You write: "At the same time, however, it also seems to me that especially given the scale and scope of our problems, it may be that we need to draw attention again to very basic and fundamental realities. That we must learn again what it means to take responsibility for the good of our neighbor. That we must rediscover our responsibility to tend the social commons that it may be reconstructed in such a way that human beings may flourish in it once again. For as human beings, we depend not only on nature, but on our second nature, the realm of culture; both require our care and our maintenance, both must be cultivated if they are to yield the fruit."
This seems to me to be the language of moral vision, one similar to that of Josef Pieper, which in your blog post "Attention and the Moral Life", you indicated represents a lost moral vision that we are no longer able to recover. I agree that the terminology of his moral vision may be beyond recovery, but I think it might be possible to translate some of his basic concepts into terms that might appeal to those struggling with moral entropy of digital life today.
In the case of TikTok, could we not use this to demonstrate the positive role played by shame in human life? For instance, one of the basic ways to build moral character is by reflective self-knowledge which fosters a constant cycle of self-criticism and improvement. Shannon Vallor calls this the "cultivated self": "A cultivated self is one that has been improved by conscious, lifelong efforts to bring one’s examined thoughts, feelings, and actions nearer to some normative ideal." - Technology and the Virtues. To abandon shame is in some sense to abandon humanity which requires a form of self-consciousness which encompasses an inextinguishable element of self-respect. Could there be a way to reinvigorate elements of the "lost moral vision" through a renewed understanding of the role of shame in human life?
Boyd, Yes, I definitely see this is as a matter of recovering/reconstituting/sustaining a moral vision. Or perhaps, better, expanding the scope of our moral/ethical concerns in such a way that we recognize the moral dimensions of our use of technology, even technology which may appear morally insignificant or neutral. I'd also say that what we are confronting is not only a matter of how a given technology mediates our moral experience; it is also a matter of wider cultural realities. The inclination to treat other human beings as standing-reserve, for example, arises in part because of how digital technology positions us vis-a-vis one another and its rewards structures, but it also trades on a devaluing of the human person that that has other roots.
As for the question of shame specifically, I'd agree that shame, rightly understood, plays an important role in the moral life. It would be appropriate for me to feel shame if I have acted dishonorably or in ways that have harmed others. Were I to feel no shame, were I shameless in this sense, one could safely conclude that something had gone wrong. Of course, it's possible that we be made to feel shame for things we ought not be ashamed of, and this would suggest a disordered social milieu. The kind of shamelessness I had in view in this post was a bit different from the shamelessness of the truly guilty who nonetheless feels no remorse or guilt for their actions. Chiefly, I was concerned with the shamelessness of those who are prepared to capture and publicize the frailties and failures of others for the sake of scoring internet points. So while I think shame has a role to play, I also think that digital media tends to offer shame in an unhelpful and detrimental key.
Thanks for your response - it was helpful in clarifying my thoughts. I see two issues here: 1) Treating others as a standing reserve of content to be exploited. This seems to be an extension of the surveillance capitalist model of treating user data as raw material for exploitation. By expropriating their content we treat others as a resource for our profit rather than as human persons deserving our respect and concern; 2) I understand the distinction between shamelessness on the part of the content producers and that of those who are "prepared to capture and publicize the frailties of others." Both forms appear to me to be dehumanizing. Those who acquire a taste for this form of entertainment and those who produce it are degrading an essential human element of self-respect and respect for others, which aligns with your quote from Byung-Chul Han.
While it may feel "inadequate" to the scale of the issue, I think it can be addressed by rebuilding the foundations of moral character on an individual basis. My comment about "moral vision" indicated a concern that goes beyond the practical consequences of the implicit disrespect which Han highlights such as the degradation of political discourse. My concern is for the state of the soul of those who cultivate disrespect for the human person and how the case can be made to those tempted to indulge in such distractions that what they are doing is not "innocent fun." The ability to rebuild that awareness is part of what I mean by "moral vision" - a coherent vision of of what makes up a flourishing human person.
