What is Retarded?
This blog began with the title “When worlds collide” and was going to be simply a comment on the recently surfaced claim that Facebook, and other social networking sites could be causing autism… It is very rare that I see two of my “themes” so closely and overtly connected to one another. But, as I got into the meat and potatoes of it, I noticed I was throwing the word “Retarded” around quite a bit… a word that causes a very negative reaction among the most politically correct of us… and implies a derogatory meaning. I do use the word Retarded in a derogatory way… but never directed at individuals with cognitive processing problems… I use the word Retarded to describe the slowness of society, policy, in relation to the evolutionary processes our species have been undergoing for the past 100 years… It isn’t people who are Retarded… it’s society and the institution that is retarded… With all those caveats put in place… this is what I have to say.
An Oxford educated expert has very boldly gone on record by making an intellectual connection between social networking and the wave of mental health issues plaguing society, and particularly autism. “Perhaps given the brain is so impressionable, that screen life is mandating that more infantilized lifestyle. Now this is based on a little bit of neuroscience, observations, a bit of clinical evidence, there is no one single or conclusive killer fact,” said Professor Susan Greenfield in a House of Lords debate.
Perhaps indeed Professor Greenfield.
In essence she claims that all the fast, bright and shiny objects we play with online are making us a bit retarded…
Now on the heels of this story, a research study was released which indicated that the brains of kids with ADHD were perhaps developing slower than the “normal” brain… The period of childhood is, essentially, getting longer for the distracted mind. More retarded people?!
Interesting indeed.
So we have two bits here, one suggesting neurological linkages between mental illness and a pervasive cultural phenomena, and one which may be suggesting a link between mental illness and the social phenomenon of “arrested adulthood”: the state of prolonged childhood.
While I like the notion that the Internet, and our use of it, is rewiring our brains… I don’t like the assumption that this is, in itself, is a “developmental problem” for the individual. I think it is our society with the developmental problem. Further, I like the notion of a neurological indicator for our defining of development… I don’t like the assumption that this is somehow detrimental for the individual living in the world today.
From my understanding, developmental norms are set by the large-scale patterns of behavioural and cognitive milestones observed within the majority. When individuals take longer to hit those milestones they are labeled either “special” or “retarded” (depending on who you are talking to).
But what if… and entertain me a bit here… what if it was the characterization of developmental milestones that was a little bit retarded… That is, what if it wasn’t that these individuals weren’t slow in their development at all… what if the developmental milestones which have been guiding us along for the past century or so are no longer relevant for the individual existing the post-industrial world.
If, as a society, a species, and through our culture, our brains are rewiring as a means of adaptation to our environment… an environment that we, ourselves, manufacture on all levels on a day to day basis… And if the outcome of that rewiring are characteristics like those exhibited in ADHD and autism… then isn’t that just evolution? Is there really anything we can do about it?
The notion of “slow” or “lagging” development is a tricky one for me to reconcile when considering an ADHD and an autistic mind. It seems to me that these brains are fast… really fast… so while it might take longer to hit those developmental milestones… the in the moment processing is hyper.
Like most ideas which have guided our civilization over the last century, the notion that human development occurs along a linear trajectory is perhaps doing us more harm than good. Further, the population of those disenfranchised from “normal” is perhaps getting so big, that we have to seriously reconsider everything that we think we know about human development, psychology and cognition.
For example:
Living in the moment without being able to set long-term goals and commitments is one of those developmental characteristics which is considered to be immature and infantile… when you can move beyond your childish ways and become a responsible adult you’ve hit one of the developmental marks of adulcy. If you can never make that leap to adulcy, and find yourself swimming in the sea of immediacy… you are developmentally retarded.
Until about the 1960’s… looking beyond the moment, setting long-term goals, and making commitments to your family, your community and your country was perhaps an easier thing to do. Plus, from a survivalist kind of approach, it would have been far more beneficial for individuals who had those characteristics bred in their bones (or brains) because the institutions in our society were focusing around those characteristics…
In the 1950’s it was “normal” for an individual to be schooled for 12 or 13 years (or if they went to university 16 to 20 years), and when they were finished, they entered the workforce to (most likely) settle into their career where they would pay into their pensions and follow through to a happy and healthy retirement. Even if school was out of the picture, most people who had that bred-in Protestant work ethic could find a job where they could follow the same ‘normal’ trajectory. Once people got settled into the workforce, they would find a pretty gal or a handsome lad to marry… then have kids and hope that they would follow the same trajectory and become more normal humans.
