Dr. Earl R. Smith II
Managing Partner, The Federal Circle
DrSmith@Dr-Smith.com
Dr-Smith.com
Much is made these days of the extended reach that all of us have gained because of the development of ‘communications tools’ like the internet, e-mail, social marketing sites and professional and social networking organizations. But there are costs that don’t seem to find their way into discussions about this brave new world of interconnectivity.
It seems to me that several important components of human relationships have taken a beating over the last several decades and that the denigration of their importance and value is directly related to the anti-humanist nature of the new technologies and new[1] vision of how humans develop and maintain healthy relationships.
Anti-Humanism
For my purposes here I am using the term anti-humanism to mean an individual’s preference for technology-mediated relationships which insulate them from direct contact with other individuals. Elsewhere I have written about the tendencies which result in this preference but here I want to focus on some of the collateral damage that it causes to the very fabric of any culture and to the people who inhabit it.
Freedom to be an Avatar
Probably the most notable [advantage] of technology-mediated relationships is the incredible flexibility that it allows when it comes to self-definition.[2] This advantage comes from the ease with which a person can ‘make up’ a personality or history and promulgate it with relative impunity.
At the core of this [freedom] is the proposition that who you represent yourself to be should have more to do with who you should be or need to be than who you are or ought to be.[3] The ease of this creation induces a tendency towards larceny – sometime on a truly epic scale.
This behavior is ‘empowered’ by the very nature of internet-based technologies and the fact that most of the people participating are simply stretched too thin to be bothered with the efforts of verification let alone disclosure. To say it another way, the relationships simply do not have sufficient substance or importance to make it worth the effort to verify the truth or lies. The internet, in all its incarnations, prefers the avatar to the person – the digital representation to the messy details that each human represents. And those who use it are forced into this value proposition or marginalized as static.
Pretty much since the 60s Americans in particular have been worshiping in this anti-humanist temple.[4] At the same time that traditional culture was dissolving – families were breaking up and dispersing – and a vocal generation was insisting that they had a new vision for society – technology was advancing in ways which would allow the refinement of this new anti-humanist vision of human relationships.
You see, the real challenge of direct human contact and deep personal relationships is to a person’s vision of self-worth. In the anti-humanist vision of reality, the difficulties of building and maintaining such relationships came to be seen as unnecessary overhead – there is an easier, far less painful and exposing way.[5]
Veracity Where Are Thou?
When Avatars define existence one of the first casualties is the idea of veracity.[6] If you can make up whom it is that you present yourself to be then why not take a bit of literary license and embellish?
The transition here is from the traditional idea that every individual is the author of their own life to the idea that every individual is the author of the virtual representation of their virtual life. Once that leap has been made the entire idea of non-virtual veracity becomes an inconvenience.
Think about it this way – what are you really to an avatar with whom you have [connected]? Mostly you represent an occasional e-mail – a stream of ones and zeros – a co-conspirator in the game of mutually agreed upon self-deception and self-denial – a consenting player in the great anti-humanist game – a safe haven from the reality that refuses to cooperate or play the game by the rules.
Within the confines of the virtual, relationships become disposable and the threshold for their abandonment becomes very low indeed. Because there are so many opportunities for new, fresh avatar-to-avatar [connections], why fuss over one that has become a bother. A click and it is gone.
One of the surest triggers for that ‘click’ is the request for veracity – an effort to see behind the mask that is the avatar. The entire anti-humanist project is to provide protection from the prying eyes of others – a mask that hides the naked truth. And to understand why that is such an offensive request, we need to take a look at the relative values of the real and virtual.
Which is Truer?
Anti-humanist existence – if it is to be tolerable at all – depends on the revision of values – in fact, the inversion of values. What is ‘real’ cannot be allowed to be true until the definition of what is [real] has been transformed to mean what is defined as [real] in virtual[7] terms. Once this jump has been made, the idea of truth becomes benign and completely supportive of the anti-humanist project – the accommodation had been made.
Here is an example. I occasionally have had people recommended others to me. When I ask “how well do you know them” I get “I met them online – they seem to be a great person.” Further inquire only brings a repeat of the original description. I realize that their support of this person’s avatar is based on an acceptance of the truth of that avatar and a calculated ignorance of the person who exists behind it.
But why ratify the virtual? That question bothered me for quite some time until I realized that it wasn’t ratification but self-ratification that was in play. By representing the avatar of the other as real they were doing the same for their avatar(s) – it was a re-statement of the rules of the game and an announcement that they have accepted those rules and would comply completely. In other words it was a declaration of the abandonment of the true self for the virtual one.
