Connected Depersonalization

Globalization and technological advances create a paradoxically lonelier world.

Depersonalization is a theme that seems to be closely associated with the advent of new technologies allowing for vast social networks to be established, along with an increasingly globalized culture centered on information and the Internet.

The idea of this depersonalization once our social personas are transitioned into a collection of pictures and series of aphorisms about our personal lives (i.e. Twitter) appears to be the central argument of two books I recently read while on my flights to Singapore.

• In The Quagmire of Social Media Friendships, Curtis Silver elaborates on the idea that the advancement of social media has damaged or detracted from the traditional notions or bases for friendship.
• Meanwhile, the essay by Nathan Jurgenson entitled Pics and It Didn’t Happen argues for the idea that communication norms of the future may result in the loss of meaning attached to traditional method of recording history, especially photography.

I intend to argue the opposite point: the anxiety of these authors in pointing out the depersonalization that occurs because of online media is founded upon speculation, and the need to address the concerns of a globalized culture or a more prominent role of in sharing technologies may be unnecessary.

Further, the Internet is not the cause or origin of an increasingly depersonalized culture, and attempting to cast globalization as some threat to the foundations of friendship or language is ridiculous when we consider the history of developed nations.

Primarily, this review will be structured as an analysis of the points that both Silver and Jurgenson put forward, followed by a subsequent investigation questioning the validity of the arguments made by both of these authors. Note that the thesis and its support will take the opposition with respect to the arguments put forth by the above authors.

In Silver’s essay, the contention is made that social media will have a detrimental effect on the state of friendship. Specifically, in the short preface to the article, it is noted that: “Silver shares his thoughts about the ways social media have eroded more traditional notions of friendship” (Silver 444).

A few points must be defined in order to fully understand Silver’s argument: first, what constitutes a “traditional” notion of friendship must be clarified and then, a list of arguments regarding of how social media impacts that traditional notion must be analyzed. Regarding the traditional notions of friendship, Silver relies on emotional rhetoric to introduce the concept, sarcastically beginning his essay by shooting down the idea that every one of his online friends could be considered a friend in the fullest sense of the word:

“These people knew me well, and I them. These were the kinds of people to help a guy move on short notice or jump your car in the rain. Now, times have changed and considered all the social networks I’m attached to, I have thousands of friends” (444).

From this characterization, a brief outline of what Silver intends to argue is conceivable.

After this personal anecdote, Silver decides to bring in academic theory to support the informal observations he has made regarding friendship, in his reference to Dunbar’s number theory.

Dunbar’s understanding of genuine friendships appears to derive from the idea that an individual is in constant and meaningful physical social contact with a friend, and that humans can only accurately and meaningfully support 150 friends under these requirements. Silver elaborates:

“Dunbar’s number is a cognitive theory that states that we can only maintain 150 ‘friendships’ in social relationships” (444).

By invoking this academic argument, Dunbar hopes to draw the reader towards the conclusion that the number of actual friendships that one can obtain has its limits, and that this must imply that the Internet, with its documentation of thousands of friends, is an inaccurate measure of one’s social group.

Further along the argument, Silver provides statistics regarding the declining number of Americans with close relationships and specifies what he believes to constitute a “traditional” friendship:

“Friendship is ‘a distinctively personal relationship that is grounded in a concern on the part of each friend for the welfare of the other, for the other’s sake, and that involves some degree of intimacy” (446).

The rest of Silver’s arguments focus on the briefness and superficiality of current online interactions as a measure of how the quality of friendships and the notion of the traditional friendship are damaged or forgotten in the globalization process initiated by the Internet:

“Because of how casual social media ‘friendships’ are, and our general nature of interaction, actual physical encounters have been affected” (447).

Silver believes that the social norms regarding interaction have shifted towards impersonality as a result of the increasing utilization of social media platforms, and that those shifts in social norms are actively reshaping how we approach and think about physical encounters and interactions.

Moreover, in a similar vein, Jurgenson’s Pics and It Didn’t Happen gives a commentary about how the adoption of some social modes of communication due to the popularity of some social media platforms (i.e. Snapchat) may completely redefine how we communicate digitally in the future.