However those were more simplistic times, and the problems which individuals faced on a day-to-day basis were not nearly as complex as the mess we got going on now. Their brains were perhaps developing “normally” over the long term, but with far less variation in the short term. The problems that these simplistic, but normal, brains had to process on a day-to-day basis made it easy to find that trajectory of ‘normal’… because they were tied to routine and habituation. It was like these brains were on auto-pilot. Their brains were wired for their times… this doesn’t seem like such a crazy notion now, does it?
Today, as we find ourselves seeking reprieve from these volatile social, economic and culture storms, aren’t we better off if we do live in the moment? Is setting long-term goals (especially around a career) really a viable option? Isn’t it beneficial to our survival to be ready, at any given moment, to be able to adapt to any given thing?
Perhaps those whose brains are wired for living in the moment are better off than those whose brains are wired for long-term and stable environments.
This is all just theory of course… I’m talking out of my ass here… but really, is it such a crazy idea?
We have always labelled mental illness and developmental disorders like autism and ADHD as such because they prevent us from “normally” participating in a “normal” society… but perhaps in this tendency, we are dangerously connecting the inability to conform to stale old traditional modern paradigms with mental illness.
Imagine what a different world we would live in if we finally admitted and came to terms with the fact that Western society isn’t “normal”… it isn’t “natural” and it is in fact making us all crazy.
The next time someone uses the word Retarded to describe an individual with extreme in the moment processing capability, but who lacks the ability to conform to the myths of normal development and social etiquette… tell them that they are the retarded ones, for they are the ones who are developing for ages past… not for the future that we are hurtling towards…
Facebook Nation?
I can’t believe it… The Facebook, evolving according to the will of the People? But it appears to be true. Today I joined the Facebook Town Hall to participate in the dialogue they opened today regarding what appears to be a constitution for Facebook.
I took part, and wanted to pluck my comments out of the already pages and pages of comments that are pouring in on this and share them here…
1. Freedom to Share and Connect – People should have the freedom to share whatever information they want, in any medium and any format, and have the right to connect online with anyone – any person, organization or service – as long as they both consent to the connection.
Nice beginning… but this does not address the issue of Facebook censorship and arbitration over what is considered “offensive” It seems to me that there are many caveats missing… wasn’t there just a recent hubbub over Breast-feeding photos? Also, there needs to be one thing added… the understanding of the user that in consenting to Facebook service, they are consenting to have thier information shared to third parties at Facebook’s discretion.
2. Ownership and Control of Information – People should own their information. They should have the freedom to share it with anyone they want and take it with them anywhere they want, including removing it from the Facebook Service. People should have the freedom to decide with whom they will share their information, and to set privacy controls to protect those choices. Those controls, however, are not capable of limiting how those who have received information may use it, particularly outside the Facebook Service.
I think it is really important to educate people about privacy controls and I appreciate this being addressed here. In addition to this, the People should also be allowed to control the amount and substance of their own information that The Facebook shares with third-parties for use outside the Facebook service. The Facebook service should allow People who make their living through visual art and words and music, to decide what royalty free rights they grant to The Facebook service to reproduce and use their work.
3. Free Flow of Information - People should have the freedom to access all of the information made available to them by others. People should also have practical tools that make it easy, quick, and efficient to share and access this information.
Yes, but please define what those “practical tools” are.
4. Fundamental Equality Every Person – whether individual, advertiser, developer, organization, or other entity – should have representation and access to distribution and information within the Facebook Service, regardless of the Person’s primary activity. There should be a single set of principles, rights, and responsibilities that should apply to all People using the Facebook Service.
Whoa! This is an interesting one! Does that mean that the People have the same kind of access that the advertiser has? What about those who want to advertise on Facebook… is Facebook advertising free or something?
