UXjam

Minding the Machine

This is a reflection piece I wrote for one of my grad classes based on E.M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” (1909) and “The Machine is Us/ing Us” (2007). It’s a little choppy since there are a lot of big issues and it was only supposed to be around two pages…but I got a lot out of writing it and I’d like to expand on some of these points in the future.

Minding the Machine

E.M. Forster’s essay “The Machine Stops” is eerily prophetic for having been written in 1909, as many traits of his Machine mirror the Internet’s role in our lives today. When we have a need for information these days, we rarely have to visit libraries, friends, family, teachers, experts—if someone perceived to have knowledge is not conveniently available, we simply do a quick Google or Wikipedia search. And for the answers we can’t find by searching, we can ask the masses by broadcasting our questions via Twitter or Yahoo! Answers. We can tune into lectures on any number of topics on TED or YouTube, read almost anything from classic literature to blogs, order groceries from down the street and shoes from the other side of the world. Not quite as full-service as the Machine (we still have to pick things up off the floor ourselves), but we’re well on our way.

This term, I have four online classes and one bricks-and-mortar class. Spending weekends in my room alone doing homework, I feel much like Vashti—physically isolated, yet connected to so many people and ideas. For many of my library classes, I tend to prefer the online medium since it fosters deeper reflection through the writing of discussion board posts, and allows everyone to state their piece without the constraints of time or linear conversational flow. In this arena at least, I disagree with Kuno, who is not satisfied by technologically mediated communication: “I see something like you in this plate, but I do not see you. I hear something like you through this telephone, but I do not hear you.” Frequently my thoughts are more clearly expressed if I am typing them, and I would argue that written words convey “me” better than my voice at times.

However, I do not deny the value of real-time, face-to-face interaction. Not only does this sort of discourse in classes frequently spur different topics and ideas, it also fulfills a human need. Seeing classmates when they’re speaking gives me a better impression of their personality; physically going to class puts me in an environment that helps me mentally focus on the course content (and prevents me from going stir-crazy in my room). In Forster’s tale, humans have evolved away from movement and even uniqueness, but we are still governed by these factors.

On the personal side, this web 2.0 world presents us with an enigma of interconnection. We can communicate with and keep track of more people than ever before. But as social networks make it easier for us to stay in touch, they also make it easier for us not to see each other face-to-face. Systems that enable digital ambient intimacy make us feel like we’re connected since we already know our friends’ and families’ statuses—at least to the degree that they broadcast—and they know we know because we “liked” them on Facebook. These channels can serve as surrogates when travel is infeasible, and augment our interactions when we actually do see each other by cluing us in on activities or interests that might not otherwise come up in casual conversation. But it’s important not to let technology supplant natural human interactions in our core relationships, else we lose “nuances of expression” to the Machine and settle for “a general idea of people” just “good enough for all practical purposes.”

Technology also has bandwidth and backlog capacity that we do not—a discord I grapple with every time I return to my computer and open my email, Twitter, Facebook, online courses, etc. Forster describes the sensation brilliantly after Kuno’s first call to his mother: “Vashti’s next move was to turn off the isolation switch, and all the accumulations of the last three minutes burst upon her. The room was filled with the noise of bells, and speaking-tubes. … To most of these questions she replied with irritation—a growing quality in that accelerated age.” We doubtless live in an accelerated age, and there really is no keeping up even with just the things we’re interested in. We just have to pick and choose and prioritize—consciously and with the help of our Machines, by the whims of serendipity and zeitgeist. We patronize favorite websites, pipe content through RSS feeds and email subscriptions, and surf whatever links our social graphs bubble up.

There is so much information out there that I frequently wonder how much is newly generated, and how much is just the same ideas being rehashed over and over. An interesting divergence between our information reality and that described by Forster is the eventual movement away from “original ideas.” This makes sense given the danger of individualistic thought to the Machine’s totalitarian regime (as is illustrated in Kuno). The spin put on it by the Machine faithful even presents a legitimate approach, though their goal is dangerous. They talk of balancing bias and increasing understanding by looking at history through many lenses: “Through the medium of these ten great minds, the blood that was shed at Paris and the windows that were broken at Versailles will be clarified to an idea which you may employ most profitably in your daily lives. But be sure that the intermediates are many and varied, for in history one authority exists to counteract another.” However, in doing this they seek only utility relative to the Machine’s perspective and blot out the facts and human character of history.

Ideally, our neutral Internet facilitates the collection and cross-referencing of all relevant sources—the integrity of the connections made and new knowledge generated subject only to the skills and bias of the individual user. However, we are limited by the commercial and political interests of search engines and information providers alike. We have not evolved to the point where “all unrest [is] concentrated in the soul.”

Perhaps the most powerful entity on the Internet today is Google. As the majority market share holder of search, it could easily manipulate the lives of the millions of people who put their faith in its algorithms to deliver the information they need. We trust it because it seems to work, and “Do no evil” is part of its corporate philosophy. A parody religion called The Church of Google “proves” that Google qualifies as God, as it is nearly omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, and other God-like criteria (at least in the Judeo-Christian sense). While reverence for any technology with such power may be warranted, blind faith is dangerous. In Forster’s story, this faith was humanity’s downfall, as they could no longer take care of themselves or maintain the Machine that enabled their lifestyle. The development of the Machine as a religious deity was also a demonstration of the fundamental need in many people to worship a higher power that looks out for them.

This and other elements of the story point to the resoluteness of human nature, which above all revolves around a craving to connect with each other and our surroundings. Moving forward in this information age, we must balance our reverence for ideas and experiences, as they contribute equally to the development of our souls. I agree with Michael Wesch’s “The Machine is Us/ing Us” in that we need to rethink a number of areas with respect to information and interaction—authorship, ethics, privacy, governance, family, identity. The rate at which our Machine is growing, changing, and learning is alarming, but will the Internet control us someday? I think Forster, Huxley, Clarke, and many other great writers and filmmakers have warned us well against the dangers of letting technology subvert our humanity.

Sources

Forster, E.M. (1909). “The Machine Stops” Oxford and Cambridge Review. Retrieved from http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~mdd37/MDD%20FACULTY%20SITE/Forster/index.htm

(2009). Proof Google is God – The Church of Google. http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html

Wesch, Michael. (2007). The Machine is Us/ing Us (Final Version). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g