Meta tribes
Maybe it just has to be that inventing divisions and differentiation is hardwired, even if we have to invent structure by which to discriminate against each other.
It's easy enough to think that we devise lines along biological ties firstly and then proximity, secondarily. And over time our shared experiences and customs become a culture that marks our tribe. Those who are strangers to our ways and who don't look like us are then The Other.
But that doesn't stand up the online world where social networking itself is programmed to demolish tribal lines. I don't mean our communal understanding of social networking - I mean that Mark Zuckerberg, intentionally or not, is pushing us out of our comfort zone of in-/out- group delineations as every trip onto facebook is stepping out onto a modern agora of global scope and reach.
My thoughts here come out of some incredibly trite observations of quotidian behavior on Twitter and facebook. But it's the back and forth that has got me thinking, sometimes people are snarky and cutting just to rise above someone else when there wasn't any need for it. That is, there is some lingering desire to stick out of a crowd (or out from among the commenting class, in this case) even when it's not required for securing life's necessities. Tribalism can at least be explained, if not condoned, when there are limited resources. But it doesn't quite make sense to sneer at someone else for jumping on a meme-train unless you're trying to line up the jumpers-on opposite the none-for-me-thank-you's.
Lest it sound like I'm trying to avoid being "one of them" I'll try to anticipate and diffuse criticism: I'm a whatever. I like memes. I play along. I pass along clever macros on facebook and I make sarcastic remarks as they occur to me on Twitter, and vice versa as my interfaces allow.
If I ever stand apart it's to try to take in as many different perspectives as my mind can hold. I enjoy the panoply, truly. I like the noise and the mix even if it's revolting some times. And it's been at time revolting listening to some of the top subjects in my socio-intellectual sphere (because with the Internet, it's not that it's a small world, but that it's the smallest, darkest section of where your life's Venn diagrams overlap that you splash around in the most). It's been Whitney Houston, it's been Planned Parenthood/abortion, it's been birth control/the USCCB ...and clever picture memes designed to show what the world thinks you do vs what you think you do vs what you really do.
See and here's the thing. It's not the content of these subjects that's really under evaluation but what the side you pick says about you. Like Whitney Houston's music? It doesn't really matter. Dismiss her music and celebrity? Who cares. Mourn her passing? Regret her decline? Sneer at her life choices? That's not the point.
Feel disgust at the outpouring of grief for her but inaction for the famine in the Sudan? Imagine every death should be equally observed and mourned? Feel antipathy toward the folks who sneer or are dismissive? Wonder if the people who suddenly care more about starving children in Africa know where those starving children live and what exactly brought about their present situation? Wonder if those people castigating others for grieving for Whitney Houston truly think it's impossible to care about more than one thing at once?
Now we're getting somewhere. Because in my corner of the world - and the funny thing is this is probably only my corner because the way we see the world is what we see in the world ("lo que ves, ves; lo que crees, crees") - it's not about the substance of the issue but the chatter around it. More and more I'm seeing comments about reactions to something.
Sometimes it leads to sharp insight. Good. I like America magazine and Religious News Service taking a hard look at the theology that initially lead to the USCCB opposing birth control as part of health benefits for their employees. It led to theological support for the initial opposition and subsequently weak and dissipated support for their second round of "not good enough." May be because that's where I am policy-wise, maybe because I've long said the USCCB is drunk on its own (largely imagined) authority, but also I'm glad there are people in the room able to take a subject of protest out of its context and view it as a material object in the structure of self-same theology that gave rise to it.
See now... what I did in that previous paragraph was admire the writers of the cited magazine articles and put down the bishops. And the thing is, we all stand together. We're in the same tribe, arguably all Catholics. We disagree on some stuff, but it's inside, in the nitty gritty, we're not pulling away to say "you're position marks you as OTHER so you go over there (points)." I want to... I want to be able to say the bishops and I do not play in the same sandbox. They don't know me and I don't know them and the idea that anyone, let alone a group of older men who don't know me, might dictate what medical steps I may or may not take irritates the hell out of me. I'd follow that tangent, but it won't get me where I'm trying to go.
What I'm trying to say is, this is the stuff that schisms and tribal splits and discrimination and eventually prejudice is made of. Never mind the use or pain of love. Never mind the glory of a brilliant love sonnet or the brain-aching shit of a schlocky Hallmark card. Are you the sort who wishes everyone a happy Valentine's Day on your blog/twitter/facebook etc? Are you the sort who does exactly the same thing but with a sweet-dirty twist wishing everyone good VD? Do you snarl at the delusions of the particular mix of hormones and brain chemistry that drive the human mating instinct?
Do you pass on cute pictures with hearts on them? Do you text your single friends with love and affection? Do you complain about the bossiness of commercials demand you LOVE it up on 2/14? Do you feel subjected to evaluation on your worth as a person depending on your relationship status? Is your Valentine's Day marked by annoyance at the persistent chatter of love and gooey sentiment (even/especially if your are in a relationship)? Do you smirk at people who hate on capitalism on this day of love?
