cAnderson 1

Julie Anderson

Ms. Catherine Turner

WCWP 10A

10 February 2009

Technology and the Written Word:

The Democratic Effects of the Internet

With the advent of the internet, some wonder about the effects of communications

technology on knowledge and the written word. Lanier considers internet technology to be

creating text representative of a stupid collective hive mentality, ³there¶s no better way to watch

the hive mind. But the hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring´ (Lanier 47). Tumlin

notes internet users create online text about varied topics in collectives. ³It would be more

accurate to refer to the plural ³hive minds´ in describing the numerous and varied collectives that

operate in the Web world, since various collectives seem to display differences in much the same

way that tile hives and bee gums (and individual human beings) differ´ (Tumlin 58). One author

condemns the vast amounts of text posted on the internet as debilitating the strength of the

written word, ³ merely churning out text is hardly the best way to improve your writing´ (Baron

32). Even if the quality of the written word has diminished with the advent of the internet, the

wide array of available knowledge due to the increased output of text has had a, ³democratizing

effect for users without access to substantial book collections´ (Baron 35). However, Lanier

argues that the rise of internet technology is undemocratic. ³The appeal of a new online

collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it

is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with

the most verity and force. This is different from a« democracy´ (Lanier 43). He argues that
 cAnderson 2
c

since sites such as Wikipedia only gather knowledge from a few individuals and feed that

knowledge to everyone else, the knowledge is not representative of everyone and therefore

undemocratic.

Indeed, technology, with the power to limit access to knowledge and therefore shape

thought, is undemocratic. The practice of restricting knowledge in order to shape thoughts often

reflects a nondemocratic system of government. Under the reign of the Communist party in

China, ³the Communist party, the 13 cadres« formerly helped dictate the country¶s propaganda

policy´ (Watts). Under the monarchy during the Hundred Years¶ War, the English monarchy

shaped the thoughts of the English people towards the French by feeding the people only select

knowledge about the French. ³A proud patriotism, nourished by royal propaganda and pulpit

oratory, and also, emphatically, by the euphoria of such dramatic English victories as Crecy,

Poitiers and Agincourt, was probably the most lasting legacy of the Hundred Years War´ (Keen).

Newspeak, the language of choice in the nondemocratic government from Orwell¶s 1984, boasts

of a rescinding size, the only language that shrinks every year. The functionality of the language

was to limit access to the knowledge of words and therefore restrict deviant and possibly

threatening thoughts from forming so that the people of Oceania lacked the ability to act on

rebellious ideas. Additionally in George Orwell¶s book, the ministry of truth rewrites the public

archives, records of the past, and censors the actual results of production, indicating that the

economy is booming even though in truth, the economy is declining. Similar to 1984, the Soviet

Union, a communist dictatorship, greatly censored the knowledge available to the public. When

Gorbachev introduced the policy of Glasnost, a policy that weakened the firm grip of censorship

and exposed more truths to the people, ³the school history exams for 1988 were cancelled. So

much conventional wisdom was overturned in the preceding months that the existing Soviet
 cAnderson 3
c

history books had become useless´ (Graham). Since censorship, as a restriction of knowledge

implemented in order to shape thoughts indicates a nondemocratic system, if technology can

censor or shape our thought process in accordance to a select group of individuals, then

technology is undemocratic. Carr notes that for Nietzsche, technology affects his thought

process, ³You are right, Nietzsche replied, our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our

thoughts« Nietzsche¶s prose changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns,

from rhetoric to telegram style´ (Carr 68). Carr additionally argues that Google is shaping users¶

thoughts. ³Still, their easy assumption that we¶d all ³be better off´ if our brains were

supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence [Google search engines] is

unsettling´ (Carr 71). If Google thinks for the user, Google is capable of altering thoughts.

However, although nondemocratic forms of government often alter the thought process of

the individual, the point is that the undemocratic systems alter the thoughts of individuals by

constricting access to knowledge, effectively censoring knowledge. Even though technology may

affect the style in which one communicates, technology does not affect the ideas of an

individual. Nietzsche¶s style of expression may have changed, but his ideas were still the same.

