Just as for Peter Berger the sociological structures of modern society generated the heretical imperative, so, too, I would like to propose, the technological structures of digital media generate the hermeneutical imperative.
Two thoughts from what might be a complementary line of thinking: These hermeneutical differences (I resist the term “worldview”) predate the events of the past year, but no stressors had yet revealed them. They were latent in superficially similar communities. Part of this feeling of unreality is the realization that people you thought similar were operating under a different hermeneutic. At least part of our current social tension may result from the fact that some recognize this while others don’t.
And to draw a more concrete example, I’d suggest there are religious communities that—not quite in the way you describe, but analogously—have been “hermeneutically self-aware” for some time. As I think about it, there may be applications to minority groups of all kinds; living in the majority often entails a kind of interpretative naivety?
Thank you, Michael, for another informative and thought-provoking piece.
Your material is right on the Bullseye for my interests and alignment, this one is particularly so, as I had some struggle in the '50s and '60s about religious and spiritual matters.
Your explanation of Peter Berger's Heretical Imperative describes some of the issues I had in my teens and twenties.
The breakthrough came for me out of a personal crisis and subsequent recovery and 'learning to live'.
I read and listen to nearly all of your material and value it highly, even though I am often too intimidated or embarrassed at my own lack of knowledge or erudition to adequately comment.
I discovered you when I was despairing about all the rubbish and toxicity online.
You are among a very small handful of such "Lifesavers", bringing a breath of life-giving fresh air to the online universe.
I wonder to what extent the imperative is personal vs. societal. While individuals choose the hermeneutics they fall into, the choice seems more subconscious rather than conscious (with algorithms categorizing based on an interpretation of revealed preferences). The tools to enact a conscious choice, once made, seem lacking, especially up against the age of the Database. I have the option to exit Twitter, but can't easily transform the currents of information to bring my desired balance of insight, serendipity, and provocation. It would be quite incredible to allow interfaces that allowed people to more readily become aware and reflect on their hermeneutics
Your article also helped me frame an idea that's in the back of my mind for a time - how firms may be increasingly confronted with moral imperatives. I work in data policy and there's a lot of discussion around data ethics and how to incorporate ethics into processes and decisioning. With an expansion of what is measurable and what is measured, the tools for companies to assess their impact on society are increasing (e.g., while banks have been subject to fair lending practices since the 70s, they can now do more sophisticated analysis on their portfolios and assess aggregate effects). The logic and demands of growth often provide a means to quiet conversations on ethics, but now there's an acknowledgement of "reputational risk", which provides back an in for these conversations about ethics to be taking place within organizations
Very insightful. I remember that you explored the topic of self-consciousness in a piece before, albeit with a different guiding metaphor (if anyone's interested: https://reallifemag.com/always-on/). Thoughts after reading some of your recent work:
Writing is probably only one element in the confluence of forces that have intensified self-consciousness, but with Ong's comments on it in mind (its prerequisite distancing and expansion of memory), it’s interesting to consider history, social science or other such disciplines as formalizations along the trajectory of this modern symptom. Even critical literature helps to produce it by both description and exemplification (it being included in the Database). If I compare, say, the changes Simmel observes to Goffman’s, to those of nearly any social theorist today, the intensification of self-consciousness seems hard to miss.
To think of writing (or any externalized memory) proceeding in this self-referential way seems portentous for any critical project. For one thing, it seems to work against retrieving the confidence of any “naive” or inconspicuous knowledge. For another, insofar as the lack of such confidence (punctured narratives) incapacitates us, the very idea of the examined life comes off as self-undermining. On the other hand, there’s the danger of fanaticism, a point you raised previously:
“In the post-Narrative age of the Database, we all assume responsibility for improvising our own, often tentative and fragile, narratives about both the world and ourselves. Because narrative is so critical to our sense of identity, however, we are tempted to zealously guard our narratives.”
Two thoughts from what might be a complementary line of thinking: These hermeneutical differences (I resist the term “worldview”) predate the events of the past year, but no stressors had yet revealed them. They were latent in superficially similar communities. Part of this feeling of unreality is the realization that people you thought similar were operating under a different hermeneutic. At least part of our current social tension may result from the fact that some recognize this while others don’t.
And to draw a more concrete example, I’d suggest there are religious communities that—not quite in the way you describe, but analogously—have been “hermeneutically self-aware” for some time. As I think about it, there may be applications to minority groups of all kinds; living in the majority often entails a kind of interpretative naivety?
Thank you, Michael, for another informative and thought-provoking piece.
Your material is right on the Bullseye for my interests and alignment, this one is particularly so, as I had some struggle in the '50s and '60s about religious and spiritual matters.
Your explanation of Peter Berger's Heretical Imperative describes some of the issues I had in my teens and twenties.
The breakthrough came for me out of a personal crisis and subsequent recovery and 'learning to live'.
I read and listen to nearly all of your material and value it highly, even though I am often too intimidated or embarrassed at my own lack of knowledge or erudition to adequately comment.
I discovered you when I was despairing about all the rubbish and toxicity online.
You are among a very small handful of such "Lifesavers", bringing a breath of life-giving fresh air to the online universe.
I wonder to what extent the imperative is personal vs. societal. While individuals choose the hermeneutics they fall into, the choice seems more subconscious rather than conscious (with algorithms categorizing based on an interpretation of revealed preferences). The tools to enact a conscious choice, once made, seem lacking, especially up against the age of the Database. I have the option to exit Twitter, but can't easily transform the currents of information to bring my desired balance of insight, serendipity, and provocation. It would be quite incredible to allow interfaces that allowed people to more readily become aware and reflect on their hermeneutics
Your article also helped me frame an idea that's in the back of my mind for a time - how firms may be increasingly confronted with moral imperatives. I work in data policy and there's a lot of discussion around data ethics and how to incorporate ethics into processes and decisioning. With an expansion of what is measurable and what is measured, the tools for companies to assess their impact on society are increasing (e.g., while banks have been subject to fair lending practices since the 70s, they can now do more sophisticated analysis on their portfolios and assess aggregate effects). The logic and demands of growth often provide a means to quiet conversations on ethics, but now there's an acknowledgement of "reputational risk", which provides back an in for these conversations about ethics to be taking place within organizations
Very insightful. I remember that you explored the topic of self-consciousness in a piece before, albeit with a different guiding metaphor (if anyone's interested: https://reallifemag.com/always-on/). Thoughts after reading some of your recent work:
Writing is probably only one element in the confluence of forces that have intensified self-consciousness, but with Ong's comments on it in mind (its prerequisite distancing and expansion of memory), it’s interesting to consider history, social science or other such disciplines as formalizations along the trajectory of this modern symptom. Even critical literature helps to produce it by both description and exemplification (it being included in the Database). If I compare, say, the changes Simmel observes to Goffman’s, to those of nearly any social theorist today, the intensification of self-consciousness seems hard to miss.
To think of writing (or any externalized memory) proceeding in this self-referential way seems portentous for any critical project. For one thing, it seems to work against retrieving the confidence of any “naive” or inconspicuous knowledge. For another, insofar as the lack of such confidence (punctured narratives) incapacitates us, the very idea of the examined life comes off as self-undermining. On the other hand, there’s the danger of fanaticism, a point you raised previously:
“In the post-Narrative age of the Database, we all assume responsibility for improvising our own, often tentative and fragile, narratives about both the world and ourselves. Because narrative is so critical to our sense of identity, however, we are tempted to zealously guard our narratives.”