Is progress for the best? Group A

McChesney’s discussion of critical junctures prompted me to consider the implications of the mass technological changes that, according to Digital Disconnect, humanity has undergone four times in its history. It is clear that shifts in available technologies and their uses have an impact on the way we live. A primary component of the author’s argument addresses how these changes interact with political economy, or more specifically, the political economy of communication. What particularly interested me were the changes that occur on this level during these critical junctures and how they might influence not only the way we exist, but how we think. McChesney suggests that technology is “not only revolutionizing society, but changing the nature of human beings” (70). As evolving technology impacts our political environment and even our biology, I think that it is important to consider the opportunity that critical junctures present to mold the human condition: for better, for worse, or in a neutral way.  

Cultural and social artifacts are inevitably lost and gained during periods of critical juncture. McChesney offers examples from each period of critical juncture to evidence the ways that technology can render obsolete practices that were once considered inherently human. One such example is the shift from oral to written cultures. Citing Claude Levi-Strauss, the author proposes that “the immediate consequence of the emergence of writing was the enslavement of vast numbers of people” (71). This distinctly negative, politicized connotation suggests that these shifts can detract from the overall quality of the human existence. In addition to altering the social and political structure of society, I was thinking about the ways that technology influences the way we operate in other unintended ways. In his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Nicholas Carr argues that technology, specifically the Internet, is having negative consequences on the ways that we think. He suggests that the Internet is impairing our ability to do everything from focus for prolonged periods of time to reading critically. The trends in human behavior that Carr attributes to the rise of the Internet correlate with the fourth (potential) critical juncture: the digital age. Carr emphasizes the negative attributes of the digital age, but I think that it is hard to argue that the Internet has solely detracted from the human condition.  

The changes to our ways of thinking that result from critical junctures can also be perceived as beneficial. Referring again to the critical juncture of the digital revolution in which we are situated, some theorists have argued that the Internet has had a positive effect on the way that we process information. As McChesney points out, the transformation from oral to written culture ushered in an era where memory was less important and complexity was valued. Similarly, a study  entitled “Does Google Make Us Stupid?” conducted by the Pew Research Center in response to Carr’s article offers the perspective that the Internet may be impacting us in positive ways. A component of the study required scholars and other people well-established in this field to respond to open-ended questions about the impact of the Internet. Many of them, such as the Paul Jones of the University of North Carolina, suggest that the Internet, specifically Google, allows us to “be more creative in our approaching problems and more integrative in our thinking.”

Essentially, no one can say for sure whether the cultural, social and intellectual shifts that occur during periods of critical juncture have positive or negative effects on us as humans or the political economy to which we contribute. I believe that the effects of technology have, thus far, had enough positive and negative effects that its trajectory cannot be characterized by one or the other exclusively. As we move further into the digital age, I think that the Internet and other new media have altered the ways we think. While we may have a more difficult time reading on an in-depth level as Carr suggests, we are now able to gather unparalleled amounts of information very quickly. We are spending less time gathering information and more time analyzing it, but at the cost of our ability to research critically. The critical junctures that mark the chronology of technology have a significant impact on the way we live and the medium through which we engage with political economy, but I believe the quality of these changes cannot be precisely defined. What do you think?