What Good is Information?
by Dougald Hine
The internet promised to feed our minds with knowledge. What
have we learned? That our minds need more than that
On my morning bus into town, every teenager and every
grown-up sits there staring into their little infinity machine: a pocket-sized
window onto more words than any of us could ever read, more music than we could
ever listen to, more pictures of people getting naked than we could ever get
off to. Until a few years ago, it was unthinkable, this cornucopia of
information. Those of us who were already more or less adults when it arrived
wonder at how different it must be to be young now. ‘How can any kid be bored
when they have Google?’ I remember hearing someone ask.
The question came back to me recently when I read about a
23-year-old British woman sent to prison for sending rape threats to a feminist
campaigner over Twitter. Her explanation for her actions was that she was ‘off
her face’ and ‘bored’. It was an ugly case, but not an isolated one. Internet
trolling has started to receive scholarly attention – in such places as the
Journal of Politeness Research and its counterpart, the Journal of Language
Aggression and Conflict – and ‘boredom’ is a frequently cited motive for such
behaviour.
It is not only among the antisocial creatures who lurk under
the bridges of the internet that boredom persists. We might no longer have the
excuse of a lack of stimulation, but the vocabulary of tedium is not passing
into history: the experience remains familiar to most of us. This leads to a
question that goes deep into internet culture and the assumptions with which our
infinity machines are packaged: exactly what is it that we are looking for?
‘Information wants to
be free’ declared Stewart Brand, 30 years ago now. Cut loose from its original
context, this phrase became one of the defining slogans of internet politics. With
idealism and dedication, the partisans of the network seek to liberate
information from governments and corporations, who of course have their own
ideas about the opportunities its collection and control might afford. Yet the
anthropomorphism of Brand’s rallying cry points to a stronger conviction that
runs through much of this politics: that information is itself a liberating
force.
This conviction gets its charge, I suspect, from the role
that these technologies played as a refuge for the Californian counterculture
of the 1960s. Brand himself embodies the line that connects the two: showing up
to meet Ken Kesey out of jail in the opening of Tom Wolfe’s The Electric
Kool-Aid Acid Test (1968) – ‘a thin blond guy with a blazing disk on his
forehead… an Indian bead necktie on bare skin and a white butcher’s coat with
medals from the King of Sweden on it’ – then creating the Whole Earth Catalog,
the bible of the back-to-the-land movement, or, as Steve Jobs would later call
it, ‘Google in paperback form’.
Before there was a web for search engines to index, Brand
had co-founded the WELL (the ‘Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link’), a bulletin board
launched from the Whole Earth offices in 1985. Its members pushed through the
limitations of the available technology to discover something resembling a
virtual community. At the core of this group were veterans of the Farm, one of
the few hippie communes to outlast the early years of idealism and chaos; in
the WELL, these and other paisley-shirted pioneers shared their experiences
with the people who would go on to found the Electronic Frontier Foundation in
1990 and Wired magazine in 1993.
This line from counterculture to cyberculture is not the
only one we can draw through the prehistory of our networked age, nor is it
necessarily the most important. But it carried a disproportionate weight in the
formation of the culture and politics of the web. When the internet moved out
of university basements and into public consciousness in the 1990s, it was
people such as Brand, Kevin Kelly (founding editor of Wired) and John Perry
Barlow (founding member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation) who were able to
combine the experience of years spent in spaces such as the WELL with the
ability to tell strong, simple stories about what this was and why it mattered.
information took
the place of LSD, the magic substance whose consumption could transform the
world
The journalist John Markoff, himself an early contributor to
the WELL, gave a broader history of how the counterculture shaped personal
computing in his book What the Dormouse Said (2005). As any Jefferson Airplane
fan can tell you, what the Dormouse said was: ‘Feed your head! Feed your head!’
The internet needed a story that would make sense to those who would never be
interested in the TCP/IP protocol, and the counterculture survivors gave it one
– the great escapist myth of their era: turn on, tune in, drop out. In this new
version of the fable, information took the place of LSD, the magic substance
whose consumption could transform the world.
The trouble is that information doesn’t nourish us. Worse,
in the end, it turns out to be boring.
