The cyber takeover of today’s society is no secret. Millennials have paved the pathway to an entirely Internet-dependent lifestyle, splashing our life events on the screens of Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Tinder, and more. This consistent widespread posting leads to the inevitable obligation to not only update your social media profiles yourself but also consistently keep up with everyone else’s lives. This phenomenon now transcends age barriers; our preceding generations have caught on to the habit. Millennials’ parents and grandparents are members of Instagram and Facebook, using online news platforms, and participating in online groups ranging from work to dating purposes. I have also witnessed my fair share of preteens and children running around with their parents’ former smartphones – a phone way too complicated to meet the needs of any twelve-year-old I know. Nonetheless, whether we are willing to admit it or not, society would be destitute without the Internet. The irony here lies in the newfound function of this technology; our phones, tablets and computers no longer serve a communicative purpose. At least not through the most obvious purpose of directly contacting one another. The majority of my peers admit to rarely using their phones to make calls or send text messages and merely use the $800 piece of equipment to remain informed of everyone’s whereabouts last weekend. These platforms create an obsessive tendency to keep up with appearances; engagement photos, last night’s dinner, the Art Gallery of Ontario’s latest exhibition… the list goes on.
Some have proposed that the only solution to this social media overhaul is to take revolutionary measures and “resist the Internet.” If there is one way to prevent following generations from falling into this downward spiral of compulsive Internet dependence, it is to make radical change now. New York Times writer Ross Douthat put forward a proposal to change our ways in his piece entitled, aptly, “Resist the Internet.” Douthat argues that in order for change to occur, “…we need a social and political movement – digital temperance if you will – to take back some control.” By ‘temperance’ the author means merely curtailing our habits: strengthening laws against the use of technology in cars, limiting phone and computer use in schools, restaurants, museums, galleries and libraries, and instilling ‘corporate’ norms. Douthat then expands his suggestions further to propose we begin this temperance within the early stages of one’s life: a society with higher age limits on social media and technology and the elimination of the use of any technology in schools. Ross Douthat’s theory is one of the many in favour of resisting the Internet and possibly saving our nearly-cyborg society.
However, I am left asking myself: Is Douthat right? Is the solution to our current media-thirsty population ravenous for mundane daily posts an end to the use of the Internet entirely? Perhaps this solution would bring back a more engaged, interactive, extroverted society. While I see validity in the “Resist the Internet” argument, I cannot help but notice gaps in Douthat’s commentary that only a baby boomer would make. As a Millennial, I still understand the importance of the Internet, and I do not see this going away.
First, the writer ignores the necessity of the Internet for the lower class. He labels the Internet an “opiate for the lower classes,” implying that the platform primarily attracts those of lower socioeconomic status due to its accessibility. He further stresses this classist analysis by arguing that only the upper class would endorse this resistant, anti-Internet movement. Why doesn’t Douthat take note of his own prejudice here and acknowledge that yes, the Internet is a vital resource for the lower class. Instead of speaking directly to the upper class in order to initiate this movement, he should reflect on why the Internet is so important to everyone else, and why resisting the Internet may be more regressive than we think. Resources and opportunities that upper classes take advantage of such as mental health support, medical advice, and free education – to name a few – are easily accessible on the Internet for all classes with fewer restrictions. While upper-class advocates may agree that we should limit the use of cell phones and cameras in art galleries, the Internet provides a way for everyone to experience these exhibitions even if they don’t have the means or ability to get themselves into these galleries. The Internet is a way of transcending financial barriers – everyone can be perceived as equal online.
This brings me to my next issue with resisting the Internet. In contemporary society, we have progressed with technology, and while I can recognize the narcissism cultivated by staring at a phone screen for hours, it is in some ways essential. Particularly for those with disabilities and impairments, the Internet can act as an aid. The platform is readily available anytime, anywhere. Not only can it provide everyone with assistance to ease the struggles of everyday life such as Voice Over features for those with impaired vision, flash features for those with impaired hearing, or Assistive Touch for those with restricted physical abilities. The Internet is attempting to reduce the cleavages in society and improve the chances of equal opportunity.
A third weakness in the “Resist the Internet” argument stems from the new wave of online political engagement, otherwise known as “clicktivism.” While Douthat believes that the Internet is “an insanity-inducing influence on the politically-engaged,” I believe it is a platform that encourages everyone to engage politically. The cyber world has connected activists from around the world and allowed us to collectivize in ways that were never possible before. It has expanded the #Blacklivesmatter movement, brought the current women’s rights efforts together, and strengthened LGBTQ+ ties. These movements are designed to drain out hate, oppression, and fear. Without the Internet, perhaps the strength of this collectivization would be nowhere near where it is today. It provides a space for the youth to engage in issues we care about ranging from tuition to birth control. There are no limitations to the scope of issues the Internet tackles. An obvious example I can put forth is this very platform: Her Campus Western Ontario. Her Campus is a source where women can connect across provincial and national borders in order to provide support and information for one another. It has effectively proved the very significance of the Internet and how much young women like us benefit from it. It is the very antithesis to Douthat’s “Resist the Internet.”
This brings us to a paradoxical conclusion about the Internet phenomenon today. The very platform that contributes to our introverted, narcissistic society also expands our movements and educates us all. It reduces class disparities and provides support for those with fewer opportunities. It is easy to understand why Ross Douthat would suggest a movement of resistance, but we must acknowledge the Millennial-led political and social movement as effective in itself. Perhaps rather than resisting the digital world, we should take control of it and embrace the cyber movement.
Related articles:
Want more HCWO? Check us out on social media!