![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wordwhackerSo I've been thinking for the past few days that I would make an update here. Just a short one, talking about what I've been doing, how I've been investing my time into various electronic media. But I keep getting stalled by one thing: nothing has changed. The generic "how my (digial) day goes" post is frightningly accurate - even moreso than I figured it would be. It's been a little strange to realize that I really DON'T vary all that much in my media habits. I spend a similar amount of time watching TV and surfing the net every day.
And I have to wonder: does this have something to do with my guilt about "wasting my time"? I think I'll start calling it "digital guilt." I don't feel guilty about the time I spend, say, reading a book before bed. But surfing the net and television are definitely sources of guilt in my daily life. I feel bad for doing it, and I typically feel that I should be investing myself differently.
The question is, how right am I?
(Here's a digression for you: I just started up my mp3 playlist on Winamp, and the Elton John song "Madman Across the Water" came up on shuffle. A few years ago I was into an online forum/RPG-ish community called "Gaia Online". At that time I'd just downloaded this song. The thing is, I like to have a bit of background music on, but I tend to tune things out when I get "into" something, so at one point I spent several hours cruising the Gaia forums with just this song on repeat and didn't really notice. Only every time my thoughts resurfaced, this song was playing. Consequently, the song now evokes a very special kind of nostalgia; I very viscerally remember what my old room felt like, what the forums looked like, etc. Though in my reckoning, they actually feel like/look like this song. If you know what I mean. I guess what I'm trying to say is: meaning goes in more than one direction.)
Last week's reading would suggest that I'm far from alone, though my habits don't map 100% to those of this American University Professor's students. Here's a big difference that I should note: I am NOT a big cell-phone user, and I am particularly not a texter. I HAVE texted from time to time, and I do talk on the phone a couple of times a week - both almost exclusively to arrange to meet with people IRL. My internet life and my phone life have very little crossover. I will generally prefer to use email to arrange details in advance, and then follow up on the cell phone if last minute arrangements need to be made or if things need to be quickly clarified. I guess I see cell phones as an intermediary device rather than a primary means of communication.
But what about my time spent in front of screens, be they computer, tv, video game? I can relate to the anxiety that these students expressed when they were unable to check email for an extended period of time. I am a VERY frequent email checker. I should actually make note of how many times I do it in the average school day, but if I were to hazard a guess I would put it at no less than 10 times. (Will keep tabs on this for a couple of days and see what the real numbers are.) Do I really NEED to check it that often? No, not even in the busiest time of year. I could get away with checking it twice, once in the morning and once in the evening.
So why am I drawn to do it so many times? And all of the other things that I "check" online (facebook and my livejournal friends page are cheif among them.) There is something gratifying about getting an email, or having someone comment on your blog. The kind of thing that doesn't happen when you pick up a book. The book isn't someone speaking, or responding, specifically to you - it's directed at a generalized audience. Online interaction is human interaction.
But of course, 90% of the time that I "check" things, there's nothing new (or at least, nothing that couldn't have waited another several hours before I discovered it.) I want so badly for there to BE new things. So I refresh inboxes, I scan for new comments. I spend a lot of time doing nothing, waiting for something to happen. I didn't think that I liked gambling (and I sure don't buy lottery tickets for that reason), but looking at it this way, this seems like a similar phenomenon.
Okay, so some of my guilt seems to be justified - at least to some degree. I think I would be much better off if I was less hung up on "checking" things, waiting for someone to interact with me. But let's say I was sitting on a park bench with a "Talk to me!" sign, waiting for people to say hello. The context definitely changes the tone. Though I'd be similarly wasting my time, I wouldn't be surprised if simply wanting to talk to "real" (in person) people would make the endeavour seem more... I dunno. Altruistic? Hey, I could call it a public art project and get funding from the government. (Well, unless the Conservatives get in. *ba-dum-tsh!*)
That last example is a little strained. A slightly better one might be the ravenous consumption of books, rather than television. When my grandmother was a child she LOVED reading, and would hole herself up and read for hours and hours on end. At the time, her practical, farmer parents felt that she was wasting her time. I'd be willing to bet that while a kid who read a RIDICULOUS amount today might be tsk-tsked somewhat, it wouldn't be nearly so frowned-down-upon. Watching a lot of television, though, is generally seen as a passive - maybe even submissive - behaviour.
