Starbucks Logo

As far as my imperfect memory recalls, the paragraph read something like this:

“The Siren. According to myth her song was beautiful and irresistible. We still can’t resist her.”

I cocked my head and re-read the justification for their logo once more. When I was certain I had read correctly, I started looking around me with an incredulous look on my face. No one else seemed bothered by what I noticed.

Based on my brief observation, I began to suspect that Starbucks suffered from a terrible disorder called mytholitis – that is, a condition in which one fails to recall mythological stories accurately or completely. Either they suffer from this terrible condition or, I’m afraid, they selectively retold this myth to hide an obvious truth about their product.

According to this cardboard prophet, Starbucks justifies the Siren in its logo because this creature was beautiful and irresistible to sailors. To the casual observer, this advertising sends a warm subliminal message which depicts hard working sailors (us – the consumer) being humored by the song of a beautiful woman (Starbucks). The appeal of this narrative – being pleased by a member of the opposite sex – is obvious. To rehash the Siren myth in this way, however, is a patent oversimplification.

As anyone who does not suffer from mytholitis could tell you, the real myth recounts a more tragic story of the Sirens. They were ugly humanoids – half bird, half woman in appearance – and were entirely wicked.  When unsuspecting ships would sail by Sirenum scopuli, the three rocky islands where the Sirens made their home, these creatures would begin to sing. Men who heard their ethereal voices became enchanted. Incensed, they sought to find the source of the music no matter the danger. Usually this meant turning their ships towards the noise and blindly sallying forth, wrecking their ships upon the rocks surrounding the Sirens’ islands and drowning, unfulfilled.

Initially, I was concerned that Starbucks was incorrectly rehashing a myth to justify their misuse of an icon. In hindsight, maybe that icon is appropriate – when the myth is correctly remembered. After all, Starbucks coffees aren’t necessarily healthy for us and, for many Starbucks regulars, their product does seem dangerously irresistible. Perhaps their marketing gurus put out this message to amuse themselves, fully cognizant of the fact that there are two vastly different ways of reading their logo: an incorrect way, which they’re peddling to consumers everyday; and a correct way, which would warn consumers away from heeding the Starbucks Siren’s call.

“Perhaps miracle is the wrong word. I was simply trying to speak your language.”

“My language?” Langdon was suddenly uncomfortable. “Not to disappoint you, sir, but I study religious symbology – I’m an academic, not a priest.”

Kohler slowed suddenly and turned, his gaze softening a bit. “Of course. How simple of me. One does not need to have cancer to analyze its symptoms.” (page 27).

In August of last year, I wrote “Emptying Pews Cry for Leadership,” in which I discussed my perception of religion as a dying institution, but one that’s dying needlessly, from a preventable disease. The quotation from Angels & Demons I’ve included above is a propos because I’m not particularly religious; I’m just fascinated by religion and how people engage themselves with it.

In these dire economic times, you’d expect more and more people would be going to church. After all, aren’t we used to seeing church attendance rise when tough times or hurdles lie ahead or when the future becomes cloudy and overcast? Furthermore, going to church is more or less free, so it’s not like you can use less cash as an excuse from attending.

Despite what you might expect, the Pew Research Center released findings on March 13 which suggest that people are just as unconvinced by the value of going to church now as they were before this crisis started.

From the Pew Research Center, March 13, 2009

From the graph to the left, you can see that church-goers remain at the same small handful in January 2009 as they did in January 2007.

I don’t know about you, but I fully expected that as the Dow Jones plummeted, church attendance would climb, a testament to our ability to ignore the good things in our life until all we’re surrounded by is the bad.

So what does this mean, that the flagging economy has failed to revive our interest in religion? Maybe, just maybe, it’s an dead horse that’s not worth beating anymore.

By now, you probably have heard of the sexting phenomenon. If not, in brief, it is the act of sending nude or semi-nude pictures of yourself to others via your mobile phone. Here’s the shocker: according to a survey performed last year by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 20 percent of teens “said they had sent or posted nude or semi-nude photos or videos of themselves” (MSNBC). Split out by gender, this was true for 22% of girls vs 18% of boys.

