2006-02-18 - 7:33 p.m.
a possible defense for "the bearing of our souls and the telling of our most appalling secrets"
it has recently been brought to my attention that not everyone appreciates the dark and nebulous world of online interaction. and the specific offense seems to be the "blog." now i'll admit, that there is some inevitable tackiness involved whenever the general populous is given a voice; and even the word "blog" is a little caustic on the ears, sounding more like a mutant reptile of uncomely appearance than a legitimate mode of communication. but the audio aesthetics of language aside, i think that an argument can be made, at least theoretically, for this odd, recently developing phenomena.
i think the qualm goes something like this: why would anyone just spew their innermost thoughts and self-indulgent musings into the public forum? if it isn't simply snivelling, sentimental drivel (which most of it is), it is, at best, cheap intimacy (perhaps even emotional "pornography'). getting to know someone should be difficult, and it should take time (lots of time), and much of it should be intuited. thanks to cyberspace, you can browse someone's written history over the course of a few hours (if they are prolific) and have not only a good idea of what they are like but also a list of their favorite books, films, past times, ect. where's the fun in that?
now, while i suppose that i understand a little of the hesitancy to blythely approve all things technological, and it is true that for the first time in history everyone can, on a world-wide scale, wear their heart on their sleeve, i think that it would be difficult to support a blanket dismissal of the blog with a reasonable argument: you could certainly debate the quality of a particular blog, but i don't think that you can debunk the form.
for centuries, people have written down their thoughts. in fact, the diary or journal was something of a genre in and of itself. some of the most formidable intellects of history have published, if not personal letters and journals, then at least autobiographies. but it is not just historical precedent that makes me think that the blog is legitimate. it has to do with the nature of language in general. we never write simply for ourselves. we almost always hope that we will be heard, even if we don't know it at the time. articulation is a social habit, even private articulation. and i think biology proves me out on this one: language did not develop for the purposes of the individual. and written langauge is even more directed towards an audience, as the point of writing something down is so that it is permanent and documentary. but documenting things is never simply for personal recollection. otherwise we have our journals burned when we died. and no one but the very selfish do that. yes. journaling is a way of conveying yourself to yourself; in it we hope that if we can get enough distance from ourselves, we might be able to see with some precision. and yes, it is also a type of pressure valve, that allows the psyche to decompress by "letting off steam", so to speak. but it is more than that, i think. when we write, it comes not only from a place of wanting to understand (ourselves, an idea, whatever), but also a place of wanting to be understood.
i think that development of the blog is interesting because of what it suggests about our culture. i don't think that it is simply the inevitable outgrowth of our technological society. i think that it actually fills our societal need for community. in general, i don't think people are very "rooted." in the past, people planted themselves in a particular geographical location, and found deep and stimulating relationships there that grew out of both shared interests (philia) and plain old familiarity (storge). in contrast, it is normal for a person living now to move fifteen or twenty times throughout their lives. and having been through quite a few "transplants" myself, i don't think that the human psyche was made to be able to sustain that kind of relational hopscotching. two things happen: a person tends to pull away from the prospect of developing new relationships and a person slowly drifts away from the important relationships from the past because of the difficulty involved in continuing both the conveyance of daily happenings and the engaging in meaningful discussions. i think that what the blog has done is to compensate for the alienation and isolation that has been created by our culture. it is a way to both keep in touch with people from the past and continue the intellectual sparring and dialoguing that you enjoyed when you lived in close proximity. and, i would argue that it does this even better than letter writing, because it allows for more than two people to be in on a discussion. and it does not carry with it the "one" for "one" demand that letter writing does. and because it is not specifically directed toward one person, we feel free, like we would in everyday life, to talk not only about "important" things, but also the trivial, humorous, flippant things of which most of life is composed. And the blog also allows for newcomers to join the conversation, if they are interested, with very little required other than that they have the intellectual capacity to contribute to the discussion.
blogging should not become a substitute for real relationships, it is true. but, it can facilitate and enrich those relationships, if done well...
but i would be interested to know what other people think... so, say something :