Maybe that's why we feel so guilty about it. We feel that we should be out planting trees and making the world a better place, but instead we're watching two straight hours of "What Not to Wear." But is reading any less "submissive"? Does the simple act of turning the pages give the reader more agency? Or is it the medium itself - you can pick up a book at any time of the day or night and read it. You can go back and read your favourite sections again and again. Books also tend to have way less commercials than television, which avid readers can get all smug about if they want.
I've been rambling for a while, so I'll try to round things to a close here. When I was a kid I was, much like my grandmother, an OBSESSIVE reader. I tore through books at an astounding rate. I would, and DID, read just about anything you put into my hands. Not a night went by that I didn't read for at LEAST an hour before I went to sleep.
When I was 14, my family got the internet at home. That was eleven years ago. I have yet to get my reading mojo back.
This is where I imagine that Neil Postman would, were he still alive*, start pointing and jumping around and talking about how the internet is like television on steroids, sucking out our brains through our noses. To some point, I think he's right.
The thing is: when we got that computer is when I started writing.
Well well well! HOW THE PLOT THICKENS!
(Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to catch the 1:30AM Comedy Channel rerun of "The Simpsons".)
* I was annoyed when I found out that Neil Postman was dead, because I find a lot of his assumptions about human nature to be... well, if not outright OFFENSIVE, then generally irritating. I feel like he got the last word and then ran off to the afterlife before I could get my argument in.
And I have to wonder: does this have something to do with my guilt about "wasting my time"? I think I'll start calling it "digital guilt." I don't feel guilty about the time I spend, say, reading a book before bed. But surfing the net and television are definitely sources of guilt in my daily life. I feel bad for doing it, and I typically feel that I should be investing myself differently.
The question is, how right am I?
(Here's a digression for you: I just started up my mp3 playlist on Winamp, and the Elton John song "Madman Across the Water" came up on shuffle. A few years ago I was into an online forum/RPG-ish community called "Gaia Online". At that time I'd just downloaded this song. The thing is, I like to have a bit of background music on, but I tend to tune things out when I get "into" something, so at one point I spent several hours cruising the Gaia forums with just this song on repeat and didn't really notice. Only every time my thoughts resurfaced, this song was playing. Consequently, the song now evokes a very special kind of nostalgia; I very viscerally remember what my old room felt like, what the forums looked like, etc. Though in my reckoning, they actually feel like/look like this song. If you know what I mean. I guess what I'm trying to say is: meaning goes in more than one direction.)
Last week's reading would suggest that I'm far from alone, though my habits don't map 100% to those of this American University Professor's students. Here's a big difference that I should note: I am NOT a big cell-phone user, and I am particularly not a texter. I HAVE texted from time to time, and I do talk on the phone a couple of times a week - both almost exclusively to arrange to meet with people IRL. My internet life and my phone life have very little crossover. I will generally prefer to use email to arrange details in advance, and then follow up on the cell phone if last minute arrangements need to be made or if things need to be quickly clarified. I guess I see cell phones as an intermediary device rather than a primary means of communication.
But what about my time spent in front of screens, be they computer, tv, video game? I can relate to the anxiety that these students expressed when they were unable to check email for an extended period of time. I am a VERY frequent email checker. I should actually make note of how many times I do it in the average school day, but if I were to hazard a guess I would put it at no less than 10 times. (Will keep tabs on this for a couple of days and see what the real numbers are.) Do I really NEED to check it that often? No, not even in the busiest time of year. I could get away with checking it twice, once in the morning and once in the evening.