Are you one of those??
I wrote this on facebook earlier today. No one has said anything about it. *shrug* Much like LJ itself I figure it's due to tl;dr - with all the "true so true" and mass liking and subsequent sniffing and down-in-the-mouth'ing I thought someone would have said something. Eh, whatever.
I like those cute picture memes with the six images of "what X thinks I do." Some could be sharpened up but it's good to make it clear that others' perspectives are duly noted. And it's also good to have a sense of humor that isn't cutting down the views of others.
If I were cleverer I would come up with one about "having an opinion." Something like: my mother thinks "what a smartie!" my friends think "totally validates what I was thinking" further out acquaintances think "there she goes again" society thinks "opinions are like a__holes..." like-minded snarkophiles who want to impose normative measures without being bound them think "gee how original, copying a meme at metalevel, too good for MENSA are ya?" and I think "here's a passing whim good enough for facebook. For my next trick I think I'll make some tea."
I still can't really figure out what drives commentary of any sort online. (To me, "liking" is commentary for dummies. Or rather for people who can't expend an extra second or two to come up with something of their own to say. It saves me some time, I guess. But at the cost of actually nurturing or maintaining a connection. In other words it's fucking boring. Marginally useful, but margins are dumb. Write in them, I say.) These days I can foresee what commentary will come, *if* commentary is forthcoming. I can never tell if someone will like, RT, respond, etc. (The only tipoff is popularity. And, just like in school, I am routinely left to my own thoughts and devices in my quiet little niche. I don't want to be, but just like in school, I haven't the foggiest as to what to takes to get some attention and response.) Folks don't respond to considered thoughts. They don't make note of jokes (out loud), they don't ask me questions at formspring.... For S&G I'm leaving a comment on facebook right now, at 1225am on 2/16. It says "meow." Let's see how people respond.
But so anyway. Where was I? The need to feel better than everyone, or at least certain groups of people who are delineated by their actions and points of view... I don't know. It just seems to me that with the society I keep maintaining itself more and more online, the lines of us vs them is being redrawn. It's not as simple as political or religious stances either (for which I'm kind of glad - I'd be seriously disappointed if it were that easy). But it actually seems to be more and more the approach to and use of information, the interaction with and utilization of media, and - bearing in mind this is my view and I've been seeing this for years but the Internet has given it a shiny spin - the view of the self vis a vis the community (defined both in the instant the user conceives of his or her community and again in the long of run of his or her society).
It's easy enough to think that we devise lines along biological ties firstly and then proximity, secondarily. And over time our shared experiences and customs become a culture that marks our tribe. Those who are strangers to our ways and who don't look like us are then The Other.
But that doesn't stand up the online world where social networking itself is programmed to demolish tribal lines. I don't mean our communal understanding of social networking - I mean that Mark Zuckerberg, intentionally or not, is pushing us out of our comfort zone of in-/out- group delineations as every trip onto facebook is stepping out onto a modern agora of global scope and reach.
My thoughts here come out of some incredibly trite observations of quotidian behavior on Twitter and facebook. But it's the back and forth that has got me thinking, sometimes people are snarky and cutting just to rise above someone else when there wasn't any need for it. That is, there is some lingering desire to stick out of a crowd (or out from among the commenting class, in this case) even when it's not required for securing life's necessities. Tribalism can at least be explained, if not condoned, when there are limited resources. But it doesn't quite make sense to sneer at someone else for jumping on a meme-train unless you're trying to line up the jumpers-on opposite the none-for-me-thank-you's.
Lest it sound like I'm trying to avoid being "one of them" I'll try to anticipate and diffuse criticism: I'm a whatever. I like memes. I play along. I pass along clever macros on facebook and I make sarcastic remarks as they occur to me on Twitter, and vice versa as my interfaces allow.
If I ever stand apart it's to try to take in as many different perspectives as my mind can hold. I enjoy the panoply, truly. I like the noise and the mix even if it's revolting some times. And it's been at time revolting listening to some of the top subjects in my socio-intellectual sphere (because with the Internet, it's not that it's a small world, but that it's the smallest, darkest section of where your life's Venn diagrams overlap that you splash around in the most). It's been Whitney Houston, it's been Planned Parenthood/abortion, it's been birth control/the USCCB ...and clever picture memes designed to show what the world thinks you do vs what you think you do vs what you really do.
See and here's the thing. It's not the content of these subjects that's really under evaluation but what the side you pick says about you. Like Whitney Houston's music? It doesn't really matter. Dismiss her music and celebrity? Who cares. Mourn her passing? Regret her decline? Sneer at her life choices? That's not the point.
Feel disgust at the outpouring of grief for her but inaction for the famine in the Sudan? Imagine every death should be equally observed and mourned? Feel antipathy toward the folks who sneer or are dismissive? Wonder if the people who suddenly care more about starving children in Africa know where those starving children live and what exactly brought about their present situation? Wonder if those people castigating others for grieving for Whitney Houston truly think it's impossible to care about more than one thing at once?
