Global Network
Varnelis and Lovink offer two very different perspectives of the impact of the era of
global networks.
Varnelis (1) is largely positive about the impact of global networks, but recognises
some of the negatives as well. Its impact can lead to never being away from work due
to the smartphone access to messages and email anytime, anywhere. However, he sees
negatives such as these and the loss of opportunities for solitude as something to be
managed. The benefit of a network age, a “universal converged netwrork”, “where
connection is more important than division”, overrides the negatives.
Lovink sounds as disconsolate as his view is of the impact of global networks — his
voice mimicking the drone-like automaton some of his criticism implies.(2). The
society he sees emerging from the electronic network age is bleak, shallow and
distracted by the meaningless. A life where there is “no identity without activity”.
One of the key points of difference between the two views is in the value of solitude.
Lovink sees the traditional value of solitude where one explores the inner self,
reflecting on our internal motivations, values and ideals which in turn drive out
external actions. He sees the network age as replacing that with a new form of
solitude — alone with your screen. This leads to a life that is just a series of things
generated by clicks and likes. An existence without context, condemned to the
present, generating no dreams.
Varnelis recognises the loss of true solitude in the network age but doesn’t see it as
something that undermines its overall positive impact. He sees the possibility for
connection instead of division the driver for better societies. He recognises that while
“Alienation may be disappearing, so is solitude.”, suggesting that the young aren’t too
Get Selina Ng’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
fussed by it: “Still, laments for the solitary self are relatively rare and whereas a
demand for authentic existence was prevalent among the young in modernity and
postmodernity, such complaints are rarely heard from the young today.”.
Lovink, however, does see a way to maintain individuality in the network age — “stop
searching; start questioning”. (3)
I am more optimistic than pessimistic about the network age. The benefits as Varnelis
details, for connection and reducing alienation are seen in many ways in our daily
lives. My grandmother alone in her flat without seeing anyone for days on end has
now joined Facebook to connect with her grandchildren and this has led to more visits
as the grandchildren realise what they are missing from not talking with her. The
parents had been at them to see their grandmother more often for years to no avail.
The connection they made on their own terms in their own way has led to stronger
relationships and more human interaction for an older woman living alone.
The issue of having the space to explore one’s inner self and find the driving factor
for actions in the external world is a significant one in the network age especially for
children born into the age who know nothing else. This is something that needs to be
consciously addressed in parenting, schooling and reinforced in workplaces. There no
doubt is a health impact occurring from interrupted and chaotic sleep patterns
associated with always being connected to the internet. It is critical we address this
and find ways to stay healthy and connected.
References
1. http://varnelis.net/network_culture/introduction
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdr6dVKdDAQ
3.http://computationalculture.net/review/review_of_networks_without_a_cause