So why am I drawn to do it so many times? And all of the other things that I "check" online (facebook and my livejournal friends page are cheif among them.) There is something gratifying about getting an email, or having someone comment on your blog. The kind of thing that doesn't happen when you pick up a book. The book isn't someone speaking, or responding, specifically to you - it's directed at a generalized audience. Online interaction is human interaction.
But of course, 90% of the time that I "check" things, there's nothing new (or at least, nothing that couldn't have waited another several hours before I discovered it.) I want so badly for there to BE new things. So I refresh inboxes, I scan for new comments. I spend a lot of time doing nothing, waiting for something to happen. I didn't think that I liked gambling (and I sure don't buy lottery tickets for that reason), but looking at it this way, this seems like a similar phenomenon.
Okay, so some of my guilt seems to be justified - at least to some degree. I think I would be much better off if I was less hung up on "checking" things, waiting for someone to interact with me. But let's say I was sitting on a park bench with a "Talk to me!" sign, waiting for people to say hello. The context definitely changes the tone. Though I'd be similarly wasting my time, I wouldn't be surprised if simply wanting to talk to "real" (in person) people would make the endeavour seem more... I dunno. Altruistic? Hey, I could call it a public art project and get funding from the government. (Well, unless the Conservatives get in. *ba-dum-tsh!*)
That last example is a little strained. A slightly better one might be the ravenous consumption of books, rather than television. When my grandmother was a child she LOVED reading, and would hole herself up and read for hours and hours on end. At the time, her practical, farmer parents felt that she was wasting her time. I'd be willing to bet that while a kid who read a RIDICULOUS amount today might be tsk-tsked somewhat, it wouldn't be nearly so frowned-down-upon. Watching a lot of television, though, is generally seen as a passive - maybe even submissive - behaviour.
Maybe that's why we feel so guilty about it. We feel that we should be out planting trees and making the world a better place, but instead we're watching two straight hours of "What Not to Wear." But is reading any less "submissive"? Does the simple act of turning the pages give the reader more agency? Or is it the medium itself - you can pick up a book at any time of the day or night and read it. You can go back and read your favourite sections again and again. Books also tend to have way less commercials than television, which avid readers can get all smug about if they want.
I've been rambling for a while, so I'll try to round things to a close here. When I was a kid I was, much like my grandmother, an OBSESSIVE reader. I tore through books at an astounding rate. I would, and DID, read just about anything you put into my hands. Not a night went by that I didn't read for at LEAST an hour before I went to sleep.
When I was 14, my family got the internet at home. That was eleven years ago. I have yet to get my reading mojo back.
This is where I imagine that Neil Postman would, were he still alive*, start pointing and jumping around and talking about how the internet is like television on steroids, sucking out our brains through our noses. To some point, I think he's right.
The thing is: when we got that computer is when I started writing.
Well well well! HOW THE PLOT THICKENS!
(Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to catch the 1:30AM Comedy Channel rerun of "The Simpsons".)
* I was annoyed when I found out that Neil Postman was dead, because I find a lot of his assumptions about human nature to be... well, if not outright OFFENSIVE, then generally irritating. I feel like he got the last word and then ran off to the afterlife before I could get my argument in.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-17 11:11 am (UTC)I've definitely been large with the Internet surfing over the past few years. And the video game playing, and the DVD watching. (No TV for us, no sir. :p) Some days my life is very repeitive, even boring, because I do the same things over and over. Check the same sites, reply to emails by the same people saying roughly the same things, sit on the couch and knit while watching TV shows I've already seen ten times.
On the flip side, though, I do other things. I still read plenty. At first I thought I wasn't reading as much as I used to, but I've been keeping track of the books I've read this year, and I'm pretty much on par with the amount of books I read while I spent practically a whole summer unemployed and still had access to library books. Reading at work helped that, which, alas, I'm not going to be able to do anymore, thanks to my job switch. I haven't been writing as much as I used to, nor as much as I want to, either, and that's one thing that bothers me. I could argue that most of that potential writing time is taken up with work, knitting and trying to write up and publish knitting patterns, but really, I've just been slack.
