The recent post on Facebook which caused a furore has been the inspiration for this editorial. I do not intend to dwell upon, the right of the person concerned to make a comment, the subsequent actions of the law-enforcement authorities and the reactions of various sections of the public. These aspects of the matter have already been and will continue to be debated upon. However what one really needs to appreciate are various issues that platforms such as Facebook and other technologically advanced communication tools have created.
Social networking sites have grown tremendously over the last decade. These sites have two significant attributes, namely that of a global platform with virtually unlimited access, and communication at substantial speed virtually in real-time. These characteristics could both be virtues as well as lead to disastrous consequences. Whatever is expressed on the platform is accessible to the world, and in fact, that seems to be intent for which the platform was promoted.
These platforms have changed the meaning of concepts and words. In my generation, the concept of a “friend” was one with whom you shared some degree of commonality. A person with whom you had nothing in common was rarely termed as a friend. On these sites you have “ friends” with whom you do not have a single common trait. So the neighbour who stays next door is a stranger, but a person in a distant country whom you have not seen in a life time is a friend !
If you” liked” a particular act or thing, there was a degree of feeling which resulted in your making the comment. It is true that at times, one said that one liked a particular thing only as a matter of courtesy, but if that was the case the manner of communication made it apparent. If one looks at the “likes” that one receives on some of the posts on networking sites, one really wonders whether the word has any meaning at all.
While networking platforms have encouraged a trend to disclose everything ( including certain private experiences) to the world at large, other advances in technology have resulted in an invasion of privacy. The cell or the mobile has been a culprit. In the good old days, if you wanted to maintain a degree of solitude, one stayed away from a landline. Callers on account of choice or by way of compulsion respected an individual’s desire to remain unavailable. With the advent of the mobile, the caller calls on the cell and expects the same to be answered. Not answering the cell when the caller calls repeatedly is taken as being impolite. Unsolicited calls and messages are extremely disturbing as my professional colleagues would have experienced in the past few weeks, and will probably have to endure this problem for a few more days.
The use of information technology, without understanding its fallout, has also led to two very disturbing trends. On account of the ability to store information which can be accessed virtually real-time, most of us have stopped using what we call the “memory” within. Earlier, we memorised the personal details of our relatives and friends like their telephone numbers and addresses etc. Since this information is now stored on our handheld cell phones, we rarely find the need to remember it. Consequently, if the cell phone is lost so are we. In the words of Henry Thoreau “men have become the tools of their tools”. Information or knowledge was earlier accessed from books or journals. Today, one rarely uses the printed word. If some information is required, one simply “googles”. In fact, when I was discussing the virtues of memorising tables with one of my nephews, he pointed out that it was a total waste of “memory” when these tables could be easily stored in a machine. In his view, the memory in our brain should remain free for better use. What sort of use it is now being put to is a matter of debate.
Another aspect of the matter is a perception that technology can substitute human attributes or human characteristics. It is now possible to communicate with any person across the globe at the touch of a button. One can not only hear a person irrespective of the geographical distance but can also see him. Unfortunately, this has its own disadvantages. An old lady in our family was depressed after her daughter, consequent to her marriage left for the United States . I tried to console her by stating that “geography was now history” and that she could speak to her daughter at any time and through the web cam could even see her. The old lady merely smiled and told me that it was in fact the web cam that caused immense pain. She explained that earlier she was able to only speak to her daughter and was content in the belief that her daughter was enjoying a good life in the States, because that is what she heard over the phone. Seeing her on the web cam, the old lady could see the pain on her daughter’s face and what was hidden in words was now unmasked. Being unable to physically comfort or console her daughter resulted in the old lady having sleepless nights.
This is not to say that we should shun technology. In fact, even if we wanted to, it is now impossible. One must however sensitise society in regard to the pitfalls of excessive reliance on technology. It needs to be emphasised particularly to youngsters that technology is a tool and not a substitute for human attributes and values. We should harness technology and put it to use. Tools are means and not an end. We must remain the master of our tools and not permit them to become ours!
Anil J. Sathe
Joint Editor
