“Every process pushed far enough tends to reverse or flip suddenly. Chiasmus – the reversal to process caused by increasing its speed, scope or size.” —Marshall McLuhan

I finally got to read Andrew Sullivan’s latest article in NY Magazine about technology and distraction sickness. I remember Sullivan for notably becoming one of the first journalists to successfully make money from on-line writing by becoming a full-time, independent blogger. He dropped off the map a few years ago, though, and in this article he details why. Apparently he was seriously addicted to digital technology and ended up suffering from what he is calling “distraction sickness.”

Now, I don’t deny for a second that Sullivan, through some wonderfully honest, vulnerable, and poetic prose, makes a lot of important points in his article about the ills of digital technology that we’re all being shaped by today (however, to be sure, he’s not the first to do this; the NYT for example did an in-depth series on this exact subject a while ago). I get that we need to be critical, and self-aware, and remind people that we should constantly attempt to tease apart “dignities” from “disparities” in regard to human mediums/technology. And yes, we should be cognizant of technology’s ability to influence and shape us (McLuhan’s tetrad of media effects goes a long way in doing just this, imo); yes we become what we behold to some degree. BUT, I think it’s also important that we do not forget that humans themselves are, first and foremost, an example of a “technology of the Earth.”

What I mean by this is that humans (and our creations) are part of Nature, and in natural ecosystems everything is shaping everything ALL OF THE TIME! Nothing is isolated. Humans, in tandem with our environments, are constantly becoming something new. Yes, lets be self-aware. Let’s recognize some of the good stuff that has come before which has, in Sullivan’s words, “fulfilled us for tens of thousands of years” (e.g. meditation/prayer; heart-felt in-person eye-to-eye conversations and gatherings; hugs; drawing on paper; painting on canvases; long, nuanced, rational, abstract arguments), but, imo, we shouldn’t try to conserve or venerate these things to the point that we give them some sort of ontological/metaphysical prioritization. The only thing that is “real” is that there are many kinds of “real.”

To elaborate on these ideas a bit further, lets think about the main gripes that I often hear voiced in regard to digital media, smartphones, the internet, etc.: distraction and lowered attention span. I admit, these are problems for sure. But as we all should know by now, for better or worse with progress comes pathology. McLuhan has helped me understand that when pushed to their limits mediums/technologies can easily reverse into their opposite intention. Cars, meant to increase speed of transportation, reverse into traffic jams and fatal accidents. Smartphones, meant for connection/communication and efficiency, reverse into “alone together” scenarios and time-wasting distraction when pushed to their extreme.

Along these lines, the other thing that might be good to keep in mind is that these standards/values we have (being able focus on one thing for instance, or this emphatic priority we place on one sort of “reality” over another sort of “reality” ((e.g. in-person conversation is usually thought to be far superior to texting or on-line conversation; Really? Always? In every way? In every case/scenario? For every person, all of the time? Why?)) etc…) are standards that are the result of, and which are fostered by, other older mediums/technologies. The phonetic alphabet, for example, is a human technology that uses symbols which stand for sounds which we organize in certain ways to create words and sentences which represent thoughts, that are then organized into syllogisms which ultimately allow us to think abstractly. The paper book (which is a combination of many mediums), filled with lines and lines of sentences which make paragraphs, encourages abstract, linear, analytical, individual, rational thought and requires much focus and concentration to properly engage with. McLuhan is famous for pointing out that image based communication mediums, on the other hand, like photographs and television (and I would add the internet, because video, photos and graphics are the Internet’s main currency), erode the capacities that heavy word/text based mediums like books reinforce. But image based mediums/technologies have their own capacities that they reinforce, e.g. synthesis-oriented, concrete, holistic, non-linear thinking, and an intuition/emotion emphasis, etc….

I guess all I would really want to point out in the end is that it is quite possible that people are doing yoga, practicing mindfulness, and smoking weed more (all things Sullivan cites in this article as proof that we are all attempting to cope with digital distraction disease), not because they’re dealing with distraction disease like him, necessarily (although I’m sure some are), but because that’s just where we’re headed; away from more Western individual, abstract, linear, analytical/rational patterns and toward, perhaps, more Eastern synthesis-oriented, concrete, holistic, non-linear, and emotional sort of patterns. I’m ok with this (although I will still be reading my paper books of course). Self-control and discipline are certainly still needed, as they always have been. I won’t argue otherwise. BUT, as I’ve learned through my own addictions and struggles with substance abuse, just because one has an unhealthy relationship to something (or someone) doesn’t mean everyone else does too. This seems fairly straightforward and obvious to me now although I admit it wasn’t always so clear.

…

Photograph above by French photographer Antoine Geiger

Tags:andrew sullivandisctraction diseasemarshall mcluhanmedia ecologytechnology