Provisional Morality
The current generations are likely to go down in history as some of the most morally corrupt in history. That is not because they are essentially evil – but because the entire idea of morality is now considered mostly tangential to human relationships. Whole industries have evolved based on the marketing of lies – a now socially acceptable form of parasitic behavior. No longer is the onus on the provider to be ethical – honest and considerate – but on the buyer to avoid being taken in. But in a virtual world all there is is being taken in and all there are are buyers!
Once morality has been relegated to ‘provisional’ status, the field opens up to all sorts of behaviors which can be legitimized merely by the contention that they are ethical. Once the virtual demonstration of ethical behavior becomes the currency of determining morality, the entire world becomes a silly putty mass that can be formed and reformed at will.
Identity Theft
It is notable that the crime of identify theft is thriving in a virtual world that began with the anti-humanist intention to abandon identity in favor of virtual identity. Identity theft is really the theft of that virtual identity – the hijacking of the avatar. And the crime is only possible if the virtual has become more real than the actual.
But identity theft is not limited to subversion of entire avatars – it also involves the denigration of concepts and ideals which have historically been important to a stable definition of the human self. For instance the idea of intimacy becomes transformed when it is intimacy with avatars.[8] One of the great assumptions of the anti-humanist project is that humans can do without all sorts of things that they thought they really needed. Technology modifies this assumption – humans can exist on virtual representation of those things which they thought they really needed. I strongly suspect that this assumption is tragically wrong.
Ephemeral Accountability
All that is virtual is ephemeral – it has no enduring substance and, therefore, it bears no responsibility for its actions or their costs.
Although this statement might sound strange, it is as true as true can be. Think of it this way – would you blame a ventriloquist’s dummy for a murder committed by the ventriloquist simply because that dummy was the weapon used to commit the crime? An avatar is a virtual representation – made and presented without any necessary reference its veracity – is, in fact, a ventriloquist’s dummy – only it is made of bits rather than wood.
The mask hides the true criminal and the crimes begin with the deception of the creation of the mask. But, if the only relationship is with the avatar, what or who do you hold accountable? The anonymity of the person behind the avatar – carefully protected by law and technology – is insulated from such accountability – as are those who provide the mechanisms to constructing and promulgating the masks.
Humans now find themselves unaccountable for acting humanly – and all who they relate to are strangers – and virtual strangers at that. No one is a person – only bits of data. There are no individuals – only data to be exploited. The very nature of relationships becomes both predatory and calculatingly deceitful.
Caveat Emptor All Around
The very nature of this new form of [human relationships] is that in a fundamental sense we are all, to the extent that we consent to participate in the anti-humanist project, buyers – buyers of the entire idea that the virtual is the new reality and that there is enough substance and sustenance in the virtual to satisfy human needs to be a social animal. But I suspect that there is danger in this assumption and that a [truth] unproven is no better than a [validated] lie.
© Dr. Earl R. Smith II
~~~~~~~~~~
Related Articles:
- Balancing Work and Life
- Making a Difference
- Asking to Listen
- A Non-Cumulative Life
- Ways and Whys of Talking
- Walking Together Alone – Searching For the Self
~~~~~~~~~~
[1] and unproven …
[2] I’ll put terms in brackets to highlight my belief that terms like [advantage] actually should have the reverse meaning
[3] The press is always carrying stories about politicians, movie stars, executives and preachers who have spent their lives pontificating only to face a time of truth and admission – the avatar is sheared away – ecce home!!!
[4] The great icon of this 60s generation was Star Trek’s Spock – who interestingly shared his name with a famous baby doctor and was occasionally forced – much to his shame – to experience and evidence human emotions.
[5] Spock solves this problem by burying his human side under his Vulcan one. Since he was half human and half Vulcan he could have gone either way – but he chose the anti-humanist path. Also, it seems significant that his father was Vulcan and mother was human. This suppression of the feminine is starkly Christian.
[6] Here used to mean adherence to the truth; truthfulness – conformity to fact or truth; accuracy or precision: a report of doubtful veracity. Something that is true.
[7] and provisional …
[8] Something of the difference between food and virtual food
[9] Caveat emptor is Latin for “Let the buyer beware”
15 Responses to “A Cost of Anti-Humanism”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ravindra Sharma wrote;
Dr Smith,
As always a very interesting facet has caught your thought and imagination.
Yes it is correct that these Avtars and aliases of virtual world together with inappropriate claims of mastery over subjects continually threaten to turn this excellent technology of communication into anti-humanist. And since the person is not one to one the temptation to overdo may as well be higher as the scrutiny is not immediate or may not be possible. Yet even in real world we see increasingly more cases where we are unsure of real strengths, intent or hidden agenda and face some amount of difficulty in segregation of a good cause from deceit. I guess it has to do with loss of appreciation of ethics and morality in method and replacing with achieving the goal somehow. And what the goal is. may not as well be very clear, thanks to myopic visions.
