- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,698
- Reaction score
- 1,539
- Location
- The City Different
- Website
- www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
We've had various discussions in here about how language affects thought -- ghosts of Sapir-Whorf, and the like. Most of the discussion has been value-neutral; we've talked about if this is a reasonable hypothesis or not, rather than if it's a good thing or not (if true). But there are more sinister implications. George Orwell was well aware of these darker possibilities. From 1984:
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought--that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc--should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect method. This was done partly by the invention of new words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever."
All of which brings me to a recent book by Nicholas Carr called The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing To Our Brains. (The subtitle of the UK version is How the Internet Is Changing the Way We Think, Read, and Remember.) His thesis, or rant, is not a new one: the internet is changing how we read, and thus think, for the worse. (He's written similar sorts of things in Does IT Matter?) Like many books of this sort, The Shallows is floridly overwritten in places, but I do think he's pointed out how madly clicking from hyperlink to hyperlink online has changed for many the way they read. Perhaps we're in danger of becoming butterflies flitting from flower to flower. Or perhaps our brains are learning wonderful new skills in multitasking? If so, is that a good thing?
For myself, my 8-year-old son doesn't have a computer at home, although of course he uses them at school. He reads books at home. Will he be hopelessly left behind, or will he be the one-eyed man in the future land of the blind?
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought--that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc--should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect method. This was done partly by the invention of new words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever."
All of which brings me to a recent book by Nicholas Carr called The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing To Our Brains. (The subtitle of the UK version is How the Internet Is Changing the Way We Think, Read, and Remember.) His thesis, or rant, is not a new one: the internet is changing how we read, and thus think, for the worse. (He's written similar sorts of things in Does IT Matter?) Like many books of this sort, The Shallows is floridly overwritten in places, but I do think he's pointed out how madly clicking from hyperlink to hyperlink online has changed for many the way they read. Perhaps we're in danger of becoming butterflies flitting from flower to flower. Or perhaps our brains are learning wonderful new skills in multitasking? If so, is that a good thing?
For myself, my 8-year-old son doesn't have a computer at home, although of course he uses them at school. He reads books at home. Will he be hopelessly left behind, or will he be the one-eyed man in the future land of the blind?