The Advancement of Social Technology and Its Effects on Modern Society

Timothy Egan's statement in response to the how the Notre Dame linebacker, Manti Te'o, could have possibly "fallen in love with a woman he never met" which ultimately led to a humiliating and public hoax sparked a concern I've had for some time. Here is what Egan said:

"The answer, in part, is what’s wrong with love and courtship for a generation that values digital encounters over the more complicated messiness of real human interaction. As my colleague Alex Williams reported in a widely discussed piece a few days ago, screen time may be more important than face time for many 20- and 30-somethings. “Dating culture has evolved to a cycle of text messages, each one requiring the code-breaking skills of a cold war spy to interpret,” said Shani Silver, 30, in the story." The Hoax of Digital Life by Timothy Egan

It is obvious and naturally expected that we, as a society, have been rapidly advancing technologically. But I'm not as concerned with technology which desalinates water in industrial quantities or telescopes which probe through space. We've had computers for decades now, and newer computer implementations are being continuously integrated within the social environment as a response to our social "needs". However, sometimes I feel hesitant to call it "advancement". It would seem that our priorities and our interpretations of social interaction are changing. But are these changes for the better? Perhaps they are. Still, it is important to analyze these changes in order to negate any negative repercussions. Now, I don't intend to go through all the details, but with change inevitably comes consequences. People--young individuals particularly--are gradually becoming more and more dependent upon their devices for the fulfillment of certain needs such as social interaction, satisfying such needs with a conduit which provides sometimes instant gratification. This instant gratification requires little effort and is readily available, reducing one's need to really achieve anything other than some simple comment which is merely representative of a person. How would this play out within an extended timeline? How will society and culture turn out in the end? Is this a perpetual cycle or will there be means for reversal?

Cultural Cognition

As I was reading an article in the New York Times, something profound caught my attention:

"Humans are social animals.We have evolved to depend on our group, our tribe, for our health and safety. So we adopt views and positions that align with those of our group, in order to be accepted and supported   and protected   as a member in good standing. Agreeing with the group also helps protect us because social unity helps our tribe prevail in the competition with other tribes for control of society in general. So we see and interpret the facts about guns, or any issue, through these deep lenses." ("On Gun Policy, Both Sides Have Something to Fear" by David Ropeik)

Now, this idea of course is not new, (he establishes this by referring to it as "cultural cognition") but it introduces a viewpoint on the volatile subject of gun control that I haven't yet heard   at least not in such depth. According to Ropeik, how we view any particular matter   especially any deeply polarizing matter   is largely dictated, or at least influenced, by our social environment. We've all heard of this kind of influence of behavior as "peer pressure" which is generally viewed with negative connotation. But the natural principle is the same: we want to be like others, and we want others to be like us. Still, the primary basis of such social behavior which supposedly encourages "unity" has inspired sometimes fierce debate.

"We are creatures of habit" as some say, either tolerating change or standing in outright opposition to it. We strive to maintain a routine or atmosphere familiar to us as we feel secure when we know the result of our actions or the order around us. It is similar to our discomfort with darkness: one fears the dark because one cannot see what is there. Therefore, the reason we strive for familiarity is because we recognize the result and find security in knowing.

Being different is not advantageous   it invokes insecurity. If an individual   or group   is perceived as "different," that individual is unfamiliar to those around him or her and, therefore, others are less inclined to extend themselves to that individual out of fear how ever subtle. Such is the root of racism and other forms of unjustified intolerance. What is advantageous, however, within the context of security, is social conformity: eventually, the culture of the social environment becomes integrated into the individual's personal culture thereby invoking familiarity with and amid the social environment and instilling a renewed sense of security. Given such evaluation, it impossible to ignore the persistence of regional cultures and even stereotypes.

I find this notion fascinating yet not unfamiliar. It is almost an innate concept that I would assume each individual would also recognize. However, some, I would imagine, likely either ignore or outright reject it as a misguided and baseless examination of human social behavior which compromises the freedom of expression sought by all and ordained as one's personal "right." Others, on the other hand, likely accept such examination in order to identify rational behavior; rational behavior which is itself identified within the context of time and place.

Pathos, Logos, Ethos: "Is Poverty a Kind of Robbery?"

Is Poverty a Kind of Robbery?

Author   Thomas B. Edsall

Pathos: 

EXAMPLE   [Alice] Goffman described some of the effects of extreme poverty by quoting the words of a Detroit resident to whom she gave the pseudonym “Marqueta”:

"Your fingers get slow, you know, your whole body slows down. You can’t really do much, you try to put a good face on for the kids, but when they leave you just keep still, keep the covers around you. Almost like you kind of fold into the floor. Like you’re just waiting it out. You don’t really think about too much.… November your stomach is crying at you but by December you know, you start to just shut down…. Around 3 you get up for the kids. Put the space heaters, so they come home and it’s warm in here."

RESPONSE   Although the majority of the article does not rely on exploiting the readers' emotions, Edsall still attempts to grab your attention by relaying the experience of a struggling mother with children struggling to maintain confidence for her children despite the unfortunate and difficult circumstances. The utilization of pathos sentiments continues a bit further but to a fairly limited extent that avoids alienating the reader. Such statements are certainly relevant as the subject matter naturally incites pity   the title itself prepares your emotions for the material!

Logos:

EXAMPLE   Hunger has grown sharply since the financial collapse of 2008, although it is felt acutely by a relatively small percentage of the population. In 2007, 12.2 percent of Americans experienced what the Department of Agriculture describes as "low food security," including 4 percent who fell into the category of very low food security. By 2011, the percentage of those coping with low food security rose to 16.4 percent, and those experiencing very low food security went up to 5.5 percent.

RESPONSE   Much of the article centers on the political perspective of the poverty issue and, therefore, statistics become a major element of the material especially since the economic status of the country often takes center stage amid the political scene. The numbers become a foundation built upon throughout the article to explain the social pressures and ethical and moral complications of the left and right positions of the election. As well, the numbers are used to really emphasize the troubled economy and failure to provide effective solutions against the growing exploitation of poverty-stricken individuals and families.

Ethos:

EXAMPLE   ...How different would the nation's politics be if either party, or at least the Democrats, added the concept of economic exploitation to its repertoire?

Not only would doing so risk inflaming the issue of race, but it would put at risk existing sources of campaign finance on which both parties are dependent. The finance-insurance-real estate sector is the single largest source of cash for the Democratic Party, $46.3 million in the current election cycle, and for the Republican Party too, at $67.7 million.

This dependence on moneyed interests effectively precludes exploitation as a theme for either major party to develop. These sources of campaign cash would dry up if they became the target of policies or positions they found threatening.

RESPONSE   It seems that Edsall utilizes ethos most proficiently. The issue of exploitation becomes a matter relatively untouched amid the fight for presidency and the reasons violate a very sensitive ethical principle: benefiting from another being's misery. Not only does it feel wrong, but it is nearly impossible to avoid without severely harsh consequences   almost a necessary evil for both political parties. Edsall does a fantastic job getting the reader to think about the true picture of reality and the fallacies of life whether amid politics or one's own everyday dealings; Edsall's effective use of ethos prompts within the reader a reevaluation of the modern society.