Eilola "Living on the Surface..."
A discussion of the rift between modernist and post-modernist humanity is the focus of this piece, which suggests that the nature of information and interface in the advancing technological world has created a new breed which are highly adept at the art of working within "real-time," non-linear circumstances. The author points to the juggling of simultaneous multiple data when playing video games, where split-second decisions, decisions which have become intuitive rather than consciously cognitive to the poste-modern generation, mean the difference between failure and success. This is the delineation between modernists and post-modernists; modernists stem from a school of thought which thrives on linear information, while post-modernists work within realms of multi-thread simultaneous information.
The fact that such a pronounced distinction between "modernists" and "post-modernists" is suggested by Eilola led me to consider that with the rate of increase in technological advancement, it is unlikely that mankind will ever "evolutionarily" catch up with technology. as each new breakthrough develops and becomes mainstream, the generation familiarized from youth with that technology will come to use it flawlessly and effortlessly, while the previous generation struggles to remain proficient. In that case, the post-modernists who have developed this ability to work within non-linear constructs, a skill which seems to be difficult to master for modernists, will themselves be de-throned by the next generation of nouveau post-modernists who will embrace whatever further advancement comes into existence in the next decades. Analyzing the advancement of technology from the standpoint of a stable cultural shift may be an extraneous effort since the dynamic nature of technology makes it impossible to predict what sort of world we will all live in twenty years from now. Global communication networks and "living on the surface" may rule the post-modern generation, allowing it to thrive for a few years or decades, but it begs the question, what will the title/thesis be of Eilola's protege be when the post-modernists themselves have been supplanted by a new breed who find global communication networks as blase as ten-year-olds now find typewriters?
2 comments:
I'm not sure I can agree with you, Sean. First, has there been a shift from modernist, enlightenment thinking, with its beliefs in progress and other grand narratives, been replaced by a postmodernist perspective, with its emphasis on fragmentation and surface? Certainly (in my view) not entirely, and to the extent such changes have taken place they've taken place over the last 50 years. The concept of postmodernism was introduced in 1967, I believe, at a conference at Johns Hopkins. The shift from modernism to postmodernism hasn't been tied to a generational development, so I'm not sure your argument that the next generation will have a different understanding of the human condition (though certainly there will be dramatically different technologies available).
I liked parts of Eilola's argument, but I'm not really sure that I buy it. His assertion on 185 that we "do not pass tales linearly, but experience them multiply, simultaneously, across global networks" does not really strike me as accurate. How is he defining linearity? Maybe my understanding is weak, but how specifically does sending a mass e-mail to 1,000 people constitute a non-linear act? I was much more persuaded by Gurak's assertion, backed up Ong's description of orality, that new literacies are emerging. This is perhaps my own lack of imagination.
At the same time, I found his description of his daughter's video gaming very compelling and very familiar. I've had that exact same experience myself, of watching a young person play a game, and watching her learn to play simply by playing. I, on the other hand, have no idea where to begin. That does seem to me to suggest not only an emerging form of literacy (though perhaps that's part of what's happening) but also a different way of being in the world.
I liked the way Sean talked about supplanting the post-modernists. I don't think that people will ever catch up with the technology. The information elite will always have something faster and better to release, and the general public are still trying to fathom the last-generation technology that was released mere months ago. I think the main race is not going to be based merely on who can make the most amazing technological tool, but who can make the most intuitive tool. The race is going to be based on usability, not on technology.
Post a Comment