In the last couple of months, three sexting scandals have launched onto the media’s radar.In review:

Pennsylvania

According to MSNBC, six teenagers are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls (14-15 years old) “sexted” three male classmates (presumably of similar age). The sexting was discovered when one young gentleman’s phone was appropriated by school officials for violating a policy on cell phone use. They discovered the picture and contacted authorities. A short time later, Police leveled child pornography charges against the six teenagers. Police Captain George Seranko suggested this was to “send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.” On the flip side of this coin, Philadelphia defense attorney Patrick Artur said these charges “run counter to the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws: preventing the sexual abuse of children by ‘dirty old men in raincoats’” (MSNBC).

On this topic, CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom retorts, “What are we going to do, lock up 20 percent of America’s teens?” (CBS).

New Jersey

In New Jersey, Passaic County authorities have charged another teenager girl (14 years old) with “possession and distribution of child pornography for posting nude photos of herself on MySpace.” (NPR) The mother of another New Jersey girl, whose death was the inspiration for Megan’s Law, criticized those prosectuors, claiming that such charges are more harmful than helpful (NPR).

Ohio

Perhaps the most infamous case of sexting yet occured in Cincinnati, OH. Last year 18 year-old Jane Doe (I don’t think we need to tarnish this young girl’s name anymore, so I’ll use a generic one) was getting ready to graduate from high school. She sent a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend. When they broke up a short time later, he sent it to some of his friends, who sent it to some of their friends…and so on, until the theory of six degrees of separation was proven in less time than it took for a girl’s heart to break. Hundreds of students all around the area came into possession of the photo.

Last May Jane Doe spoke to a local news station about the emotional cost of this event, expressing embarrassment and humiliation. Students teased her incessantly, inside the school and out. In my 11.28.2008 post, “Creating (and Destroying) Realities,” you can read about how readily one girl’s life was destroyed by the dark side of humanity equipped with advanced technology. Unfortunately, Jane Doe’s story met much the same end. Two months after speaking with the local news station about this event, she went to the funeral of a boy who had killed himself. When she went home, she did the same.

Sexting, Boiling Over

The parents of this Cincinnati Jane Doe have since started calling for tougher laws and more accountability. It seems like legislators are starting to take the hint. In Ohio, for example, one lawmaker said recently that he intends to introduce a bill making it a misdemeanor for minors to send naked pictures (MTV). As you read above, authorities in Pennsylvania waited not at all for a new bill to be introduced, but started charging minors under existing laws.  Another teenager in Texas has already spent a night in jail after his football coach discovered a nude picture of a friend on his phone (WFAA).

Placing each of these stories side-by-side, we see that in some instances authorities have gone too far (New Jersey, perhaps Pennsylvania), while other authorities haven’t gone far enough (Ohio). So here’s the question for the People to consider: Where should accountability for this lie?

Prosecutors in New Jersey seem to think it should lie with the person sending the picture(s).

Prosecutors in Pennsylvania seem to think it should lie with both the senders and receivers of the picture(s).

Lawmakers in Ohio, Jane Doe’s mom, and authorities in Texas seem to think it should lie with the receivers of the picture(s).

What do you think?

Personally, I can’t help but feel that this is an issue the government should keep out of. What people do with pictures of themsemselves is their business and their responsibility. Furthermore, what minors do with pictures of themselves is their parents’ business and their parents’ responsibility. Maybe they shouldn’t be giving them cell phones, if they can’t trust in their ability to use reason and good judgement?

Particularly in the last case I mentioned, the Ohio Sexting Incident, who should authorities have charged? The Jane Doe who sent the picture in the first place? The boyfriend who sent it on later? Each person to sent it after that? Or did they do the right thing in not charging anyone, because after all, as the ACLU is claiming, is sexting a privilege guaranteed by the First Amendment? (law.com).

—-

MSNBC - Mike Brunker, “‘Sexting Surprise: Teens Face Child Porn Charges.”

CBS – “Sexting” Shockingly Common Among Teens.

MTV – Gil Kaufman, “Teens Could Get Hit With Child Pornography Charges After Sexting.”

NPR – “‘Megan’s Law’ Mom Criticizes ‘Sexting’ Charges.”