5. Social Value People should have the freedom to build trust and reputation through their identity and connections, and should not have their presence on the Facebook Service removed for reasons other than those described in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
Interesting… I don’t really have a comment for this one
6. Open Platforms and Standards - People should have programmatic interfaces for sharing and accessing the information available to them. The specifications for these interfaces should be published and made available and accessible to everyone.
Does this mean that The Facebook is open source?
7. Fundamental Service – People should be able to use Facebook for free to establish a presence, connect with others, and share information with them. Every Person should be able to use the Facebook Service regardless of his or her level of participation or contribution.
“Establish a presence” is an interesting turn of phrase… And what is with the capitalization of People and Person?
8. Common Welfare – The rights and responsibilities of Facebook and the People that use it should be described in a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which should not be inconsistent with these Principles.
Wait a minute… isn’t Facebook a private corporation? Does the Common Welfare trump the investors stakes?
9. Transparent Process – Facebook should publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations. Facebook should have a town hall process of notice and comment and a system of voting to encourage input and discourse on amendments to these Principles or to the Rights and Responsibilities.
Great! I want a copy of the list of third-parties that The Facebook shares my information with, the public and private third parties… please.
10. One World - The Facebook Service should transcend geographic and national boundaries and be available to everyone in the world.
Nice touch!
There is nothing in here about 2-way data sharing though. That is, where the People are allowed to gain access to all of the data that The Facebook compiles and shares. This is valuable information… and what makes Facebook so valuable to its shareholders… that the People can use and put towards the Common Welfare to generate Social Value…
I commend Facebook on trying to bring the democratizing principles of Web 2.0 into a set of morals, or values if you prefer, for this vibrant and active community of People… it is quite progressive and a worthy pursuit… but I just don’t understand how they are going to do it.
The Facebook is a corporation after all… whose soul purpose is to exploit the “prosumer.” What Facebook has laid out here in its Constitution is fine for the Facebook as a community, but it still doesn’t address the role of Facebook the corporation, or government… which, in this case translates into a pseudo-democratic dictatorship…
The only way to truly make The Facebook into the Facebotopia they propose through these principles, without also being a hypocritical in their own business practices, is by allowing the People to buy it out… something that is unlikely to happen, as it would mean that users would have to start paying for their service… I wonder how many people would still use Facebook if they had to pay for it… Perhaps they could do something like Radiohead did with their pay-what-you-can album… highly doubtful though, and probably suicide.
But one thing that is for certain, Facebook is attempting to test adaptive structuration theory in its operations… and the People have “faithfully” adapted the structure that has been placed in their laps. But to what extent will The Facebook will allow the People to do so?
Another round of policy revisions for The Facebook
I’ve been thinking about Facebook’s privacy policy for a while now… trying to encourage users to maximize their privacy settings, and informing them of their rights when they upload content to the site… In fact, I was writing so much about Facebook back in 2007 that I thought I had said all there was to say about it. Then, this morning, when I woke up and logged on to check in with all my pals, I noticed one friend’s update said something about Facebook violating our “rights” to privacy.
After a discussion with my husband about the semantic implications and inappropriate nature of using the words “privacy rights” and “Facebook” in the same sentance, a quick google revealed the probable source of the status update. Apparently, Facebook wants to own your Facebook Data Double even if you decide to commit Facebook suicide. So even after you disable your profile… even if you go that extra step and send Facebook an email requesting to have your profile deleted… Facebook will not remove the little bits of yourself that you leave behind on people’s walls, in people’s inboxes, or in the massive consumer databases Facebook investors have come to rely on for those great big bonuses and market research. But, they promise not to fuck with your privacy settings… so I guess that’s something…
The policy shift is causing such a ruckus, Facebook is on the defensive. But ultimately, they probably aren’t that worried about losing users because come on, let’s face it, Zuckerberg has achieved his goal of making Facebook the Windows for Web 2.0… we are hooked now, whether we like it or not.