Ravindra
Rogan, Thanks for a very thoughtful comment. I enjoyed reading it. I have a lot of contacts through Linked In but I don’t do business with any of them unless I have the opportunity to meet them and get to know what they are about. I’m not ready to accept the proposition that the ” virtual world adds to the ability to manage, and grow, personal relationships”. I think that it produces virtual personal relationships between avatars more often than not. The fiber of friendship is strengthened through a range of common human experiences – highs, lows, victories and defeats. None of them are the same in a virtual world – using a video game with a reset button. The anti-humanist just can’t being himself to see others as human. The virtual world gives him the option of seeing and treating them as virtual people – avatars where the details of their lives don’t really matter much. But there is a cost for that freedom from the messy details of other people’s lives. It strikes me that this generation of anti-humanists are the most personally isolated and lonely of people. Dr. Smith
Rogan McGillis wrote:
Dr. Smith,
You raise an interesting point and I would be inclined to agree with what you are saying in your article. The virtual world has created the ability for people to reach every corner of the world and interact with people that they ordinarily would never have an opportunity to do and this has a pros and cons.
Really what it seems like you are hinting at is you don’t like the value that the virtual world adds to the ability to manage, and grow, personal relationships? Perhaps I didn’t fully understand you but that is what it sounds like. I would agree that the internet does provide the opportunity for people to mislead and represent more than is really there but I would say that this is really no different than the real world, only in the real world it’s harder for people to enter your sphere of influence. For example, in real life I probably be having this conversation with you, but here in the virtual world I can simply post a response and get your attention for a few moments. The virtual world allows people much easier access into our personal spheres. I think as time goes on we, as a society, will learn how to better use the internet as a value adding part of doing business and networking and not just an ad hoc way of sharing ideas.
LinkedIn is a good example of what i’m talking about. LinkedIn gives you more of a chance to learn about the people you are interacting with. Perhaps not as well as face to face relationships but on LinkedIn you can read previous posts, comments and articles they have written and you can look into their “virtual” network to see if there is any connection to your own and use that as a bridge to a more traditional network if you so desire. It’s not perfect by any means but it seems to be a start.
As you said in your article, the relationships and connections in the virtual world are still stretched thin and perhaps, as we do in business, we are going to have to learn how to find a niche and manage our virtual life in a more targeted manner. Just as I can’t be everywhere in the real world all the time and expect to have any real relationships or truly know the people around me, I can’t be everywhere in the virtual world either.
Thanks for the question and letting me enter your sphere for a few minutes, I hope my thoughts are helpfull!
Rogan McGillis
Stacey Aldred wrote:
This topic is indeed important today.
In the Christian faith we are taught
…1 Peter 2:17 “Show proper respect to everyone”
Something is happening that is inspiring people to do the opposite.
Wes, thanks for your comment – very interesting stuff. The terminology (verbosity?) is heavily used in the ongoing discussion about humanism (Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality.) and anti-humanism (Anti-humanism is a term applied to a number of thinkers opposed to the project of philosophical anthropology. Central to anti-humanism are the notions that talk of human nature or of “man” or “humanity” in the abstract should be rejected as historically relative, or as metaphysical, as well as the rejection of the view of humans as autonomous subjects.) The issue that I was working on is in the question “does the virtual world advance the cause of anti-humanism against that of humanism”? I like your point about no failure – or maybe no virtual failure and the belief that non-virtual failure doesn’t count. Dr. Smith
Bert, Thanks for the comment and for advancing the discussion. You raise an interesting point that merits discussion. I see political correctness as an essentially anti-humanist argument. I am using the terms humanism and anti-humanism as they are used in the ongoing discussion about humanism (Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality.) and anti-humanism (Anti-humanism is a term applied to a number of thinkers opposed to the project of philosophical anthropology. Central to anti-humanism are the notions that talk of human nature or of “man” or “humanity” in the abstract should be rejected as historically relative, or as metaphysical, as well as the rejection of the view of humans as autonomous subjects.) The issue that I was working on is in the question “does the virtual world advance the cause of anti-humanism against that of humanism”? I see political correctness as abstracting the individual to a category and then proscribing what can be said about that category – quintessential anti-humanism. Is that how you see it – or do you have a different take? Dr. Smith
Ola, thanks for the comment and for putting a human face on the issue. The lesson your daughter learned is an important one – a life lesson – one that will protect her from the kinds of inauthenticity you find so often on the web. Your role in talking to her and helping her realize that insight is one that more parents should pay attention to. I commend you for it. Dr. Smith
Ola Lysenstoen wrote:
I admire your insight into this most pressing issue facing society today. My daugther and I have had numerous conversations regarding the relative ease with which we as humans are now able to “hide” behind a keyboard. She became enamoured with some of the internet sites where an avatar is easily created and took some liberty and creativity in re-creating herself for everyone to see. Now in college, I believe she has learned her lesson and that she has a renewed understanding and respect for one’s veracity.