WFAA – Craig Civale, “Student Faces Porn Charge Over Text Sent By Classmate.”

Law.com – Shannon P. Duffy, “ACLU Sues DA Over Threat to Prosecute ‘Sexting’ Teens.”

WLWT – Sheree Palello, “Mom Loses Daughter Over ‘Sexting,’ Demands Accountability.”

Enquirier – Cindy Kranz, “Family Wants Tougher Laws.”

At the turn of the month, I made my rounds to Talking Philosophy, where Jean Kazez had just written (competently, I feel) about the perils of caring too much and the virtue of indifference, especially as it pertains to religious matters. Although I’m taking it out of context, one of the passage which stirred most concerned a topic I’m passionate about:

“At least in the US, we are rather fond of definining ourselves clearly.  Each person practically has a brand (huge exaggeration–but think about facebook pages, blogs, ring-tones, and the like).  There’s also high intolerance for non-belief, making it more important to “come out” defiantly as a non-believer.  Atheism has developed something akin to a gay-pride movement, because there is in fact a high level of misunderstanding and prejudice in both cases.”

Jean says that considering Facebook pages, blogs, ring-tones, etc as a personal brand is a “huge exaggeration.” But is it really? In recent years, authors, prominent businesspersons, and media mongols have been pushing the idea that the main ingredient in success is creating a strong, irresistible brand of “You.” Considering that:

1) Are artifacts like Facebook, MySpace, ring-tones, blogs, twitters, etc precursors of the Brand-of-I mentality, or symptoms?

2) Are these precursors/symptoms healthy? Useful?

3) Where should we draw the line with our personal brands?

4) Perhaps more than anything, are we creating the brands, or are the brands creating us? (Corny, I know, but chew on it: Is the effort of perfecting our image for consumption causing us to burn away something more important?)

I’m reminded of Walter Fisher’s narrative paradigm. He suggested that we relate to people most through narrative. This trend is exemplary evidence to support that theory. Further more, this trend may end up showing just how constructive – or destructive – narrative can be.

Five years and 150 million users later, Facebook is still the topic of heated debate. What does this construct say about our society? What impact is it having? What social mores is it changing? These questions, and others, will continue to be posed and considered for years to come and, fortunately, Facebook will keep delivering material for speculation. Take, for example, the “25 Random Things” note racing through this social network’s veins like some epidemic virus. The object is to fill out a list of 25 things about yourself, a blend of the private and the personal, and publish it to your friends. They are then supposed to fill out a list about themselves in turn, and pass it on. As John Timpane of the Philadelphia Inquirer observes, after one person sent this note to ten others, and those ten sent the note to ten of their friends, “soon Facebook – a virtual living room where people hang out and tell everyone else what they’re doing and thinking – is awash with personal revelations, admissions, info once kept private.”

The question here is, is this practice evincing narcissism or simple hyperconnectedness? A sin indulged, or a new virtue evolving? As Timpane so astutely noted, you can call this narcissism if you want, “but it might be that the train left and you weren’t on it.” What then? If we take this hyperconnectedness as a new, evolving virtue, what does it mean, you know, for the future? Some “old garde” critics might see this and demonize it as the unhealthy practice of a group of individuals gone wrong. However, we can no longer dispute that this bandwagon is a vast majority of individuals; not just a faction which can be chatted about idly but largely ignored. They carry real weight.

Still a DoubtingThomas? Just direct your doubt to Detroit, where automakers are realizing that their only hope is to beg and plead for the attention of the “Millennial” generation: individuals to whom connectedness is the primary virtue for a life lived well. Whereas Baby Boomers sought out “horsepower, wide tires and dual exhausts,” carmakers are now recognizing that in order to appeal to millenial consumers – those born between 1982 and 2000 – they have to turn out models which emphasize technological connectedness, like “email capabilities, hookups for iPods, laptop computers and other gizmos.” And the time to make these appeals are now: “Ford estimates that by 2010, the 16-31 demographic will make up the largest chunk of the car-buying public,” and these unsuspecting millenials are not brand-loyal yet, so they make easy prey.

