Why N.T. Wright is Wrong About Social Media

by Julie Clawson 01-05-2010

The Out of Ur blog recently posted a video of N.T. Wright going off on the dangers of social media. He warns that blogging and the like will stand in the way of real communication with others and he calls the popularity of social media “cultural masturbation.” Now it’s nothing new to hear some voice or other going off on modern technology, putting their own particular “it’s the end of the world as we know it” spin on the matter. And on many issues I truly love and respect N.T. Wright, so I was disappointed to hear someone so knowledgeable about history and faith jump on the “caution people about the perceived dangers of the Internet” bandwagon. Admitting the irony that his video was posted on a blog to be discussed on blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, let me just rant for a moment about why I am tired of this discussion.

Let’s just get it out of the way: The warning that Wright and others give is that social media takes people away from actual face-to-face interaction. If we spend too much time blogging and tweeting, we will reduce our time spent with huggable (Wright’s term) people. The problem is – that just isn’t true. A recent Pew Study busted that myth. It reported that, yes, about 6% of the population are isolated and asocial, but that is a number that has stayed steady since 1985 – before the widespread advent of the Internet. The study also found that people who spend time on the Internet are actually far more likely to go out and be with real live people than those who don’t use the Internet. The point – social media actually builds community, even of the huggable people sort. Not only that, but that community is actually more diverse than the communities of those who don’t use social media.

Now I admit, there is the temptation online to not present one’s true self to the world. I think using the Internet for role-playing and gaming is one thing (come on, you can freaking FLY in Second Life!), but aside from people who are already social deviants, I see most people being themselves online. For example, I recently decided to alter my blogroll to a list of people’s names. Aside from group blogs and the occasional anonymous blog, most people are known these days by their true identity and not just their blog name. That wasn’t the case when I first started blogging or interacting online. Back then, most people hid behind cute avatars and handles. Most of the blogs I read, especially those by women, were anonymous, but over the years people have moved towards being themselves by using their real name. Same thing with e-mail addresses. It used to be that everyone had some personal descriptor/alter ego as their e-mail – like JesusGirl98 or SurfrBoy123. And yes, my first email address was EponineJMG@aol.com (ah, the musical obsessed highschool girl demographic). I still cringe a bit when I sign into a site I’ve been on for a long time (like The Ooze) and have my user name be some variation of MaraJade. Back then, I assumed that the internet wasn’t real community and that I could hide behind my username, but I’ve come to realize that I have to be true to myself. And that involves using my real name and only writing the things I am not afraid to own up to.

So as I present my true self to the world and see others doing the same, I get more and more annoyed with those that accuse online communication of not being real communication. I’m sorry, but how is it not real? Communication of this sort has existed for ages; blogs and Facebook and Twitter are just its newest forms. Back in college we had message boards and blog posts – only they were of the paper and pen variety. Someone would write out a few paragraphs or pose a question and tape that paper to a wall in the student center or even in a bathroom stall. We would add our replies with pens. Same thing in grade school. We would fill notebooks with Facebook-esqe questions like “What are your favorite bands?” or “Where do you want to live when you grow up?” and pass them around class getting everyone’s responses. And go back a few hundred years. You have Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Door. You have pamphlets being printed to disseminate ideas, and counter-pamphlets appearing in return. Sure, it took longer, but it’s the same idea as blog posts. Or the way letters to the editor used to function as a forum for discussion. Or even the popularity of pen-pals one would never meet. Communication of this sort has all happened before, so why is it that this time it isn’t real?

Social media doesn’t destroy or hinder community, it builds it. As a fairly extreme introvert, I had far fewer friends before I started connecting through the internet. Because of online connections and discussions, I am now spending much more time with flesh and blood huggable people. Like any community or form of communication, the online world has its flaws – no one is disputing that. But I am tired of being told to fear something for dubious reasons. So Wright can call this age-old form of communication cultural masturbation if he wants, I’ll just send him a virtual pint on Facebook and have fun discussing his ideas with my friends – both on- and offline. Because that’s real community.

Julie Clawson is the author of Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices (IVP 2009). She blogs at julieclawson.com and emergingwomen.us.

Categories: Culture Watch

Tags: blogging, choice, Community, dangers of the internet, facebook, fear, friend, Global, identity, interaction, Internet, Media, myth, N.T. Wright, pew study, role playing, self, technology, temptation, true self, twitter, Video, writing

trevorjenkins

There has been no mention here of one important aspect of social networking websites. What do they exist for? Is it to reconnect people with long-lost friends? Is it to encourage debate and discourse? No. The prime purpose of these sites is advertisting. It is to encourage consumption and to make a profit. Even here at Sojourners as I type this reply there is an advertisment for an entirely different organisation staring at me. I'm minded like Ronald J Sider that there is something of the demonic in advertising. But for all the support people make of social networking sites those sites only exist because targeted ads can be displayed.

trevorjenkins

This exemplifies what Wright said in supoprt of social networking. The recommendation of further reading or in-depth study.

trevorjenkins

Much as I love Sojourners and what it stands for and fights for I agree with Wright! There I've said it. And I disagree with Julie Clawson. There I’ve said that too. indeed I agree with Neil Postman and the thesis he posits in his 1985 book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" where he argues that the influence of the TV sound byte has denuded human discourse of substantial meaning. Or as Wright called it in the video “dehumanises communication”. Postman argues that we talk to each other in platitudes --- oh he would have loved tweets and seen them for what they are.

