We continue our journey through epistemology, now moving onto Phenomenology, Existentialism, and how a human being makes something a thing. To answer this quandary of what makes a thing’s “thingness,” we’ll apply Heidegger’s proposition that revolved around his example that a jug is a thing (and then his subsequent exploration of what comprised the jug’s jugness) and apply that to the Internet. Specifically, we’ll answer what is the Internet when described philosophically? And how does the Internet change our perception of nearness or farness?
First let’s try to answer the question of what is the Internet—from a strictly philosophical viewpoint. As explained by some doctoral student colleagues of mine, Heidegger proposed that “jugness is a combination of its substance and its usage”(Simmons et al., 2007). Thus, what makes a thing a thing is both its physical existence and its function. One might be able to say, then, that the Internet is a thing or a tool just like Heidegger’s jug, and that it can be defined both by its physical substance and its use.
So picking up on Heidegger’s concept of “being,” can we define Internet-ness by the thing itself and/or the user(s)? The use or function portion of the Internet is what we all bring to it as people; so that portion is in you, me, and everyone. It is something which many of us deal with every day. The question of what makes up the Internet’s physical existence, however, is much more complicated. There's the hardware which is located far and wide. But then, some of these physical aspects of the Internet are actually shared with other technologies such as telecommunications (i.e., phone line and cable which is used to transmit the data). With so much of that infrastructure not being unique to just the Internet, there is a challenge with whether or not the physical Internet infrastructure is indeed the substance portion of "internetness." So the challenge remains as to whether or not those parts of the physical infrastructure can be claimed as part of the "thing" that defines internetness.
But let’s move on now to the question of how does technology and the Internet change our perception of nearness or farness—perhaps in some ways similar to how does the jug change our perception of fullness or emptiness. In the opening to Heidegger’s “The Thing,” he states that “all distances in time and space are shrinking” (1971, p.165). He then goes on to explain how the prevalence of travel, radio, film, and television are furthering this shrinking. Considering the time when Heidegger wrote this piece, it is easy to reflect on even how much smaller the world has become now given the advent of the Internet and the ever-present mass media. We have access to more information now than any generation before us, yet can it be said that we are any more knowledgeable?
Then reflecting on the concepts of nearness and farness, one often hears of the globalization of society and how the world has shrunk. In fact out of curiosity, I ran a search on Amazon for the term “world has shrunk” and found over 200 book references! Indeed we can physically get from one point on the globe to another very quickly. We can also access through the Internet information from anywhere around the world, or even view other locations any time night or day. In fact, from < http://www.earthcam.com/mapsearch/> one can select any country in the world from which to locate and view available web cams.
Yet while we may have quicker physical access and greater informational access than ever before, Heidegger insightfully foretold that “the frantic abolition of all distance brings no nearness” and that “short distance is not in itself nearness, nor is great distance remoteness” (1971, p.165). If we reflect on these concepts of nearness and remoteness and try to glean their meanings, we find synonyms of isolation, seclusion, detachment, and inaccessibility. And consider these questions. While we have access, does the rest of the globe? Or are there whole sectors that are indeed isolated, secluded, detached, and inaccessible because they do not benefit from the same access to technology and the Internet that many of us do? And if whole sectors of the globe are not near to us, how can we be near to them? And even for those to whom we have the ability to be near, has this access really made us understand them better? Are we really any closer to other peoples and cultures today than we were when Heidegger wrote those words over 35 years ago?
It’s important to note that with these questions, I do not focus on just the domestic “digital divide” that one hears of in the media. Instead, I think it’s important to take a more global perspective on the question of technology and the Internet’s impact on our perception of nearness or farness. One of my concerns is that the Internet has given us a false sense of nearness, when indeed we are just as far as ever. For example, there are many challenges with technology when taken to a global scale—and these are challenges that are not always resolvable and have led to “pockets” within the overall Internet community. Besides the obvious language barriers, Laudon & Laudon report that many countries “lack the communications infrastructure for extensive Internet use, … [have] high transmission costs and lack of common technology, … [and have] low penetration of PCs and widespread illiteracy” (2006, pp. 584-585). In addition, there are different computing platforms and system standards, phone and other communication networks are not consistently reliable, and most countries outside the US have much slower data transfer speeds. When looking at the percentage of Internet users by country, Germany is the only one to come close to the US, with all other countries lagging far behind (Laudon & Laudon, 2006, p. 585). And even more disturbing is the fact that many countries monitor transmissions.
With these barriers in place, what we have on the Internet may actually be a perspective skewed toward the Western philosophies and policies of the countries that have the access. Thus the impression of it being a global Internet society may actually be false. Unfortunately, while technology and the Internet may have given us the appearance of greater accessibility and nearness around the globe, it may have actually done the opposite. On the contrary, it may have furthered the global divide between those who have (the technology) and those who don’t. And without education in how to be wise consumers of information, it may have furthered cultural misperceptions that force even greater distance between peoples and cultures.
-Robin
References:
Heidegger, M. (1971). The Thing. Public Domain, pp. 165-182. Retrieved from the Xanedu Course Pack for AMDS 8800. NAPC 2007.
Laudon, K., & Laudon, J. (2006). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Simmons, T., Stevens, S., Toland, M., Ware, Y., Working, K., Young, J., & Zidonis, S. (2007). Heidegger's ontology: Phenomenology and existentialism. Unpublished manuscript. Walden University.
Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.
