart phone usage. | >
> | Smart devices have given us a false sense of belonging and have replaced our inherent urge to be connected with people, with devices. We feel satisfied with a zoom call or Whatsapp chat and long-distance relationships with family and friends are the norm. Indeed, we feel ‘FOMO’ (i.e., the fear of missing out) if we were offline for a few moments, possibly even more so than if we were to miss a physical meeting. The result is utter social depletion and inertia towards remedying the former. | | | | |
<
< | On the other hand, one might say that we simply cherish companionship so much that we cannot help ourselves but use smart devices to realize our natural desire to be connected with each other. The latter positions Aristotle’s wisdom center-front and is in my opinion more persuasive. In fact, suppose that smart devices were not as convenient to use as they are today. Or indeed, imagine that using smart devices is expensive and difficult. Granted, our digital footprint may decrease in size, but it would not vanish. Put differently, we would be as inclined to choose inconvenient modes of communication (provided there are no alternatives) as today’s convenient smart devices, for we cannot help ourselves but seek out relationships. | >
> | Underestimation of Risk
Finally and related to the previous points, smart devices give us a false sense of safety. That is, we are inclined to regard smart devices as innocent, great inventions that enable us to connect with our friends and family whenever we desire to and to search the web anonymously. And since, at least in my case, most if not all my peers possess an iPhone and MacBook? , I do not tend to question the power that Apple has amassed over us. And despite now knowing that Apple & Co track my every digital move in one way or another -even if I turned on AdBlock? and TrackMeNot? -, I continue to use their devices and services. Why? Because I do not feel sufficiently threatened by them. | | | | |
>
> | Swapping my iPhone with a non-Apple-designed device -presently- seems equivalent with compromising between French fries and a salad e.g., my cravings will not be fully satisfied with the latter, when it is the former that I want – even if knowing that the former is not good for my health. However, unlike our addiction to fatty and sugary food, which can be balanced out by also eating healthy food, our addiction to smart devices seems to require a more profound remedy. | | | | |
<
< | Concluding thoughts | >
> | Reflecting on how to remedy our social media addiction
The bottom line is that Apple, Facebook, Google & Co deliberately designed their devices and platforms to capitalize on human nature’s social predilection and vulnerabilities. I do not intend to argue that it is mankind’s fault that we have become victims of capitalism surveillance by reason of us being us e.g., social, human, and vulnerable; nor do I try to assert that mankind dictated how technology has unfolded. On the contrary, it is only a handful of people that have been dictating technology’s details for all of us. And this is THE problem. Instead of fighting our social nature, we need to fight the digital feudalists and end their reign over our online behavior. Acknowledging as well as acting on the risks of using the services of digital feudalists (e.g., by engaging with technology and learning about proxy browsing, open-source software, Punkt mobile phones) and withstanding peer pressure to buy Apple products mark a meaningful start. Taking the step to seek alternatives to their services and devices is next. | | | | |
<
< | The bottom line of this line of thinking is the following: if it was convenience that drives our digital behavior, we could fix today’s surveillance capitalism by way of making privacy-breaching and freedom of thought-encroaching smart devices inconvenient to use. But if it was our “social animals” nature that dictates our digital behavior, then, it is much harder to find a solution, for it would be against our nature to refuse using devices that enable connections that we so seek. | >
> | In conclusion, even if non-surveilling, non-proprietary, and non-manipulative software are the default, it likely remains the case that we feel hooked on social media, simply due to our entrenched need to connect with people. The difference however is significant, for we would then connect with each other, on our own terms and conditions. | | | | |
<
< |
Nature dictates technology's details? That cannot be proven by a sideways allusion to Aristotle or a "neuroscience" paper. Who is the "we" who could make "inconvenient" other peoples' devices? How about making "convenient" in the natural sense devices and services that do not surveil their users? | | | | |
<
< | The route to improvement here is to concentrate less on the "versus," the effort to argue against an idea, and to put more clearly your own point. I am not worth arguing with on these terms.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|