Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Devil Shat 1997 11 20
.ili. Devil Shat Fourteen .ili.
-----------------------------------
Are We A Culture? .................................. by Morbus
This is Devil Shat Fourteen released on 11/20/97. Devil Shat is
published by Disobey and is protected under all copyright laws. All of
the issues are archived at the Disobey website: http://www.disobey.com/
Submissions, email, and news should be sent to morbus@disobey.com. Your
comments are welcome. What do you want us to write about? Send an email
and let us know.
Protoplasm or pyroplasm? I have no clue.
-----------------------------
.ili. Are We A Culture? .ili.
----------------------------- by Morbus
Before I even attempt to answer that question, we both need to
understand who "we" are. "We" are not all the people who read this zine,
but probably most of them. "We" is not everyone who is on the Internet,
and it's probably not even a lot of them. "We", in my definition, are
those people who are on their computer for the better part of the day.
More accurately, "we" are those people who are online for most of that
time also.
"We" could consist of mothers who have to take care of their children as
their husband works a nine to five. But when the kids are in school,
what does she do? Go online to chat. "We" could consist of people who
have given "life" a try, and simply felt more comfortable with the
computer world. More comfortable with the world of letters where your
only mouth is predominantly your eyes. And "we" might consist of people
who go online and get porn all day. Hey, there is no prejudice here...
even perverts contribute to "we".
Now we have to define what "culture" is. According to my handy-dandy
dictionary, culture is (wow, there are a lot of definitions here... they
don't even know either): "the sum total of ways of living built up by a
group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another" or
perhaps "a particular form or stage of civilization" and also "the
behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or
age group".
If we go by those definitions then the Internet is a culture... a web
page allows us to put any little bit of knowledge we think we know so
everyone can see. This is the "sum total of ways of living" which is
easily "transmitted from one generation to another". How could it not
be? Our children are often more comfortable being on the computer than
spending time in the "real world". The internet is certainly a "stage of
civilization" although after a while it won't be. Soon, the internet
will be so normal and natural that we will expect it to be there one way
or another... just like electricity. And the internet is our "behaviors
and beliefs" and we are the "social" group that make up its heart.
But are we a good culture? And what effects do we have on the already
established culture?
"A new culture is being formed out of a desire for communication" writes
Garth Graham. Perhaps, but at what loss? Do we really need to
communicate with everyone and anyone instantaneously? I've stated this
before: at what cost is it to our real life? Do we escape into this new
reality because we don't communicate with our families or our friends or
our workers? Psychiatry in the future won't be about sitting on a couch
and telling your problems to a scribbling bald guy. It will involve
typing to Eliza and getting fortune cookie responses back. Or perhaps we
need to sit down husband and wife on two different computers and have
them get together in a chat room. Would that help? Probably. One of the
benefits of this desire to communicate is the medium: you don't need an
identity. Enter a chat room; be a guy or a girl; quiet, joking or
thoughtful. Who cares? When you're computer shuts down, it's all over.
The saddening negative of meeting your wife on IRC is the fact that
you'll still have to get into bed with her and you'll have nothing to
say. Your feelings, anger, and shopping list will all be hidden
inside... until you get into that chat room, and then you can CAPS and
bold all you want.
"The daily exposure to various cultures makes it impossible for an
individual to envision the world consisting of only his or her culture"
writes Margaret Mead. That is true, but what will it bring us? Confusion
and anger. Confusion because we aren't even secure with our culture in
the United States. Go to Texas to a hick town. The culture there is
different than the Bronx in New York, or the people in Concord, New
Hampshire. Why do we need to know what it is like in Podunk, Africa?
Sure, we can saturate ourselves with their wonderful nativeness and
their beautiful art, but again, we have all that in the United States -
we just haven't been searching hard enough. If the United States is such
a "melting pot" of culture, people, and ideals, where is our desire to
"get away from it all"? Why would it bring anger? The inability to
understand people's point of view. Sure, we may be able to get
"cultured" and communicate with people in Podunk, Australia, but we'll
still attempt to twist their standards and so forth to something that is
familiar with us. All of our hoping and longing to "get away from it
all" will merely be replaced by "dammit, everything is the same". We
need to realize that although the internet allows us to communicate with
everyone, it is mostly through the same medium... and that medium is
largely American.
"Mead writes that while in the past culture was transmitted from the
older generation to the younger, today the younger generation learns
from their peers and teach their elders," explains Michael Hauben... and
that pisses adults off, doesn't it? We even capitalize on that in the
commercials on television, with the father having his son book flight
plans for him: "it's so simple even an adult could do it". That's great,
junior, but I make the rules here, and I don't want to admit that my six
year old son taught me how to send email. I'm a grown-up, I'm smart, I
am your life. We are the teachers, that is how it's been, and that is
how it should always be. It's an immortal paradigm that needs to fall
before we truly have enlightenment. Everyone is a teacher because
everyone is an expert in something.
