LANGUAGE OF CYBERSPACE

LANGUAGE OF CYBERSPACE

Our entire human existence is based on change. Our species is dependent upon the advancement of life and our culture. If we were to forever remain the same, without evolving, perhaps our collective existence wouldn't even be possible. It remains within our individual powers to hold onto the past. We do not have to let technology take hold of us and our lives.

Sven Birkerts, in his article "Into the Electronic Millennium," seems to feel as if technology is corrupting, and will continue to corrupt, our culture. In specific, he focuses on literature and language as being the core of what is being corrupted. My question is, how can something be corrupted that is, in fact, already corrupted?

Language wasn't created as written expression. Words were invented as personal thoughts that were spoken orally, either to oneself or to an audience. Either way, listeners of words were limited by a storyteller's own preferences. One could argue that the evolution of oral language into written language has been corrupted by these preferences. Today, language isn't as personal and limited as in the past. Words began to be printed, and anyone who chose to read them could. In our era, this printed form of language has merely been converted to an electronic form by technology. Technology loses much of the personal touches that perhaps created language, and the population is now not really limited at all by a storyteller's preferences, but perhaps this freedom is commendable. The entire world is now open to everything. We all have the opportunity to learn, read, and see whatever we desire.

The freedom offered by technology shouldn't be seen as "a destruction of tokens from the past" (391), as Birkerts seems to believe. It is merely the introduction of a future. The past is just that, the past; we can't change it. Therefore, it will always be there. It is in a way indestructible. Libraries will not become musuems as old railways stations have become. Although books could become easily accessible on the Internet, the artifacts that hold the words are not there. Instead, those who want to keep books forever in their own history will be able to do just that. We, society, decide what is neglected in our past and in our culture. The addition of the television did not rid our society of books and outdoor activities as was believed by some. In similar fashion, the advent of the computer does not restrict us as a society to our homes, speaking to virtual others. Birkerts' view that our society will create another of hermits and loners simply won't happen. Humans by nature are social beings. We thrive upon the comfort and companionship of other humans. To rid ourselves of that would be to harmful. We will never close ourselves as a whole to others; the costs outweigh the benefits.

As technology has advanced throughout decades so too has society. Whether technology is seen as corrupting the past or the leading the way to a better future doesn't really matter, because change is inevitable. We should realize that we have the abilities to bring our culture to new heights. To sit back on the past and dwell on what has been lost, or will be lost, limits us to forever remaining the same. The fear of change would prove to be the greatest detriment to the human species.

Crystal's Homepage

Write Me