While I was researching and writing a thesis entitled “Facebook: Encouraging Authentic or Inauthentic Identity Construction?,” I have to admit belonging to that “old garde” I mentioned earlier. I couldn’t help but look around and see so much gone wrong; healthy communicative praxis abandoned; narcissism abounding. But, I’m willing to concede I may have been wrong. Perhaps what I, and others, saw as egocentrism might have been the individual lens refocusing on community. John Timpane demonstrates he has sharper eyes than mine as he chastises, “That communal aspect is what so much commentary misses about ‘25 Random Things.’ It’s not just a list; it’s a communal exercise.” Timpane quotes an unscientific survey of 30 such lists, and notes that it uncovered nothing “vicious or unkind.” Instead, one of his sources characterizes the 25 Random Things list as ’surprisingly supportive, sweet, even encouraging…’ [a nuturing thing friends do].”

Or was I wrong? Timpane quotes an email he received from Christine Rosen (whose work I respect a great deal), in which she affirmed “narcissism is narcissm: ‘For all of their apparently casual tone, these lists are not filled with random things. They are carefully and deliberately crafted efforts to market their makers as quirky and appealing people. The revelation of one person’s quirks can be endearing, but the broadcasting of hundreds of thousands of people’s quirks quickly devolves into tedious mass solipsism.’”

Of course, her logic is unassailable on at least one count: these 25 “random” things couldn’t possibly be random. In order to make that true, each individual would have to write down a host of personal things piled up in their closet and then somehow – by roll of the die, a random number generator, or spin the bottle – randomly select things to publish. I sincerely doubt anyone took that much effort into constructing their list, so we have to regard the “25 Random Things” note as a persuasive, meticulously articulated artifact.

Timpane also quoted family therapist Sara Kay Smullens, who suggested “people can fly to Facebook or other sites to avoid their flesh-and-blood family and friends. ‘It can be a substitute, one that doesn’t work, for an intimacy they can’t find in real life.’

I have to beg your forbearance as I reveal that for a handful of years, I was addicted to science fiction novels. I’m convinced everyone has that phase sooner or later. In any case, this situation reminds me of a motif running throughout Joan D. Vinge’s sci fi novel, Dreamfall. This book involves a struggle between futuristic humans and an alien race of humanoids with psionic powers (telepathy, telekenesis, etc – what good sci fi thriller doesn’t?). The main character of the book is a half-breed, partially human, partially endowed with some telepathic ability. As a result of his half-breed composition and a history of abuse from both camps, he has a mental “shield” erected constantly. When walking among groups of his mother’s people (the telepaths), he is snarled at, criticized, and avoided, because his mind is “closed off” from everyone else. Through this exchange, readers learn that this alien community has survived for generations with open hearts and open minds, total exposure between and among people, with nothing hidden.

Now, jumping back from science fiction into reality, I can’t help but notice some similarities here. Pre-Web 2.0, we were as disconnected as disconnected could be. We spoke on the phone, wrote letters, enjoyed each other’s physical company, but that was more or less it. Since the launch of Web 2.0, we have felt a compulsion to dig deeper, to find intimate secrets about ourselves and reveal them, whether through away messages or status messages which speak to our emotions at the time (and who can hide their emotions when in the throes of them, and when there aren’t any repercussions – such as judgement – from physical contact), or from blank “About me” and “Interests” sections which beg to be filled with details about our identity. No matter that we never had to address these questions before, and that maybe we were giving in too much (after all, just because a question is asked does not mean you have to answer it – but that’s a sickness the human race has faced in aeternum, and a topic for another day). We had questions to answer and we were damned if we weren’t going to give in, without due hesitation and deliberation to determine what is “right.” In the last twenty years or so, we have been two totally different species of humanity.

But back to an earlier question, where I asked: what does all of this mean for the future? This is where my science fiction reference come into play. The issue I’m most intrigued by now is: Who’s going to be the outcast? The one who shares all, or the one who shares none? Turn to Ayn Rand’s Anthem if you want, or the hundreds of novels written about the struggle between individualism and community. I, myself, will turn back to Psion, the first Joan D. Vinge novel in the trilogy which produced Dreamfall: In that book, the protagonist is taught an aphorism he can never quite shake, and which has haunted me from the first time I read it 12 years ago:

“In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is stoned to death.” 