Yes, that is a good summation/extension of what I was getting in your first paragraph above via surveillance capitalist framing. And I have no disagreement with your second paragraph. That is, as I see it, a crucial part of the challenge before us.
Boyd echoes some of this but this part stuck out as odd to me:
"Given the erosion of the distinction between private and public life, neither now retains its integrity and we are in danger of losing the goods and consolations that we might have been available to us in either."
The distinction between public and private is modern -- this conception of privacy. 11th century serfs knew little of private matters (they even lacked the vocabulary to assert themselves as persons/individuals). Shame is a major part of their life, which is almost totally public. Isn't it more accurate to say that privacy was constructed to hide sin and after establishing it within, it most certainly escapes without?
I don't know that digital technology accomplishes much more than exacerbating previously established morays. But this is obviously a very Pieper take as well.
My first thought is that, yes, there's a certain conception of privacy that is modern. But there's a way of framing the distinction between private and public that has roots in the ancient world, too. Arendt made much of this, for example. The private realm in the ancient world was the realm of the household ... so not so much a realm of individual anonymity and autonomy, but a realm distinct from the public/political arena with its own mores and manners. And I'd also want to say something, I think, in defense of certain aspects of a more modern form of privacy, or perhaps better interiority. I'm not sure I'd reduce it to a veil for vice. In any case, by private here I have in mind a space that generates a measure of intimacy and protection that allows certain aspects of the human person and certain kinds of relationships to flourish that would not otherwise. When this space is opened up to the public, those goods are threatened. This paragraph from Arendt gets at this:
"Everything that lives, not vegetative life alone, emerges from darkness and, however strong its natural tendency to thrust itself into the light, it nevertheless needs the security of darkness to grow at all. This may indeed be the reason that children of famous parents so often turn out badly. Fame penetrates the four walls, invades their private space, bringing with it, especially in present-day conditions, the merciless glare of the public realm, which floods everything in the private lives of those concerned, so that the children no longer have a place of security where they can grow."
Point me, too, to the section(s) of Pieper you have in mind. It's been a while since I've read him and would be happy to do so in this connection. Tell me, too, if I've missed your point!
You write: "At the same time, however, it also seems to me that especially given the scale and scope of our problems, it may be that we need to draw attention again to very basic and fundamental realities. That we must learn again what it means to take responsibility for the good of our neighbor. That we must rediscover our responsibility to tend the social commons that it may be reconstructed in such a way that human beings may flourish in it once again. For as human beings, we depend not only on nature, but on our second nature, the realm of culture; both require our care and our maintenance, both must be cultivated if they are to yield the fruit."
This seems to me to be the language of moral vision, one similar to that of Josef Pieper, which in your blog post "Attention and the Moral Life", you indicated represents a lost moral vision that we are no longer able to recover. I agree that the terminology of his moral vision may be beyond recovery, but I think it might be possible to translate some of his basic concepts into terms that might appeal to those struggling with moral entropy of digital life today.
In the case of TikTok, could we not use this to demonstrate the positive role played by shame in human life? For instance, one of the basic ways to build moral character is by reflective self-knowledge which fosters a constant cycle of self-criticism and improvement. Shannon Vallor calls this the "cultivated self": "A cultivated self is one that has been improved by conscious, lifelong efforts to bring one’s examined thoughts, feelings, and actions nearer to some normative ideal." - Technology and the Virtues. To abandon shame is in some sense to abandon humanity which requires a form of self-consciousness which encompasses an inextinguishable element of self-respect. Could there be a way to reinvigorate elements of the "lost moral vision" through a renewed understanding of the role of shame in human life?
Boyd, Yes, I definitely see this is as a matter of recovering/reconstituting/sustaining a moral vision. Or perhaps, better, expanding the scope of our moral/ethical concerns in such a way that we recognize the moral dimensions of our use of technology, even technology which may appear morally insignificant or neutral. I'd also say that what we are confronting is not only a matter of how a given technology mediates our moral experience; it is also a matter of wider cultural realities. The inclination to treat other human beings as standing-reserve, for example, arises in part because of how digital technology positions us vis-a-vis one another and its rewards structures, but it also trades on a devaluing of the human person that that has other roots.