In attempting to express the same idea in two different languages, English and Spanish, the

grammar structure and words used may be different, but the concept that one wishes to convey is

still equivalent. The main wish may be to ask someone to listen, but the meaning conveyed by

the unique grammar and sentence structures might have a vaguely different focus. One language

may emphasize on the relationship between the listener and speaker by noting each individual in

the sentence; whereas, the other language may focus on the action of listening. Companies using

telegrams shortened the messages sent to others, but the idea of the message, such as buy 50

stocks, remained identical regardless of the style of the message sent. Although internet search
 cAnderson 4
c

engines such as Google may encourage users to browse through certain links, listing some

websites ahead of others, ³search engines are now more likely to point you to the wikified

versions´ (Lanier 45), the internet does not censor the information available but allows access to

many sources of information with differing ideas and opinions. Boyd notes that thanks to the

internet, ³if I am willing to look, there are places on the internet that will expose me to every

view on this planet, even those that I¶d prefer to pretend did not exist´ (Boyd 74). Even in

response to Lanier¶s essay, Benckler, Dyson, and Gillmor use the internet to respond to Lanier¶s

article with different perspectives on Lanier¶s opinion. ³The collected thoughts from people

responding to Jaron Lanier¶s essay are not a hive mind, but they¶ve done a better job of

dissecting his provocative essay than any one of us could have done´ (Gillmor 56). Due to the

technology of the internet, people with differing opinions were able to expand upon the wealth of

ideas and knowledge presented alongside the article. Since censorship decreases the availability

of knowledge of information surrounding a subject and therefore alters the public¶s

understanding, the ability of the internet to disperse ideas is the opposite of censorship and is

democratic.

The accessibility of knowledge and the written word due to technology is reflective of a

democratic society. In opposition to an undemocratic society that restricts access to information,

the internet broadens access to information. With the advent of the internet, more people have

access to the internet. ³Today, curious poor youth have access to information in an

unprecedented way. It may not be perfect, but it is far better than a privilege-only model of

access´ (Boyd 75). Increased access to knowledge and the written word is more democratic than

previous models of knowledge distribution because a democracy can only survive if the citizens

are knowledgeable about the topics upon which they vote. In a speech at Vanderbilt University,
 cAnderson 5
c

May 18, 1963, John F. Kennedy said, ³The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the

security of all.´ Due to the increased access to knowledge in the form of the written word, the

internet is reflective of democratic ideals giving more citizens access to knowledge. On

MySpace, Colbie Caillat became widely renowned due to the number of hits, effectively votes,

on her song tracks. ³She became the number one unsigned artist on MySpace for four successive

months, garnering an almost unbelievable 10 million plays. Record labels started courting her´

(Biography). The distribution of knowledge of her music was democratic in that everyone had

access to the music knowledge of her songs. Not only is the internet technology more democratic

in the manner in which users can ascertain knowledge, but in the ability for any user to post

written material. Instead of publishing companies, composed of only a chosen few who decide

what is and is not published, the internet, with outlets such as blogs and Wikipedia, allows

anyone to distribute written works. According to Lanier, ³we now are reading what [is] derived

from what collectives chose from what a population of mostly amateur writers wrote

anonymously´ (Lanier 46). Anyone ranging from reporters on [Link] to anonymous

amateurs can contribute to the available written text of the internet. Much of the written text of

the internet On [Link], any user can use the website to upload poems, stories, or quizzes

that the user created, and others can even rate the written works, effectively voting on which

homespun literature is best. The internet reflects democracy in its ability to give everyone a say

in what knowledge and written works are published, and even the ability to vote on what

knowledge and written works are best.

Works Cited

"Biography." Universal Motown/Republic Group 2007 9 Feb 2009

<[Link]

Graham, James. "Gorbachev's Glasnost." History Orb 7 Feb 2009

<[Link]

Keen, Maurice. "The Hundred Years War." BBC 13 05 2008 6. 19 Feb 2009

<[Link]

Watts, Jonathan. "China's old guard warns censors of 'social disaster'." Phayul 17 02 2006 9 Feb

2009 <[Link]