Treasure Trove or Trash: The Internet and Its Ability to Enact Social Change

Treasure Trove or Trash: The Internet and Its Ability to Enact Social Change

Introduction

In his book “The Shallows”, Nicholas Carr presents readers with the notion that the traditional method of reading books, essays, and various other written works is superior to what is offered today on the internet. This is in stark contrast to the assumptions of Clay Shirky in his book “Cognitive Surplus” in which he states how the internet has provided people with a platform in which to collaborate, experiment and as a result create effective social change through various collaborative works. While there is no “right” answer for this particular divergence in views it can be assumed that such divergent assumptions might be the result of different points of view. Such a case is similar to the observation made by novelist Harvey Swales in 1951 during the rise in popularity of the paperback novel in which he stated that it could be the start of either an increase in the value of produced material or the inundation of trashy literature into an already polluted ocean of books and novels. As such, the answer to the divergent views of Carr and Shirky all boils down to the assumed value of what is produced.

The internet on any given day produces hundreds of thousands of pages of content, easily rivaling and surpassing the traditional publishing world in the amount of material produced however most of what is created is of poor literary quality, incomparable to what is written by professional writers and scholars. On the other hand, the collaborative aspect of the internet in which people can add their ideas, assumptions and create their content for public viewing has inevitably created a flood of user-created content that surpasses current media trends in television making online collaboration and writing the norm rather than a rarity. In this case, the statement made by Swales must be taken into consideration as to whether or not current web trends create an ever-increasing amount of literary treasure troves or are nothing more than a flood of trash with little perceived value that has no value towards social and cultural development.

Diverging Concepts on Value

For Carr, the internet is a medium based on the concept of interruption where multitasking and rapid-fire reading is the norm rather than curious oddities. Reading short articles, responding to emails, and chatting at the same time has become so ubiquitous with internet usage that most people barely give it a second thought. On the other hand, as Carr explains, this has resulted in people losing the ability to enter into a slow, contemplative method of thinking normally associated with reading novels in print. The crowding out effect can be seen where people find it harder to concentrate on lengthy articles, books, or essays and a growing preference has developed for short rapid-fire articles which can be browsed within a few minutes. For Carr, the perceived value of the internet is one of human deterioration where people lose the ability for solitary single-minded concentration in favor of rapid-fire multitasking. In essence, the argument of Carr represents the proliferation of thousands if not millions of websites solely devoted to brief articles that do not even reach the initial steps of literary heights reached by classical and modern-day literature found in various books, novels, and academic journals.

The one factor that Carr fails to address is the fact that though literature found in print may promote deep forms of contemplation though it lacks the accessibility and interactivity seen on the internet where any topic can be found at the click of a button and interacted with in the form of comments, reviews or personal interpretations available for public viewing. For Shirky, it is this ability to interact and create rather than remain a static passive observer that makes the internet a positive force towards the buildup of social and cultural development. In his book, “Cognitive Surplus” Shirky explains how as a whole our current society has developed a surplus in the amount of time allotted for daily activities which are wasted on watching television due to its static nature.

In a sense, the static nature of television is comparable to the contemplative nature of reading novels that create a form of single-minded concentration. While this may be a radical idea in a clear departure from the normal assumptions regarding television and reading the fact remains that both activities are static and do not actually contribute towards improving social development. It is only in direct application and contribution that an activity can be considered a contribution while an individual that remains static does little to improve society as a whole. It is from this that it can be assumed that social and