"The new media of Usenet news, electronic mail and the Internet
facilitate the growth of global interactive communities" continues
Hauben. This is common in many cultures. We have gangs in New York, and
cliques of jocks, goths, and preps everywhere. Within each group there
is a mini culture. There are enemies and there are allies. It is against
the "law" to be a friend with a prep if you're a jock... so Romeo and
Juliet-ish. Of course, our wonderful "internet various-global culture"
thingy wouldn't be a culture if we didn't have hate, or anger, or
rivalries. A lot of people have adverse reactions to individuals from
AOL or WebTV. Read a newsgroup every once in a while. In "underground"
(I use this term with regret) newsgroups, there are constant put-downs
if someone posts a question and their return address is from one of
those groups. And then the newsgroup is filled with this stupid-ass
flame war between groups for weeks. It's annoying as all hell, but isn't
this what come to expect? Take McDonalds for example: I worked there
when I was younger, and the morning crew always hated the closers
because they would never do everything that needed to be done. The night
crew hated the morning crew because they kept adding more things to be
done at night. It was wonderful stuff.
"The chance to contribute and interact with other people spread Usenet
to become a truly global community of people hooking their computers
together to communicate" says Graham. I suppose - although most
newsgroups are empty (ever been to alt.thought?). Well, all except for
the spam that is. Yes, as much as our wonderful community is so
connected, we still have those who manage to screw it up. Their
equivalent in the real world is the shiny junk mail we get in our
mailboxes. But we can't just throw spam away like we do junk mail. There
is something more personal about spam. Take a newsgroup, for example. If
you don't have good filtering software, you have to download all that
spam through your modem. They have just wasted your time. And with
email, you can't throw spam away... inadvertently you find yourself
opening it under the impression that it is a real post. Yet another
waste of time. I've grown used to spam although I still don't like it. I
have learned to deal with it like commercials on TV: you hate em, but
you patiently wait for the show to come back on.
"There's something to be said about the attraction of representing one's
self to the greater communication" says Hauben. Yes, and that is this:
it is awfully hard.
"The online culture is primarily a written one, although much of the
text is written generally in a non-formal almost off the cuff type of
nature" continues Hauben. And as such, it's hard to understand. VVh3/\/
p30p73 t47/< like that all the time, and slaughter words down to "i've
ben werkin 2 much... d00d." we lose communication. And we lose face.
Text is just that: text, words - merely ASCII characters that don't seem
to betray any face. But how you type your text and the readability of
the text is an indicator of maturity, and openness. No one wants to sit
and decipher what the hell you are saying. They want to read something,
see if you expressed their opinion and move on. Hauben goes on to talk
about how "body language and other non-verbal clues need to be spelled
out". This is true, but also annoying. I know people who use smiley
faces after every sentence. That kinda lessens the emotion. "Oh, look,
she's smiling again... isn't that cute?" Of course, the alternative to
smileys are those stupid little HTMLemotions. You know, the ones like
<grin> and <laugh>. People stick by a set range of emotions and are
almost never <smiling like the sun> or <ready to beat the crap out of
you>. Ah twell. Of course, like the idea of groups, a secret
"acronym-code" can be learned by members... the online equivalent of
gang signs. That way, you can tell your buddy to KHAAMO and be secure in
the fact that you're mysterious (cos people are sure gonna ask what you
mean).
"While not bound by formal, written agreements, people nevertheless are
required by convention to observe certain amenities because they serve
the greater common interest of the net" writes Bruce Jones. Required,
no. Requested, yes. People break the ideals set in FAQ files all the
time, probably because a) they didn't read them, b) they don't give a
damn, or c) because they're stupid. Have you ever joined a mailing list?
Ignoring the countless morons who think they can be unsubscribed by
sending multiple messages to the list itself, there is rarely an
unmoderated list that stays on topic. There are many different facets of
real culture and as such, there should be as many, if not more, in the
larger culture of the internet. For example "Cow Loving Group One" might
have radically different rules than "Cow Loving Group Three". It can all
be very confusing for someone who just wants to know about cowtipping.
Sure, "the elements of culture and community that bind the people of
Usenet together" feels all warm and snugly when you're on the inside,
but if you're an immigrant from Ellis, you might have trouble being
accepted much less heard.
"The voiceless and the oppressed in every part of the world have begun
to demand more power." finishes Mead. This is dangerous. Take voiceless
and oppressed. Crying to be heard and being suppressed forces people
into a corner of "fight or flee". And hey, this is where anonymity is
the standard, and because of that, most fight and demand for more power.
The "leaders" either relinquish or fight themselves. It will be only a
matter of time when modem potatoes of the world figure out how to stage
an revolt through electronic means. And unlike the hackers creed,
desperation and oppression throw out all niceties and damage is merely a
side-effect.
There is a book called "Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture" written by
John Frost. Is that what we are? Are we a "realistic simulation" of real
culture?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The website edition includes images, a nice design, and all of the email
we have received about this issue. Go there and um, er, have fun:
http://www.disobey.com/devilshat/
Copyright 1997-1999 Disobey. You may not steal, maim, hold for ransom,
kill, or rape any part of this issue.
http://www.disobey.com/
TO SUBSCRIBE: morbus@disobey.com SUBJECT: Subscribe Devil Shat
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: morbus@disobey.com SUBJECT: Unsubscribe Devil Shat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