I too lead much more of a virtual life than a "real" one sometimes. But the real question is, "Why feel guilty?" Is it a bad thing that you're in front of a screen a lot if you enjoy it, provided you understand that the screen isn't the be-all and end-all of life. Is it really wasting your time? What would you be doing otherwise, if you don't currently have a reading mojo, or a writing mojo, or whatever. Maybe taking a break from screens would help get that back, or maybe it wouldn't. It's hard to tell.
Besides, one thing you neglected to take into account in all this is that you're in school, and thus doing something that can definitely be seen as "not wasting your time." Really, when you throw that into the mix, spending time online or playing Katamari and Rock Band to relax and have fun just don't seem quite so bad. Look at me, in all honesty. I don't go to school. I have ajob I don't enjoy, so that bills can be paid. I have plans to get out of this rut, but oftentimes I just plain don't bother to follow through on them. I procrastinate, and I stay stuck where I am. That is a waste of time. I'm not currently going anywhere. You are.
Your contextual example of sitting on the park bench also only fits if you ignore the fact that you're active in some online communities and sometimes initiate the contact, or at least participate in discussions even if you aren't a central figure in them. I'd liken it more to sitting on a park bench, waiting to see if your discussion group is going to show up again today to continue an old debate. Or sitting in company and waiting for someone else to say something, because your point may have been made. Internet time works funny that way. :p
Also, another question. Why do things have to change? If you're happy with your life, why change for change's sake alone? If you're unhappy, that's a different story, but if things are working out for you, at least as well as can be expected, then does change really need to occur.
Not to sound like I'm putting my high horse on a soapbox here, but that's where I see a lot of people sticking. They see their lives being the same as they've been for years, even if that way is working, and they feel the need to change it just because they can. Change isn't always a good thing, if what you've got is working, or at least if it's enjoyable and not causing harm. I'm not saying that's definitely what you're doing, seeking change for change's sake alone, just that I see a lot of people doing it.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-17 05:24 pm (UTC)Which makes wonder... if I could avoid the internet for some period of time, would I still be such a bad procrastinator? I have a sense that I might not be, at least not QUITE so much. Some evidence here is my typical "escape to Tim Horton's for five hours" approach to writing the rough drafts of papers, which I've employed many times over the past few years. But that's an avoidance of digital media in the EXTREME short-term. Let's say I went to a writing retreat where I had access to NO electronic media for a few weeks. Immediately I WANT to say that I'd be much more productive, but mightn't I just redevelop my bookwormishness and start procrastinating by reading? Maybe. I also used to be a big fan of daydreaming when I was young; I could sit around for HOURS and just think and imagine things. If you took my books away, would this impulse take over?
I LOVE the "sitting in the park, waiting to meet with the discussion group" analogy, that works much better than the "talk to me" sign, I think. Because how often, in the long term anyway, does the average person interact with complete strangers online? I mean, meeting new people isn't exactly a foreign affair, but for the most part I'm interacting with folks that I already know, and who I can reasonably assume WOULD have some reason to send me a message, or comment on my journal, and that kind of thing.
And I can very easily see people saying that a "real life" discussion group as being somehow inherently more valuable than an "online" discussion group, too. But I don't believe that. Some really interesting discussions are happening in online communities. Here on LJ, places like
Part of my frustration lately, having read your comment a couple of times and thought about things, is really more about my lack of investment in what I actually DO online. I used to be all forum-y and involved in communities, but I have gotten really passive over the past little while. I watch awesome YouTube videos like the Anthropology of YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU), and I go "Wow! The internet is a cool and intereseting place with all sorts of participatory culture! ... So why am I not participating?"