Jurgenson begins the discussion by mulling over the purpose of photography has changed drastically through history, with the purpose being characterized by temporary photography:

“The temporary photograph’s abbreviated lifespan changes how it is made and seen, and what it comes to mean…To understand the emergence of temporary photography, one must understand it in relation to the inflating archive of persistent images and their significance on how we perceive and remember the world” (473).

Here, Jurgenson pivots the discussion regarding the newly ephemeral nature of photographs towards the social and technological motivations responsible for such a shift in how photos are understood.

He introduces the concept of how photographing something creates an image of a moment and that while that image may have sentimental value and meaning, the very existence of the image in contrast to present reality diminishes the meaning captured by a picture: “It pulls individuals out of the moment and makes them see it (and themselves) as an object for the future as well as always already of the past” (Jurgenson 473).

Jurgenson’s major concern regarding this again pertains to an anxiety of the potential depersonalization that may follow the convenience of archiving that the Internet offers. He articulates the idea of a loss of meaning in the practices of temporary photography by introducing the concept of scarcity to photographs.

Photographic scarcity implies that the less photos available on one subject creates more significance and more meaning towards that photograph and that moment of reality captured, invoking the history and painstaking nature of traditional photography (i.e. the daguerreotype) to illustrate how photos where much more prized and meaningful in a time when they were not so convenient to create (Jurgenson 474). In recognition of this devaluing of photography, Jurgenson calls out for a return and caution regarding the practice of temporary photography:

“Photographs taken and shared as temporary will impart more meaning to those chosen to be permanent. In the age of digital abundance, photography desperately needs this introduction of intentional and assured mortality, so that some photos can become immortal again” (476).

Here, Jurgenson recognizes a danger to the significance of moments captured by photos due to their frequent availability as a result of the Internet. This offers a degree of support for the theme of depersonalization we have examined.

There are two arguments that I offer in opposition to the claims that depersonalization occurs through technological advancement and social network platforms that Silver and Jurgenson make.

First, and perhaps most troubling is the issue of causation, Silver never proves causation and Jurgenson’s definitions are too problematic to even begin considering causation. For instance, Silver defines traditional friendship as a personal connection between individuals where each mutually cares about the other.

However, it is not proven that traditional friendships have declined as a direct result of the prevalence of social media. Silver attempts to cite statistics that the number of close friends that individuals possess has declined in recent years, but there is no relationship proven between that decline and the presence of the Internet: these are mere speculations.

Meanwhile, Jurgenson imagines a return to a state where photographs are valued more preciously. Yet, this idea is problematic because past depictions of major events are valued not because of the photographic mode, but because they are major events that have relevance to history.

The photograph mode is in itself meaningless, even when considering its ability as a form of art, because the photograph fundamentally derives its meaning from the object it captures. The frivolity of temporary photography that Jurgenson observes is not because of some imaginary concept of “photographic scarcity” that has the capacity to undermine meaning, it is because the bulk of temporary photography captures fundamentally meaningless aspects of a photographer’s life.

In other words, the decline in the value of a photo reflects the vapidity of the individual, not a change in the act of photography. Photography does not inherently possess meaning beyond the subject it captures and the attention we give to the object of the photo.

Ultimately, consider that the Internet, even if it were responsible for depersonalization, does not actually represent the primary or major cause of this increasing trend of depersonalization and this loss of meaning to either traditional relationships or photography that Silver and Jurgenson intend to attribute to the social media platforms, respectively.

More than anything, the integration of capitalism into society following the industrial age in the 19th century for the United States led to a much greater transition from traditional values to modern values, as the specialization and interchangeability of workers was necessary to support an economic system of mass production and consumption.

Arguably, the formation of the entirety of the American infrastructure to support this system of capitalism produces a more profoundly felt depersonalization than any current change in culture that was initiated by the Internet and globalization ever could.

Further, the trend of globalization and increased connectivity through technological advents like the Internet may be more broadly considered as the continuation of this expansion and integration of capitalist systems into society, since the technologies allowing for increased connectivity are driven by economic incentives: the globalization of the world allows for a greater and more efficient exchanges of goods and services.

If Silver or Jurgenson truly wanted to address the effect of the Internet on culture, they would first need to address how capitalism requires specialization, division of labor, and promotes a cultural impersonality.