“Donoghue begins by challenging the oft-repeated declaration that liberal arts education in general and the humanities in particular face a crisis, a word that suggests an interruption of a normal state of affairs and the possibility of restoring the natural order of things.

‘Such a vision of restored stability,” says Donoghue, “is a delusion” because the conditions to which many seek a return – healthy humanities departments populated by tenure-track professors who discuss books with adoring students in a cloistered setting – have largely vanished. Except in a few private wealthy universities (functioning almost as museums), the splendid and supported irrelevance of humanist inquiry for its own sake is already a thing of the past. In “ two or three generations,” Donoghue predicts, “humanists . . . will become an insignificant percentage of the country’s university instructional workforce.’”

My interest in all of this, of course, traces back to the cultural factor. I agree with Donoghue’s logic, and his evidence is enough for me to be onboard with the idea that the Academy’s original, humanist, liberal arts roots are rotting from the inside out, from xylem to phloem. However, I’m less concerned about the fact that this is happening, than why it is happening. And I’m less concerned about why it is happening, than determining what societal elements have changed to allow this shift. What values have we set aside and which have taken their place? Is this a sign that we are comfortable ignoring our souls, so long as we fatten our wallets?

Essentially this issue raises the question (and requires an answer to): What is the purpose of life?

Comfort or inquiry? Body or mind?

The irony, to me, is that while this issue begs the question, it also represents our diminishing capacity to answer it.

Does he/she exhibit traces of

• Impaired social skills (social interaction),
• Impaired communicative abilities,
• Restricted interests, and/or
• Repetitive behavior.

If you answered yes to a majority of those characteristics, you are either

1. A modern, “connected” individual
2. Autistic

As Janet Maslin points out in a book review entitled, “So Plugged in, Yet So Disconnected: Field Notes from Wired America,” perhaps the most valuable aspect of Dalton Conley’s Elsewhere, U.S.A. was buried in a footnote: the observation of a “connection between social disembodiment and rising rates of autism, a condition that defies the conventions of social networking.”

The similarities between autism and “our isolating, newly normal adult behavior are related” are frightening, indeed.

“Assortative Sociality, Limited Dispersal, Infectious Disease and the Genesis of the Global Pattern of Religion Diversity” published by the Royal Society in Proceedings B seems to suggest that religion could be attributed to evolution.

According to this document, “religion manifests from evolved behavioral strategies for the avoidance and management of infectious disease” (Medical News). Furthermore, the “diversity of religions in a given country correlates closely” with the amount of disease (Atlantic Monthly 21). Consider, for example, why Brazil boasts 159 religions, while Canada squeaks by with a mere 15? Perhaps it is because Brazil – poor and without a public-health system – is overrun by disease when compared to Canada – which has better than average healthcare and few known parasites.

In otherwords, people in regions with a greater chance of exposing them to a disease tend to limit travel and interpersonal interaction; which stems the flow of ideas and values responsible for birthing new religions.

Now, consider why Church pews the world over are emptying faster than you can say a Hail Mary?  Could it be that the advent of new health care systems and technologies have resulted in a world where religion no longer serves its evolutionary purpose? If this is the case, then are the people who contine to visit them weak links bound to fail the “only the strong survive” test, or do they represent the next evolutionary step for religion, whatever that may be?

A lot of questions to be asked, with few answers to give. It hurts to think outside your own generation, doesn’t it?

At thirteen years of age and living just four-doors apart from each other, Sarah Drew and Megan Meier were your typical girl friends in your typical Missouri town living their typical teenage lives. Megan and Sarah even experienced a typical falling-out, when chats about boys turned into name-calling, bickering and, eventually, silence.