I think we as parents have a long uphill battle in educating and restoring our children’s misguided ways to interact with each other, however, by highlighting the issue and communicating with them, I for one believe that we can turn them around.
Stuart Huang wrote:
IMHO, an essential difference between technology-mediated relationships and in-person relationships is that it’s harder to escape from an in-person relationship.
In the “old days,” a person’s relationships tended to be with people who we met in person – in the same village, town, church, etc. We were “stuck” with these people, because the were neighbors or otherwise permanent members of our communities. We got to know them more deeply over longer periods of time. As with other long-term relationships, like marriage and family, they became more intimate and complex, with histories of disputes, compromises, shared challenges, fallings out, reunions, forgiveness, ….
Today’s technology-mediated relationships are less binding. We can “block” them by screening telephone calls and not responding to email. Because we don’t have to “make them work” over long periods of time, they remain shallow. We don’t invest in them with understanding and compromise. They can be purely transactional.
I have heard it said that it’s easier to be an asshole if you never have to see the other person again. With technology-mediated relationships, you might never even have seen them in the first place.
Ola, thanks for the comment and for putting a human face on the issue. The lesson your daughter learned is an important one – a life lesson – one that will protect her from the kinds of inauthenticity you find so often on the web. Your role in talking to her and helping her realize that insight is one that more parents should pay attention to. I commend you for it. Dr. Smith
Ola Lysenstoen wrote:
I admire your insight into this most pressing issue facing society today. My daugther and I have had numerous conversations regarding the relative ease with which we as humans are now able to “hide” behind a keyboard. She became enamoured with some of the internet sites where an avatar is easily created and took some liberty and creativity in re-creating herself for everyone to see. Now in college, I believe she has learned her lesson and that she has a renewed understanding and respect for one’s veracity.
I think we as parents have a long uphill battle in educating and restoring our children’s misguided ways to interact with each other, however, by highlighting the issue and communicating with them, I for one believe that we can turn them around.
Bert, Thanks for the comment and for advancing the discussion. You raise an interesting point that merits discussion. I see political correctness as an essentially anti-humanist argument. I am using the terms humanism and anti-humanism as they are used in the ongoing discussion about humanism (Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality.) and anti-humanism (Anti-humanism is a term applied to a number of thinkers opposed to the project of philosophical anthropology. Central to anti-humanism are the notions that talk of human nature or of “man” or “humanity” in the abstract should be rejected as historically relative, or as metaphysical, as well as the rejection of the view of humans as autonomous subjects.) The issue that I was working on is in the question “does the virtual world advance the cause of anti-humanism against that of humanism”? I see political correctness as abstracting the individual to a category and then proscribing what can be said about that category – quintessential anti-humanism. Is that how you see it – or do you have a different take? Dr. Smith
Bert Shlensky wrote:
There is a counter argument and that is are we becoming so politically correct that hoensty , openness , challenging one another and professional debate are being muted . While we need to treat people with respect and dignity , we also need passion, enthusiasm and debate . We tend to argue one side or the other rather than a balance
Wes, thanks for your comment – very interesting stuff. The terminology (verbosity?) is heavily used in the ongoing discussion about humanism (Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality.) and anti-humanism (Anti-humanism is a term applied to a number of thinkers opposed to the project of philosophical anthropology. Central to anti-humanism are the notions that talk of human nature or of “man” or “humanity” in the abstract should be rejected as historically relative, or as metaphysical, as well as the rejection of the view of humans as autonomous subjects.) The issue that I was working on is in the question “does the virtual world advance the cause of anti-humanism against that of humanism”? I like your point about no failure – or maybe no virtual failure and the belief that non-virtual failure doesn’t count. Dr. Smith
Wes Zimmerman wrote:
I just read your article on “anti humanism”. I think you have used too many words to describe a real problem in the current world culture with the danger that few people will read and understand. That is a shame. Truth is most people are afraid to share their real selves because it makes them vulnerable. These people operate and live at a low level of self-confidence and self-esteem. As a result they never know satisfying relationships and experience divorce in marriage attempts and divorce in relationships with employers. I suspect the cause is the current cultural idea that no one should ever experience failure, i.e. everyone is a winner in some way. In reality we do not develop self-confidence and self-esteem until we have failed, tried again, and made the grade.
Wesley (Wes) W. Zimmerman