Why N.T. Wright is Wrong About Social Media

Couldn't agree more. And the idea that people don't hide behind personas in "face to face" communication is strange to me. Almost everyone I meet - in person or online - is presenting a version of themselves. And, both online and in person, it takes time and relationship to discover who they really are. (and if they're going to lie about who they are, that's as easy to do in person as it is online.)

And this has what to do with climate change? Seems to me the post was about social media.

Great suggestions for communication gurus. In particular, wish Postman was still around to comment on Tweet, etc.

Just being snarky. Relax.

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.

I think Wright may be right over the long haul.

The problem with the current studies is that are measuring a population that is still relatively new to Internet network. Most people today still learned to relate to people face to face in their childhood and early adolescence, the most formative years. So, internet networking is built upon the foundation of personal, face-to-face relationships, allowing it to increase personal contact since it makes it easier to contact others to get together and so on. Also, internet networking wouldn't do much to undermine the face to face relations that were strongly reinforced, at least in the short term. Therefore, people using internet would tend to do in public places to get some form of personal socialization.

The issue will be the younger generations who used internet, text messaging, etc. etc. in their more formative years. When that age group reaches maturity, they will relate to people in a drastically different way.

Also, another question is how will the population as a whole change socially over a long term period time. Again, we are still relatively new to the phenomenon of internet networking. It wouldn't immediately usurp our natural way of relating to one another, but it can slowly chip away over the course of many years.

In addition, I have to ask the questions as to how Pew measures asocial behavior. Is this metric consistent, or is the metric somehow altered by present day forms of accepted social behavior? Also, it has been consistent since 1985, but what was it beforehand? If it was lower before then, it is a possibility that over the long haul it is still rising and the past 25 years has been a relatively lull in change? There was no drastically new forms of communication that was wide spread till the late 90s when the internet became popular. And as mentioned, we are still relatively early in the internet phenomenon, when compared to other various forms of contact such as the telephone. It would probably take a while for the full effects of said technology to occur.

Have to agree with Julie on this one. Of course, social media have been misused. Same goes with just about every other technology.

Besides, we all know that global climate change is the harbinger of the end of the world.

Sorry about the double post above. I can't figure out how to remove one of them.

Couldn't agree more. And the idea that people don't hide behind personas in "face to face" communication is strange to me. Almost everyone I meet - in person or online - is presenting a version of themselves. And, both online and in person, it takes time and relationship to discover who they really are. (and if they're going to lie about who they are, that's as easy to do in person as it is online.)

Jedidiah:

Yes, I suppose you are mostly right. Thanks for posting. But your post sort of illustrates my point: these sites tend to keep us fast-paced, without quite so much nuance. You say these guys--tick, tick, tick--are correct. I suppose that sort of bluntness could happen face to face, too, but the way we speak so quickly, without that tender look, or slight smile, it is obvious to anyone who has ever been misunderstood on line that there is in social networking a risk that our styles of writing take that are somewhat different than face to face.

It may be that there is "little difference" in "forms" but I know from experience that those little differences sometimes take on great significance. And, more than the forms, are the habits of heart that emerge when we interact in tweets and profiles.

In God's good world, things are there as a gift--so we ought not be luddite, I'd say. But in a fallen world, there are dysfunctional ideologies and idols that do distort and hurt. A robust doctrine of creation and a realistic view of the Fall can keep us balanced as we learn practices that are coherent from the viewpoint of spirituality and Biblical faith.

A few folks mentioned Postman: a bit before he died I had the great privilege of walking around with him, talking about God, if it is necessary to be so worried about technology (as he was) and the griefs of the deaths of our fathers. He gave me a real hug even though we had just met. Priceless.

N.T. Wright and John Piper finally find something they share in common: suspicion toward technological innovation!

Great suggestions for communication gurus. In particular, wish Postman was still around to comment on Tweet, etc.

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by thewilcam: I luv him but here's Y N.T. Wright is Wrong About Social Media - http://bit.ly/4rGtqH...

Thanks for the good comments. I wanted to echo the concern that it may sound a bit naive (sorry Julie) to suggest there are no dangers, or to minimize them so. I agree with Clawson's concern that perhaps the beloved Wright overstated the dangers, but I don't think we should dismiss him quite so quickly. I know I spend much, much less time with my family since my entrance to the blogging world, twitter, etc. I know I am not alone in my personal struggle to do real hugging since I have found such nice friendships on line. I don't know about the Pew research she studies, but I know my own complicity and the real tension around this that nearly all my active on line friends have. Hey, it is cooler to have great conversations at 1 am with authors and famous folks; who doesn't want good Bible study tools that I find at blogs. My own feeble friends and run-or-the-mill faith community aren't nearly as good, and I've found myself less involved with them, not only because of the time I spend on line, but the expectations I've now gotten from the very good quality that Julie celebrates... Sigh.

More perplexing is the question of what way the on-line forms of communicating, the subtle assumptions, the new practices, have shaped our sub-conscious perspectives. I'm telling myself--and living out of--a story that is significantly shaped by the worldview of quick and fast-paced technologies. Perhaps books like "Habits of the High-Tech Heart" by Quienten Schultz or Neil Postman's Technopoly or Wendell Berry's Standing By Words might be a helpful reminder.

Another area Julie should have mentioned (given her expertise in fair-trade practices, and the particular venue, here) is whether or not the most typical on-line shopping, with its facelessness, autonomy, and "just the cheapest price" ethos that many have come to embrace is normative and just. A-zon sure has altered our assumptions about shopping, pricing, fairness and speed, and these values may or may not comport with a radical Christian worldview about neighborliness and local, community health. As a small-town retailer I think it is undeniable that attitudes and practices about shopping have been powerfully influenced by our virtual experiences and on-line habits. Have we been shaped to be more caring and real and good in how we shop?

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.

I think Wright may be right over the long haul.

The problem with the current studies is that are measuring a population that is still relatively new to Internet network. Most people today still learned to relate to people face to face in their childhood and early adolescence, the most formative years. So, internet networking is built upon the foundation of personal, face-to-face relationships, allowing it to increase personal contact since it makes it easier to contact others to get together and so on. Also, internet networking wouldn't do much to undermine the face to face relations that were strongly reinforced, at least in the short term. Therefore, people using internet would tend to do in public places to get some form of personal socialization.

The issue will be the younger generations who used internet, text messaging, etc. etc. in their more formative years. When that age group reaches maturity, they will relate to people in a drastically different way.

Also, another question is how will the population as a whole change socially over a long term period time. Again, we are still relatively new to the phenomenon of internet networking. It wouldn't immediately usurp our natural way of relating to one another, but it can slowly chip away over the course of many years.

In addition, I have to ask the questions as to how Pew measures asocial behavior. Is this metric consistent, or is the metric somehow altered by present day forms of accepted social behavior? Also, it has been consistent since 1985, but what was it beforehand? If it was lower before then, it is a possibility that over the long haul it is still rising and the past 25 years has been a relatively lull in change? There was no drastically new forms of communication that was wide spread till the late 90s when the internet became popular. And as mentioned, we are still relatively early in the internet phenomenon, when compared to other various forms of contact such as the telephone. It would probably take a while for the full effects of said technology to occur.

Sorry about the double post above. I can't figure out how to remove one of them.

You mean you can't hold a personal conference and have all your friends join you for a "mass message"? :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.