As for the question of shame specifically, I'd agree that shame, rightly understood, plays an important role in the moral life. It would be appropriate for me to feel shame if I have acted dishonorably or in ways that have harmed others. Were I to feel no shame, were I shameless in this sense, one could safely conclude that something had gone wrong. Of course, it's possible that we be made to feel shame for things we ought not be ashamed of, and this would suggest a disordered social milieu. The kind of shamelessness I had in view in this post was a bit different from the shamelessness of the truly guilty who nonetheless feels no remorse or guilt for their actions. Chiefly, I was concerned with the shamelessness of those who are prepared to capture and publicize the frailties and failures of others for the sake of scoring internet points. So while I think shame has a role to play, I also think that digital media tends to offer shame in an unhelpful and detrimental key.
Thanks for your response - it was helpful in clarifying my thoughts. I see two issues here: 1) Treating others as a standing reserve of content to be exploited. This seems to be an extension of the surveillance capitalist model of treating user data as raw material for exploitation. By expropriating their content we treat others as a resource for our profit rather than as human persons deserving our respect and concern; 2) I understand the distinction between shamelessness on the part of the content producers and that of those who are "prepared to capture and publicize the frailties of others." Both forms appear to me to be dehumanizing. Those who acquire a taste for this form of entertainment and those who produce it are degrading an essential human element of self-respect and respect for others, which aligns with your quote from Byung-Chul Han.
While it may feel "inadequate" to the scale of the issue, I think it can be addressed by rebuilding the foundations of moral character on an individual basis. My comment about "moral vision" indicated a concern that goes beyond the practical consequences of the implicit disrespect which Han highlights such as the degradation of political discourse. My concern is for the state of the soul of those who cultivate disrespect for the human person and how the case can be made to those tempted to indulge in such distractions that what they are doing is not "innocent fun." The ability to rebuild that awareness is part of what I mean by "moral vision" - a coherent vision of of what makes up a flourishing human person.
Yes, that is a good summation/extension of what I was getting in your first paragraph above via surveillance capitalist framing. And I have no disagreement with your second paragraph. That is, as I see it, a crucial part of the challenge before us.
Boyd echoes some of this but this part stuck out as odd to me:
"Given the erosion of the distinction between private and public life, neither now retains its integrity and we are in danger of losing the goods and consolations that we might have been available to us in either."
The distinction between public and private is modern -- this conception of privacy. 11th century serfs knew little of private matters (they even lacked the vocabulary to assert themselves as persons/individuals). Shame is a major part of their life, which is almost totally public. Isn't it more accurate to say that privacy was constructed to hide sin and after establishing it within, it most certainly escapes without?
I don't know that digital technology accomplishes much more than exacerbating previously established morays. But this is obviously a very Pieper take as well.
My first thought is that, yes, there's a certain conception of privacy that is modern. But there's a way of framing the distinction between private and public that has roots in the ancient world, too. Arendt made much of this, for example. The private realm in the ancient world was the realm of the household ... so not so much a realm of individual anonymity and autonomy, but a realm distinct from the public/political arena with its own mores and manners. And I'd also want to say something, I think, in defense of certain aspects of a more modern form of privacy, or perhaps better interiority. I'm not sure I'd reduce it to a veil for vice. In any case, by private here I have in mind a space that generates a measure of intimacy and protection that allows certain aspects of the human person and certain kinds of relationships to flourish that would not otherwise. When this space is opened up to the public, those goods are threatened. This paragraph from Arendt gets at this:
"Everything that lives, not vegetative life alone, emerges from darkness and, however strong its natural tendency to thrust itself into the light, it nevertheless needs the security of darkness to grow at all. This may indeed be the reason that children of famous parents so often turn out badly. Fame penetrates the four walls, invades their private space, bringing with it, especially in present-day conditions, the merciless glare of the public realm, which floods everything in the private lives of those concerned, so that the children no longer have a place of security where they can grow."
Point me, too, to the section(s) of Pieper you have in mind. It's been a while since I've read him and would be happy to do so in this connection. Tell me, too, if I've missed your point!