Also I agree with Wright on a level that Clawson has overlooked here. While Wright refers to his own theological work as a possible impetus for becoming involved in "social networking" he argues for full engagement in the world. Not in the pew. I could not be less concerned about how social networking is used with the church. The world is a different environment to the church. There we are closeted in a comfy and pleasant environment with people of like mind. The world is messy and nasty and isolated. Wright, it seems to me, is laying down the challenge that we go out and engage with the world. We are not to interpose a glass screen between ourselves and others. We are not to remain safe behind our computer monitors but to get out there "doing the stuff" even at the very expense of our lives just as Jesus himself and the early disciples did by going to the cross.

As a sign language interpreter I fundamentally agree with Wright on the limited nature of writing. So much more communication happens through facial expression, body language, posture and other non-verbal cues than can ever be conveyed in print or on screen. As much as 80% of real communication happens without the need for words. "I preach the gospel whereever I go; sometimes I use words" (attributed to St Francis of Assissi). Even in this comment I cannot convey my own affect with these 26 lead soldiers. You need to see my real emotions supporting this argument; you can’t because letters are lifeless.

We need to distinguish between our own likes and the message than Wright is trying to convey. If one reads more than a few pages of his own books it becomes clear that he is passionate about the image of God that mankind is made in. To hide that image, to “dehumanise” ourselves through whatever means marrs that image and should be called by its proper name ... sin.

Andrew Dallaston

What an exaggerated reaction to a reasonable and moderate statement from NT Wright. Julie Clawson describes him as "going off" about social media. Another comment called it "an unsolicited rant". A rant? Not even close. NT Wright is an English academic after all. Unsolicited? He was responding to a question asked by an interviewer.
In my humble opinion the worthy cleric did not go far enough in exploring the dangers of this e-communication explosion. I've written an article on our Human Chronicle website (hcweb.org) which might actually deserve the description of a rant, or going off but I do think it's vital that as we surf this tsunami of social media we keep our analytic and critical senses sharp. We must keep in mind what NT Wright calls the meta issues... the ethics and ethos of what we're doing.

nbarooti

I haven't seen the N.T. Wright video, but I don't put much stock in critiques that don't find a place for both valuing another's contribution and correcting perceived errors. If it's not true that developments in communication and the media are changing how MUCH we interact face to face -- it's well-established that technology is changing HOW we engage in these face to face interactions, how we experience "relationships", even how we experience "reality". I'm grateful for prophetic voices like Wright which are willing to question and challenge the currents and trends. Prophets always have, and I'm disappointed that Julie simply said "you're wrong" without making a contribution to the conversation.

facebook-1363553490

I agree in principle that food, clothing, holding, touching, crying and singing require presence. However, when my husband and I hit rough times, some of my friends in California sent us money to buy groceries through Paypal. I'd consider that true community.

alanck

Julie, do you have any children yet? I know that my affections regarding social media have been impacted and shaped more by them than anything else, including an awareness of its potentially destructive power.

Jonathan Marlowe

I think you are misrepresenting N. T. Wright. He didn't say in the video that all blogging is bad. He says actually that it can be helpful, just so long as it doesn't TAKE THE PLACE of actual human face to face interaction. And I think he's right about that. Just so long as we don't blog to the exclusion of interacting with huggable people.

kinnon

Daniel - I have no doubt he would agree with Julie on some of her points. I'm just concerned that I hung NTW out to dry with this out of context clip. Not that it will do him any damage, of course. But still...

daniel so

Bill - Thanks for the followup. Context is everything (or, at least, it puts things into perspective). Framing the conversation is important; as an admirer of the bishop & his work, I was disappointed at what seems like an unsolicited rant against the evil of social media/technological progress.

However, throughout this clip, Wright makes some really important observations about the dehumanization of our communication and the importance of connecting our online presence to real-life action.

I agree with much of Julie said. As an introvert myself (and shy, to boot), I have developed/strengthened many meaningful "real-life" friendships via social media. From the short clip I watched, I would venture to guess that Wright might agree with many of her points as well.

Carter McNeese

Over all I have to say that I agree with Julie: I don't have any particular problem with social media, as long as it is a tool, a means to an end and not an end in-and-of-itself.

However, I am skeptical of the 6% figure that the Pew study found. If that is the case, then I know all of them! That figure was not the central element of the study, and was merely used to compare. The actual report is a little dense to get down into, but I have to think that there is a flaw somewhere. My real life experience tells me that far more people are isolated, hurting, and alone than a mere 6%.

