Nicolas Carr, The Shallows

Citation: Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2011. Print.

Summary: 

This text reiterates much of what the previous texts have in our module on media, such as: the undeniable fact that great technological innovations (like the clock, the television, the internet, etc.) have the ability to greatly alter and eventually define our perceptions of reality; the idea that whatever form this technological innovation takes, it is more significant than the content relayed through this form, and that “a medium’s content matters less than the medium itself in influencing how we think and act” (3); and among other things, the debatable neutrality of technology…is the tool itself innately neutral when it was invented by someone for a specific purpose? Carr states, “In the end, we come to pretend that the technology itself doesn’t matter. It’s how we use it that matters” (3). This is something I myself am still debating. The text also discusses the fact that all tools are extensions of ourselves that help us fulfill some task more easily or efficiently, but that while this may be beneficial, “Every tool imposes limitations, even as it opens possibilities. The more we use it, the more we mold ourselves to its form and function” (209). This last element is what I found most compelling and unnerving about this text, which I will discuss in my response.

Along with Turkle’s  Alone Together, this text is more relevant to me than the other readings on media we have so far discussed, in the sense that it focuses more on the incredible, but subtle, influences of computers and the internet rather than the powers of  television. A previous text, I believe it was Turkle’s, mentioned the idea of technology as an ideology, and it made me wonder who or what the deity would be if this were the case. Although at one time it may have been the television, today it would undoubtedly be the computer, for now computers are all-encompassing of all the great technological innovations out there…radio, tv, news sources, etc.  This is why I appreciated that the text focused on the influences of the internet, specifically how the conveniences of the internet are numbing and dimming our abilities to think cognitively and the negative effects as a result of this. For instance, how filtered search engines and search databases “[serving] as amplifiers of popularity, quickly establishing and then reinforcing a consensus about what information is important and what isn’t,” (217), this being prime example of us changing our awareness and scholarship within the boundaries of these tools as mentioned above in the summary.

Response: 

So I began thinking, ok, so we have all this in front of us…form >content, technology defines our understanding of reality, it’s questionable if technology is inherently neutral, tools are extensions of ourselves that we create, but in result “we become extensions of our technologies” (209), etc. etc….

SO WHAT?! What does this all mean?? Are we, as humans, in control of the influences of technology at this point? Or is there no turning back now? Nearly all the texts on media we have read thus far seem to elusively suggest that we are not in control of technology, or more importantly, we are not in control of ourselves in the grips of technology. And although technology, especially the internet, is undeniably altering who we are as humans in extreme but subtle ways, I believe that one of the answers to “SO WHAT?!” is that we need to, above all else, retain our humanness.

So…how do we do this exactly?? Nicholas Carr appropriately addresses this important topic, and although it cannot be answered with hard and fast rules, and it is something we should be continually asking ourselves; it’s something I have been asking myself a lot in this past weeks. Carr states that after we consider the influences of technology listed above, more than anything else we need to possess a “sensitivity to what’s lost as well as what’s gained. We shouldn’t allow the glories of technology to blind our inner watchdog to the possibility that we’ve numbed an essential part of our self” (212).

This sensitivity, for me, is where an artist can assume responsibility. An awareness of what makes humans, human…bringing to life the things that are increasingly diminishing in exchange for the detachment and displacement we assume when we allocate human qualities, capabilities, and duties to machines. The responsibility, for me so far, can take shape when one celebrates the invisible powers and mystery found in human traits like empathy, nostalgia, wisdom, memory, fears, desires, dreams, love, imperfection…I am influenced by technology, and I am influenced by those around me who are influenced by technology. But I am not going to let technology take away from me these human characteristics that to me are more essential than the abilities of whatever technology there is to come.