If only that had been the end of their typical friendship. Instead, in the summer of 2006, Sarah’s mother, Lori Drew, got involved. Aged forty-seven at the time, Lori created a MySpace profile for a fictional boy, Josh Evans. She sought out and “friended” Megan Meier online “in an attempt to woo [Megan] and extract information from her to determine if she had been spreading gossip about [her] daughter.” [1] For weeks, Lori Drew, her daughter, and a co-worker fabricated a romantic relationship with Meier until, in October 2006, things got ugly. Attacking Megan’s self-esteem, “Josh Evans” wrote “I don’t want to be friends with you anymore because you’re not nice to your friends.”[2] Shortly after Megan replied, asking what he meant, she realized that “Evans” had publicly posted messages she had written to him, where they could be viewed by all of her friends at school. As a result, these “friends” began posting bulletins making fun of Megan.

The last message “Evans” wrote was simply and cruel: “Everybody in O’Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.”[3] The final message Megan would send to Josh, or to anyone, was chillingly short: “You’re the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.”

And so she did. Twenty minutes after Megan sent this message to the person she knew as Josh, the “totally hot” sixteen year old who had been courting her for weeks, her mother discovered her hanging from a belt in her closet; a macabre image made tragically ironic by the fact that Megan had struggled for years with a depression caused, in part, by feeling overweight. [3]

At the time, Megan’s parents knew nothing of Josh Evans. Weeks later, Mrs. Grills, the single mother of Ashley Grills, who worked for Lori Drew and sent messages on behalf of Josh Evans at her direction, approached the Meiers with terrible news. She shared with them what had only recently come to her attention, that Lori Drew and her daughter Sarah had created the identity of Josh Evens in order to inflict emotional pain on Megan – and that they had convinced Mrs. Grills daughter, Ashley, to “join in the joke.”[3] Before the ambulance had even left the Meiers’ house with Megan’s body, Ashley received a call from Lori Drew telling her that something had happened to Megan and that it was best not to mention the MySpace account they had created. Ashley, fortunately, did not have so barren a conscience. Later, under immunity granted by the US Attorney, she testified to the truth of the Drews’ sickening scheme.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2008, a little more than two years after Megan’s death, a federal jury in Los Angeles convicted Lori Drew of three misdemeanor charges of computer fraud. As a result, Drew faces up to three years in prison and up to $300,000 in fines. She was acquitted of the more serious charges.[5]

The costs of the game Lori Drew played are immeasurable: one young girl’s life; on couple’s daughter, a marriage (Megan’s parents are getting a divorce, unable to grapple with the guilt they face); the solidarity and happiness of two families. And for what? Vengeance? Simple malice?

As difficult, and sad, as it might be to realize, the costs are not as significant as are the glaring issues we must face as a society. Megan Meier is not the only young girl who has been assaulted online – and nor will she be the last. According to a Pew Internet Project study released in 2007, one-third (32%) of online US teens have been victims of cyberbullying. [6]

Anyone who might have suggested that online content is insignificant, or that our presence online is trivial, must surely be convinced that is not the case. We create our own realities through language, through interaction with others. We are all intimately familiar with the physical, face-to-face reality-construction that was all our parents knew. It has only been for an incredibly short period of time that identities, relationships, and other aspects of our lives have been created, maintained, and/or supported by online activities. And we are simply unprepared.

Joseph Mele, a former instructor at the National Crime Prevention Institute, once observed that lighting an area reduces the threat of crime there.[7] At the core of observation is the understanding that when people feel they aren’t being watched, they feel invincible, untouchable, and able to do anything they desire – even if it is going to hurt someone else. Is it such a leap of the imagination to think of the Internet as just a very large, dark expanse in which people may feel at liberty to do as they wish? Of course not – that’s just common sense. What will take more effort, however, is to determine where the root of the problem lies.

Is it up to social networking sites to protect us from online marauders? Is it up to the government? Should one, the other, or both establish squads of people relentlessly combing through our online communication in order to track down those with bad intentions. Is the invasion of our privacy a price we’re willing to pay for security?

Or is it up to schools to ensure our children approach online activities as responsible members of a community? Perhaps Online Citizenship courses should be required fare during high school, or earlier.

Or is this an issue to be fought within the home? Maybe it is parents who should be teaching their children about citizenship – and how it should still exist in cyberspace.

Frankly, we’re only going to make progress if everyone fight’s the good fight: our social media providers, our government, and – most importantly – those people who have a direct influence on how we develop as human beings. That is a true position of leadership: to show those looking up to you that the time for kind words or no words at all is all the time – that there is never an excusable lapse for libel.