Now we're getting somewhere. Because in my corner of the world - and the funny thing is this is probably only my corner because the way we see the world is what we see in the world ("lo que ves, ves; lo que crees, crees") - it's not about the substance of the issue but the chatter around it. More and more I'm seeing comments about reactions to something.
Sometimes it leads to sharp insight. Good. I like America magazine and Religious News Service taking a hard look at the theology that initially lead to the USCCB opposing birth control as part of health benefits for their employees. It led to theological support for the initial opposition and subsequently weak and dissipated support for their second round of "not good enough." May be because that's where I am policy-wise, maybe because I've long said the USCCB is drunk on its own (largely imagined) authority, but also I'm glad there are people in the room able to take a subject of protest out of its context and view it as a material object in the structure of self-same theology that gave rise to it.
See now... what I did in that previous paragraph was admire the writers of the cited magazine articles and put down the bishops. And the thing is, we all stand together. We're in the same tribe, arguably all Catholics. We disagree on some stuff, but it's inside, in the nitty gritty, we're not pulling away to say "you're position marks you as OTHER so you go over there (points)." I want to... I want to be able to say the bishops and I do not play in the same sandbox. They don't know me and I don't know them and the idea that anyone, let alone a group of older men who don't know me, might dictate what medical steps I may or may not take irritates the hell out of me. I'd follow that tangent, but it won't get me where I'm trying to go.
What I'm trying to say is, this is the stuff that schisms and tribal splits and discrimination and eventually prejudice is made of. Never mind the use or pain of love. Never mind the glory of a brilliant love sonnet or the brain-aching shit of a schlocky Hallmark card. Are you the sort who wishes everyone a happy Valentine's Day on your blog/twitter/facebook etc? Are you the sort who does exactly the same thing but with a sweet-dirty twist wishing everyone good VD? Do you snarl at the delusions of the particular mix of hormones and brain chemistry that drive the human mating instinct?
Do you pass on cute pictures with hearts on them? Do you text your single friends with love and affection? Do you complain about the bossiness of commercials demand you LOVE it up on 2/14? Do you feel subjected to evaluation on your worth as a person depending on your relationship status? Is your Valentine's Day marked by annoyance at the persistent chatter of love and gooey sentiment (even/especially if your are in a relationship)? Do you smirk at people who hate on capitalism on this day of love?
Are you one of those??
I wrote this on facebook earlier today. No one has said anything about it. *shrug* Much like LJ itself I figure it's due to tl;dr - with all the "true so true" and mass liking and subsequent sniffing and down-in-the-mouth'ing I thought someone would have said something. Eh, whatever.
I like those cute picture memes with the six images of "what X thinks I do." Some could be sharpened up but it's good to make it clear that others' perspectives are duly noted. And it's also good to have a sense of humor that isn't cutting down the views of others.
If I were cleverer I would come up with one about "having an opinion." Something like: my mother thinks "what a smartie!" my friends think "totally validates what I was thinking" further out acquaintances think "there she goes again" society thinks "opinions are like a__holes..." like-minded snarkophiles who want to impose normative measures without being bound them think "gee how original, copying a meme at metalevel, too good for MENSA are ya?" and I think "here's a passing whim good enough for facebook. For my next trick I think I'll make some tea."
I still can't really figure out what drives commentary of any sort online. (To me, "liking" is commentary for dummies. Or rather for people who can't expend an extra second or two to come up with something of their own to say. It saves me some time, I guess. But at the cost of actually nurturing or maintaining a connection. In other words it's fucking boring. Marginally useful, but margins are dumb. Write in them, I say.) These days I can foresee what commentary will come, *if* commentary is forthcoming. I can never tell if someone will like, RT, respond, etc. (The only tipoff is popularity. And, just like in school, I am routinely left to my own thoughts and devices in my quiet little niche. I don't want to be, but just like in school, I haven't the foggiest as to what to takes to get some attention and response.) Folks don't respond to considered thoughts. They don't make note of jokes (out loud), they don't ask me questions at formspring.... For S&G I'm leaving a comment on facebook right now, at 1225am on 2/16. It says "meow." Let's see how people respond.
But so anyway. Where was I? The need to feel better than everyone, or at least certain groups of people who are delineated by their actions and points of view... I don't know. It just seems to me that with the society I keep maintaining itself more and more online, the lines of us vs them is being redrawn. It's not as simple as political or religious stances either (for which I'm kind of glad - I'd be seriously disappointed if it were that easy). But it actually seems to be more and more the approach to and use of information, the interaction with and utilization of media, and - bearing in mind this is my view and I've been seeing this for years but the Internet has given it a shiny spin - the view of the self vis a vis the community (defined both in the instant the user conceives of his or her community and again in the long of run of his or her society).