The way Facebook is implementing this new poilicy is unfair. Users who signed up under the original user agreement and are now being informed that it is being replaced with a new user agreement that they don’t get a chance to accept or decline. One which sees you give up the rights to the “soul” of your Facebook Data Double. It seems to me that The Facebook can easily quiet the protesters by simply giving them the option to continue on as Facebook users, or not. Because I am fairly certain most users would simply do what they did the first time they signed up… click “I accept” without even reading the damn fineprint.
Frig, even those who are well-versed in The Facebook’s policies will click “I accept” without blinking an eye, because ultimately, Facebook is such an important part of our lives.
For everyone who is so up in arms about this new policy shift, I ask, what’s the big deal? So Facebook chooses to clog up it’s servers with outdated information that you didn’t care about posting in the first place. Sure Facebook will still have a record that you posted “25 things” about yourself on January 30, 2009… but who cares?
If you are worried, like I once was, about Facebook selling your information to market research firms so that they can devise updated tactics of psychological warfare in their advertising schemes… this little shift shouldn’t bother you that much… because it’s all so fluid these days… data from last week is so last year. If the Facebook data mining practices while you are a user don’t disturb you, then why should you get anxious about how they use your practically useless data after you are gone?
In the end, and in my interpretation, this is not a new privacy issue… As a user of Facebook, you should expect no more privacy in the conversations you have with your friends on their walls and in the other public spaces of Facebook than you would having the same conversations with those friends in a pub, or on the bus… Besides… there are far greater Internet Privacy Concerns on the horizon for Canadians…
Data Double Liberation?
So I’ve been thinking a lot about Facebook lately (surprise, surprise), and it seems to me that there is an awful lot of faith being put into the effectiveness of the market research and targeted advertising occurring there… faith that is perhaps unfounded, but there nonetheless. I’m fairly sure that things such as cost-benefits analyses have been done by Facebook’s mega-clients and investors. And given the amount of financial investment in Facebook from data-mining firms, it is a fairly good assumption that data has told them that this is a very important database to have access to and interact with (and for those of you who are still unaware of the investment of which I speak… here’s a A Brief History of The Facebook that I threw together back in December from all kinds of online sources which have also, in part, done the same)
It appears that Facebook has the SNS data double market cornered. And even though Facebook does not win the quantitative prize for most users (only topping 60 million “active” users worldwide, compared to the 110 million “monthly” users on MySpace in January 2008); it may win the prize for most qualitative impact on its users (and you can check out my Bridging and Bonding paper for a more in-depth analysis on that). All that to say that Facebook is an important social factor in the real life versions of the 60 million active data doubles it is home to.
Okay, so I’m throwing this term “data double” around very loosely. There is a body of sociological work on the data double, though it’s mostly associated with complex concepts like “surveillant assemblages.” The ideas at the base of the concepts, though, are in fact sort of simple, and as you become more open to them, they actually becomes common sense as they are revealed to you in your immediate experiences on a daily basis.
I will try to keep an explanation of the data double simple, but not so simple to offend the more academic of my readers. In the realm of identity and Facebook, the data double emerges as the quantified self; the physical and conceptual self is translated into pure information… bits and bytes of code expressed as profile pictures, demographic info, your likes and dislikes, your cultural preferences, the people you associate with, etc., etc…
The data double is the self assigned alpha-numerical values and assigned more market value as a social object that is a bundle of information rather than a living-breathing-thinking-feeling human being. A grouping of data doubles is a lot easier to monitor and organize than a grouping of flesh and bones creatures for those who make it their business to maintain societal stability by subduing the dangerous animal drives of the masses and guiding public opinion. When those in these positions power and influence no longer have to intervene to collect the data (which immediately taints it), and the individual does all the translation (or coding of the data double) for them, it creates an almost omnipotent ruling class.
When the database is a nice little community for the data double to work and play and communicate in, interaction with the database becomes almost habitual… and the database is MASSIVE… the database is Facebook. Facebook, the tidy little community to organize and analyze and monitor the data doubles as they interact with one another. The ironic thing about it is that most of the habitual, almost addictive, properties of interaction with a Virtual Community, probably stems from an inherent discontent for, and desire to escape from the material world that has been constructed around us … the one of unfulfilled needs and desires… the one where there is a declining sense of physical community and connectedness… the one that begets the inclination of the individual feeling more valuable as a commodified social object, rather than a true independently-thinking self.
