I tweeted the other day (blogging about tweeting, VERY COOL JARROD!) and it said “Demonizing technology is like blaming your shoe for stepping in poop. YOU stepped in the poop! Let’s take responsibility for how we live.” No one really responded. So rather than accepting the silence as market research that those words did not resonate, I thought maybe I would write some more about it.
Blame is a defense mechanism. It is not about justice, it is about my own fear. When I blame I get to avoid being vulnerable. Instead of admitting that I am not perfect and that I have some how contributed to a broken project, relationship, workplace, or country I get to hide behind the “faults” of someone else.
My concern is that when we blame we only create more distance between the undesired outcome (stepping in dog poopy) and how our behavior can improve it (paying attention to where we are walking).
So why blame and hide if being vulnerable is the key to a more desirable outcome? Fear. It is safer to point the finger than to be honest about our failings as parents, leaders, lovers, and consumers. It is easier to blame the kids, our team members, our ex-spouses, and the capitalist beast. And it is this fear of vulnerability that keeps our guns pointed, our marriages lonely, and our lives uneventful.
There is correlation and causation between healthy friendships, companies, and families and when the individuals involved step over their shitty fear and vulnerably share their failings.
Jarrod Shappell
I am all for demonizing technology, not so much for blaming. I think those of us who demonize might suggest that the analogy go more along the lines that giving facebook to a high school student is like giving a knife to a child for his play school kitchen. It has more to do with use/improper use, the fact that we don’t have good discussions on what these things are for and the the effect they have on us.
I think those of us who demonize technology also might say once people are on say facebook its a little hard to go back and call it poo. But I think the bigger question are some of these things and their features poo? Two great novelists answer this in ways that I think understand more of the implications of the social world.
Zadie Smith
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation-why/?pagination=false
Jo\nathan Franzen
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29franzen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Part of what I believe is that we rarely aware of the full effects things have upon us, and we make a major mistake if we only think of the effect we have upon them.
Shedden –
I agree witchu and perhaps that is where the stepping in poop analogy falls apart. Everyone knows that if you step in poop your foot will smell like shit and your shoes need cleaned. But we are not as informed about the effects of technologies, etc. I think that most “tools” are amoral and our use/abuse is the primary issue at hand. So how can we be more deliberate about our adoption of such things? Especially in a culture of trend and “whats next” this feels important and challenging.
Given Zadie Smith’s article I am not sure I agree that technology is neutral. If I show up to your house with a bag of chips and my Cubs gear its different than if I show up with a gun. The question she seems to be asking is how is Facebook trying to get into your house and her reading Facebook is a controlled game, and if its controlled its not really neutral.
So let’s take the hammer as “technology.” I could use it to drive a nail into the wood of a house I am building in Juarez, Mexico OR I would destroy someone’s car. That is what I mean when I say neutral. Now, in the case of Facebook. I understand that it cannot “presently represent human thought or human relationships” but does that make immoral? What if I use it to better stay in touch with my family so that when we do see each other we have a more engaged conversation? Even if it is controlled by someone else (don’t get me started on the data ownership beast), it seems that I can educate myself on the limitations and opportunities and use it positively. Would you agree?
Stop playing with my neo-Luddite!
One of the things I try to resist, and I will admit I do a poor job at it, is thinking only two options exist. Is Facebook moral or immoral? I don’t know if we can or should answer that question, but what do we do with the limitations of it? What happens when we understand the way it is changing human relations? Sherry Turkle’s book Alone Together explores all these questions better than I could, but I think what happens when try to answer those question is that we will turn back the clock in some ways. Will ever one delete their Facebook account who takes her concerns seriously? I don’t think so. But at least they would be taking her concerns seriously and recognize why, and when, we might resist the beast.
So yeah I basically agree with you. I think my main concern was that demonizing technology might actually be a good idea, because then we at least know what we are getting in bed with.
you said ‘shit’ in a blog about ‘poo’
hahaha
you know me… i’m all for anything that calls me out for being whiny…
however, to use the worst metaphor ever…
chicken or the egg: does technology provide us a place to avoid our vulnerabilities or we’re we an individualistic/divisive/lonely people and technology became a wonderful catalyst…
also you said shit in a poo article…..next challenge: say shit in a pooh article (future dad stuff)