A writer friend was asked to join a pub quiz team in the
village where he has lived for more than half a century. ‘You know lots of
things, Alan,’ said the neighbour who invited him. The neighbour had a point:
Alan is the most alarmingly knowledgeable person I know. Still, he declined
politely, and was bemused for days. There can be a certain point-scoring
pleasure in demonstrating the stockpile of facts one has accumulated, but it is
in every other sense a pointless kind of knowledge.
This is more than just intellectual snobbery. Knowledge has
a point when we start to find and make connections, to weave stories out of it,
stories through which we make sense of the world and our place within it. It is
the difference between memorising the bus timetable for a city you will never
visit, and using that timetable to explore a city in which you have just
arrived. When we follow the connections – when we allow the experience of
knowing to take us somewhere, accepting the risk that we will be changed along
the way – knowledge can give rise to meaning. And if there is an antidote to
boredom, it is not information but meaning.
If boredom has
become a sickness in modern societies, this is because the knack of finding
meaning is harder to come by
There is a connection, though, between the two. Information
is perhaps the rawest material in the process out of which we arrive at
meaning: an undifferentiated stream of sense and nonsense in which we go
fishing for facts. But the journey from information to meaning involves more
than simply filtering the signal from the noise. It is an alchemical
transformation, always surprising. It takes skill, time and effort, practice
and patience. No matter how experienced we become, success cannot be
guaranteed. In most human societies, there have been specialists in this skill,
yet it can never be the monopoly of experts, for it is also a very basic,
deeply human activity, essential to our survival. If boredom has become a
sickness in modern societies, this is because the knack of finding meaning is
harder to come by.
It is only fair to note that the internet is not altogether
to blame for this, and that the rise of boredom itself goes back to an earlier
technological revolution. The word was invented around the same time as the spinning
jenny. As the philosophers Barbara Dalle Pezze and Carlo Salzani put it in
their essay ‘The Delicate Monster’ (2009):
Boredom is not an inherent quality of the human condition,
but rather it has a history, which began around the 18th century and embraced
the whole Western world, and which presents an evolution from the 18th to the
21st century.
For all its boons, the industrial era itself brought about
an endemic boredom peculiar to the division of labour, the distancing of
production from consumption, and the rationalisation of working activity to
maximise output.
My point is not that we should return to some romanticised
preindustrial past: I mean only to draw attention to contradictions that still
shape our post-industrial present. The physical violence of the 19th-century
factory might be gone, at least in the countries where industrialisation began,
but the alienation inherent in these ways of organising work remains.
When the internet arrived, it seemed to promise a liberation
from the boredom of industrial society, a psychedelic jet-spray of information
into every otherwise tedious corner of our lives. In fact, at its best, it is
something else: a remarkable helper in the search for meaningful connections.
But if the deep roots of boredom are in a lack of meaning, rather than a
shortage of stimuli, and if there is a subtle, multilayered process by which
information can give rise to meaning, then the constant flow of information to
which we are becoming habituated cannot deliver on such a promise. At best, it
allows us to distract ourselves with the potentially endless deferral of
clicking from one link to another. Yet sooner or later we wash up downstream in
some far corner of the web, wondering where the time went. The experience of
being carried on these currents is quite different to the patient,
unpredictable process that leads towards meaning.
The latter requires, among other things, space for
reflection – allowing what we have already absorbed to settle, waiting to see
what patterns emerge. Find the corners of our lives in which we can unplug, the
days on which it is possible to refuse the urgency of the inbox, the activities
that will not be rushed. Switch off the infinity machine, not forever, nor
because there is anything bad about it, but out of recognition of our own
finitude: there is only so much information any of us can bear, and we cannot
go fishing in the stream if we are drowning in it. As any survivor of the 1960s
counterculture could tell us, it is best to treat magic substances with respect
– and to be careful about the dosage.
Dougald Hine is a British writer and public speaker. He
founded the School of Everything, Spacemakers, and the Institute for
Collapsonomics. Together with Paul Kingsnorth, he wrote Uncivilisation: The
Dark Mountain Manifesto (2009). He lives in Sweden.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment.