C O N V E R S A T I O N a movie critic still likes movies. Isn’t there you wouldn’t know that. Still, I was happy a way to be a technology critic while still that the New Yorker ran a piece about these professing that one likes technology or that questions and highlighted several books one is an optimist? including mine. For a long time now, there’s been an unspoken assumption that there A distinction that’s more helpful and acare two teams, technophile and technocurate is between technology optimists and phobe, and you have to sign up for one or pessimists. I find that much more interestthe other. To me, that’s a very boring way ing because it doesn’t assume you’re going to think about any new invention—you must whole hog for one team. It acknowledges either embrace it wholeheartedly and bethat we actually don’t know whether we are lieve it’s the answer to everything, or reject going to go to a better it out of hand and run place thanks to this away from it. The realnew kind of connectity, as history shows, edness, and you can This idea that every technology is so much more lean one way or anothinteresting than that. that came before digital is now er. I do think that the In fact, some of the obsolete and meaningless—that difference is in some thinkers I write about hardcopy books are the new buggy ways temperamental. have been erroneSome of us are born ously classified in one whip, for instance—is completely as glass-half-empty category or the other— ridiculous and proven wrong by people and some are Ben Franklin as a pure glass-half-full. I am technophile and Henry history. My favorite case is the fundamentally an opDavid Thoreau as radio. You know the radio was timist and so I came at technophobe. Both are supposed to be completely extinct this question with that crude simplifications outlook and it shaped 50 years ago, and yet we are still that eliminate importhe book. But this is tant twists and turns listening to it every day. In some also what makes the in their thinking. All ways, the radio is more useful than book easy to mischarthe most interesting ever now because it only taxes one acterize. Superficially media writers, includit can come off as ing Marshall McLuhan, of our senses. pessimistic simply recognize that the because I am asking truth is somewhere in questions. We are at a the middle. It’s about point in the technoloshaping our response to technologies so gy conversation, in these early days, where that we are getting the best out of them there isn’t a lot of room for nuance. I was without becoming hostage to them. trying to open up a space for more nuance I really felt that no one had said that, and complexity in our thinking. though we’re 15 years into the digital revoluFor instance, this idea that every technoltion. Somebody needed to say it. ogy that came before digital is now obsolete and meaningless—that hardcopy books It seems like a perennial challenge. Often are the new buggy whip, for instance—is when we hear the term “technology critic,” completely ridiculous and proven wrong by we conflate that with “technophobe.” And history. My favorite case is the radio. You yet we don’t do the same thing when we’re know the radio was supposed to be comtalking about a movie critic. We know that
pletely extinct 50 years ago, and yet we are still listening to it every day. In some ways, the radio is more useful than ever now because it only taxes one of our senses. I love to cook dinner with the radio on. To me, that is one of life’s great pleasures, and it wouldn’t work with a screen projecting visual images. That would be overload. The key question for me, if I can extend this slightly, is: can I start that nuanced conversation in a book that will speak to the everyday person? I really wanted the so-called common reader to plug into this book. I didn’t want to write it for specialists or academics or literary people. I wanted it to be really accessible. But nuance, we are often told, is not for the masses. As a writer, it’s easy to fall into the trap of believing that there’s no point in trying. I actually did a whole first draft of the book striving for what I had always imagined platonically my first book should be: a lot of literary illusions, very wispy references, really subtle stuff. After I handed it in, I realized it was a complete mess and no one was going to want to read it, and I threw it out. I started over, aiming for something more direct and less pretentious, but with the nuances intact. So I actually wrote the book twice. The only things that survived from the first draft were the fictional parable at the opening and the “Hello, Mother” chapter. And it was only in the second draft that I added the seven philosophers whose ideas became the heart of the book: Plato, Seneca, Franklin and the others. But it’s not just their ideas. I realized that telling their life stories was a way to make this book relatable to all kinds of people. The reader could go back in time and feel what it was like to live in 400 B.C. when Socrates was wrestling with some of the same questions we’re wrestling with now. What are these new tools really doing for us? Will they make our lives better or worse?
40
FALL 2013
WEBER
THE CONTEMPORARY WEST
Could we circle back to that moment on the boat when you fell overboard and your phone was lost and you felt anxious about it? That may have been the first time you mentioned the term “nomophobia,” which means the fear of losing one’s cell phone. That anxiety that you felt personally, do you think it is indicative of larger anxieties that people have about their world, and digital technologies? I think people have a natural anxiety about their place in the world and they seek confirmation that they matter. Over time, the ways we seek that kind of confirmation have changed. There was a time not so long ago when letter writing was still a big factor in staying in touch with people. Now the world is designed in a different way. We’re living in this grid that is electronic and seeking confirmation that way, instantaneously through electronic means. And as with letters, these messages help us feel better, so we keep going back to our smartphones the way that Thoreau says people in his time kept going back to the post office—checking, checking, is there any more mail for me?—for the very same reasons. It’s poignant, it’s a part of who we are, and it’s not something we are going to eradicate. But the question is: what if it begins to take over your life? Thoreau himself wondered that. What if your whole day revolves around going back to the post office to check on your mail? Is that an intelligent way to use your time, the brief time that you have on this earth? His answer was no, and mine is the same. Our version of this actually began in his era with the telegraph—instantaneous communication—and we are still in the midst of that shift. How do you live simultaneously with all these people, now 7 billion, and negotiate that relationship and get from it what you need to build the kind of life you want? How do you make sure you have some distance
41