What the study does show is that isolation seem to have little correlation to use of social media. The only thing that it doesn't take into account is the quality of the communications. By definition this would be qualitative data that would be near impossible to quantify. I think that we would be foolish to think that these new channels of communication weren't changing the way we communicate. Just as moveable type changed the way we communicate, so too does the world wide intertubes.

Just sayin'

ianpacker

I use Facebook a lot, and read blogs a lot. I nonetheless agree that Wright should not be dismissed so easily. Perhaps we are too close to it to see it clearly. We tend to see technologies as mere neutral tools which can have good or bad uses. Philosophy of technology (e.g. Neil Postman, Technopoly) is essential... theology of technology ought to be as incisive - not mere testimony about how I've made more discussion-friends through the internet.

I would be interested to see comments about how it is used by high school aged kids. watching how my teenage daughters have used it and their friends and 'friends', it is hardly a great experiment in community but often an excuse for boys to be lewd and perve at photos of girls and conduct ridiculous polls riddled with inuendo or else simply vapid. It is another blow to kids being able to be occasionally comfortable with quiet and contemplation rather than feeling they must be constantly stimulated and entertained... or a blow to connecting with family.

Geerhardus

Wright's right. Words, as meaningful and powerful as they are, are the only means of virtual community. Food, clothing, holding, touching, crying, singing...the blessed sacraments themselves, require presence.

Palosaari

Actually, I was just going for humor, since the article talked about how we don't use handles anymore, and these guys agreed with the article, and they all use handles.

kinnon

I commented on this article when Julie first put it up on her blog and am surprised to see it here again.

I shot the interview with the good Bishop when he was at an Anglican Seminary conference in Toronto a couple of years ago. This was the only question I asked, as my wife, Imbi Medri, had been interviewing him for the previous hour. His response was off the cuff and I felt it was particularly appropriate for me (as an introvert who can easily spend more time in virtual relationships than IRL). Bishop Wright had been going from dawn to late into the evening at this conference and we grabbed an hour of what was to be his down time.

I find Julie's response a little over the top and now wish I'd never put the video up on Vimeo. (Note that Out of Ur did not discuss with me putting it up on their advertising surrounded page.)

When portions of this quote end up in my wife's documentary on Church Leadership in the 21st Century, they will include comments on social media from Andrew Jones, Jonny Baker, myself and others - placing Wright's response within its proper context.

BlueDeacon

Theoretically I could, but that would get expensive real fast -- plane fare and all that ...

Ted Voth Jr

As to use of real names, do any of you remember Ursula K LeGuin's Earthsea series? In te world of Earthsea, nobody used her or his true name– except the hero, Ged, the Archmage, the all-time greatest of the wizards: Ged, Sparrowhawk.

I have long used my real name on his example.

On some contrary to or corollary of that same principle, Harry Potter never minced Voldemort's name.

Ted Voth Jr

Crabby old Tom! Nice to see the feet of clay of the old guy, whom I tremendously like and admire as a scholar and a brother! Love im! Love ya, Julie! Thanks for the facts and the figures, as otherwise I would've agreed unduly with the good Bishop.

(You see I'm on Facebook: I'm replying by Facebook– because Disqus gives me the digital run-around every time I try to log in.)

Deborah Nystrom

Great post! The combo of introversion + community + hugs in comparison to Wright's commentary is illuminating, along with the Pew study research.

There also some helpful research via Danah Boyd (danah boyd), a social media researcher at Microsoft Research New England and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Danah has researched safety and community among young people connected with MySpace and Facebook. She filled the auditorium at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan recently to discuss how fears about safety and MySpace/Facebook have been somewhat exaggerated.

All in all, your irony comment about "his video was posted on a blog to be discussed on blogs, Facebook, and Twitter" was not lost on me. Technology tools enable robust and clarifying discussion in ways that pontificating from the pulpit cannot. At least I commend him for not shying away from the dialog.

I believe that technology serves us best as an accelerator, when the power of it is understood and wisely used. A community can help build understanding and wise use. Facebook is a good case in point, especially as the demographics of it evolve.

Boomers are flocking to Facebook, for example, in order to easily renew connections with their far flung friends and relatives. I'm getting to know my extended family in new and in some cases, better ways that actually enhance my Thanksgiving visits to the big family clan, in ways that could not be done before.

Your introversion comments are especially useful. Those of us who might feel less comfortable in a big party, without introductions, can actually build into getting to know people by having some comfort with social media. The dominant extroverted side of me thanks you for that! I've shared excerpts of your post via posterous (mini-blog posting service.

A reference to Dana Boyd's work is here: http://revelnconsulting.posterous.com/social-me...

Thank you Julie. I appreciate the commentary as well.

Matt Crum

I encourage the reading of the book "Flickering Pixels" by Shane Hipps. There are good and bad unintended consequences attached to social media. The important thing is to be conscious of the bad.