———

[1] “Cyberbulling case goes to jury,” UPI.com. [Link].

[2] “Lori Drew charged over MySpace suicide,” Fairfax Digital, May 16, 2008. [Link].

[3] “MySpace hoax ends with suicide of Dardenne Prairie teen,” Suburban Journals, November 11, 2007. [Link]

[4] “Verdict in MySpace Suicide Case,” NY Times, November 26, 2008. [Link].

[5] “In the wake of MySpace verdict, could social networks do more to protect consumers?” Los Angeles Times, November 26, 2008. [Link].

[6] “Cyberbullying and Online Teens,” Pew/Internet, June, 2007. [Link].

[7] “Inhibiting Crime Through Design.” [Link].

]]> http://ashleywollam.com/archives/245/feed 0 http://ashleywollam.com/archives/202 http://ashleywollam.com/archives/202#comments Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:11:14 +0000 Ashley Wollam http://ashleywollam.com/?p=202

You may have noticed a good deal of hullabaloo in the press about the advent of Mobile Banking: the new technology enabling consumers to control their financial assets from their mobile phone (texting to transfer funds, schedule a payment, check balances, et cetera).

As exciting as that is, banking is not the only activity people engage in on-the-go. ABI research reports that 46% of those who use social networks have also accessed a social network through their mobile phone (70% of those had visited MySpace  and 67% had visited Facebook). Interestingly, when asked why they had logged in via their mobile, 50% acknowledged checking for comments and messages, while 45% logged in to make status updates – that is, projecting what they were doing or feeling to their online audience.

Social media users have surely not hit a glass ceiling there. Bluhalo reports that social media are “becoming a key element of presidential campaigns.” In fact, the Democractic candidate, Barack Obama, is leveraging social media to encourage his 1.9 million online supports not just to raise money, but to volunteer their time and talents to further his camapign. Time will tell if Republican candidate, John McCain, should have done the same with his 150,000 online supporters.

But back to the thought of mobile-activity. It seems that a burgeoning segment of Americans are finding it necessary to establish a stable place for them to exist, while remaining free to move about in their daily lives. How much of this is desire, and how much of this is need? How much of this is practical, how much of this is excess? To what degree will this change in the coming years? While this recent development definitely harks to fantastic technological advancements, my concern lays somewhere in the gray of “just because we have it, doesn’t mean we need to use it.” Maybe I can better express my concerns by posing three probing questions:

1. How many people view their online presences as Voltaire’s garden? A little sanctuary which we must cultivate on our own to be our stable place in an ever shifting, changing world? (“One just needs to cultivate one’s garden…’tis the only way to make life endurable.”)
2. For how many people are these online presences much like Dorian Gray’s portrait? The outside remains fixed and beautiful, while the insides rot away due to inattention and superficiality. (“It often seems to me that art conceals the artist far more completely than it ever reveals him.”) (Sorry for the double-whammy allusions to high-brow lit.)
3. For how many people, does this desire to “connect” via their cell phones indicate an addiction, an unhealthy urge to always be online, rather than in your physical reality? I’m reminded of my September 13, 2008 post, “Can You Put Down Your Mouse? Your Cell Phone?”, where I noted that Internet Addiction is on track to be included in the next edition of the DSM as a legitimate disorder. Don’t forget that the symptoms of internet addiction include excessive use and anxiety when the device is inaccessible, among other things.

When it comes down to it, I suppose what I’m trying to say is that I worry the millenial generation is becoming more obsessed with themselves than their predecessors, the watershed narcissists of Generation X, because of how accessible and addicting social media has been shown to be. What does this turning inward suggest for our communities? For our relationships? For ourselves?

Or maybe I’m worried for nothing, and just too much a sycophant of Jack Kerouac’s, who urged us to remember “No man should go through life without once experiencing healthy, even bored solitude in the wilderness, finding himself depending solely on himself and thereby learning his true and hidden strength.” I can’t help but think that is damn good advice.

]]> http://ashleywollam.com/archives/202/feed 0