I’ve just finished watching a 2002 BBC Miniseries called The Century of the Self, so perhaps my thinking is slightly tweaked towards grandiose theories of the mass manipulation and subduing of the individual (another irony: the main way the individual is subdued, is by convincing them that they are liberated individuals). The 4 part documentary was a chronicle of Public Relations, Advertising, Propaganda, and Social Science (Psycho-Analysis and Sociology) just generally gone wrong, in the US and Britain over the course of the 19th century (if you are interested in watching, you can find all four parts on Google Videos, or Stage 6, or good ole YouTube).
As I watched this interpretation of our recent history all the way up to our current kind of cultural status (that of the individual free-market consumer) I began to wonder how history would record this era of widespread manipulation and social control. The use of the data double, as it has manifested through social technology, towards the purposes of Bernaysian manipulation, actually seems like the next logical twist in the story, given what we know about the characters and the setting. The kinds of databases that Facebook administers are the kinds that admen and the hidden persuaders have wet dreams about… the quantified self is one that can be opened up and picked apart and measured and poked and prodded and experimented with. Eddie Bernays would indeed be proud.
The current PR trends towards brand “identity”, appealing to the uniqueness of the individual, and immediate delivery of needs gratification, essentially becomes a strategy towards the co-option and commodification of the “indie” the “folk” and the “user-created” culture, through methods of psychological, sociological, economic and cultural manipulation. Though, the average consumer likes the fact that corporations can meet their individual needs and desires by providing a glut of product choice while satisfying their impetuous desire for instant gratification… and if it’s what the customer wants, should it not be what the customer gets?
But I digress…
So for me, personally, the running dialogue in my head about participating in Facebook goes something like… Do I really want to be one of the variables in their equations? Because I know that the vast amount of understanding that could be derived from the compilation of such a massive database of user demographics, consumer choices and social connectivity is potentially omnipotent, I am apprehensive. Because I believe that in consenting to participation in a place like Facebook I am actually facilitating the privatization of such understanding, I am in fact placing it in the hands of those who would use it to try to manipulate the choices I make as a consumer and as an individual.
And yet… I do love it so…
A little while ago, I disabled my first Facebook profile, mostly for privacy reasons. But I came back, because ultimately I decided that the potential networking capability of it was more beneficial than the cost of me allowing Facebook to pimp out my data double and take 100% of the profits for the services rendered. But, of that assessment, I’m still uncertain. Now I am presented with the possibility of killing off my Facebook data double as a form of protest, and I am thinking about it again.
I think that it would be the sweetest bit of irony if some form of mass exodus of Facebook could be orchestrated… on and by means of Facebook. And now that they’ve revealed the secret of how to delete your Facebook profile, it opens the door for an interesting kind of culture jam. But how many people would actually be willing to leave? Would they leave for good? Am I willing to leave? Would I actually leave for good this time? History would tell me no… but my conviction that it’s just all wrong may get the better of me… In any case, it is something that I’m going to continue to think about until August 4, 2008.
Of course, as my colleague Ted pointed out this morning as we talked a bit about this, pure liberation of data double would come at the expense of your real-world identity… and it is perhaps, not actually possible. Without your data double… your social insurance number, your bank accounts, your frequent flyer miles, your medical records, your employee or student IDs and your credit rating… you, as an individual in this society, don’t exist… which seems absolutely absurd to me. But this is the bizzaro world, and these are strange days indeed.
Ultimately, I am cynical enough now to believe that there is nothing that can be done to derail us from the current trajectory of our future history… one that resembles a unique balance of 1984 and Brave New World… that is, the en masse willfully consented upon, narcissistic surveillance society. However, I am also still idealistic enough to believe that that belief is still not a fact. Perhaps it is just my reactionary tendencies and my own personal investment in the technology which causes me to believe that information contained the Facebook database will have important (and shaping) implications for the next wave of advertising trends and manipulated consumption patterns. But given what I think I know, I suspect I know, and what my gut tells me about the way this machine has been oiled for the last few 1000’s of years… I think that it is a logical and rational conclusion for now…
