Review of the Forward (Habits of the High-Tech Heart)

Schultze Preface | Intro: Identifying the Techno-Moral Crisis

Forward written by Jean Bethke Elshtain

She writes, in the forward,

We begin as helpless and dependent infants. Most of us end our days dependent once more as our bodies weaken and finally fail us. We are both natals and mortals. But the religion of technology denies this, either implicitly by paying no mind to the human condition, or explicitly by talking of "immortalization."

"Religion of technology" is often used in reference to apply to those who get excited about technology.  And then to imply that with such comes an automatic apathy to the human condition implies that the reading of such "techno-utopians" is somewhat "selective".  Howard Rheingold,  whom Schultze quotes in the book,  is far from a techno-utopian.  I myself am far from it.   It's tantamount to saying that people who get enthusiastic about the Church are denying the existence of evil in the world,  or are blind to the cases of abusive religion.   The "religion of technology" is usually an "accusatory" polemic cast at people who happen to see more postitive possibilities than those who lump it in with some of the reasons our society has become so impersonal.

My approach to this is to say that, for me,  my enthusiasm is for the possibilities.  I know that Schultze would agree that the possibilities are worth exploring.  I'm not even so sure he will echo in the book such sentiments expressed in the forward,  (I sure hope not)--- eg., :

Cyberculture disconnects us from human communities in a particular temporal location‑sharing an actual physical space‑even as it connects us in thin ways to strangers. These thin connections can be helpful if information is being shared, or human rights abuses reported, or medical technology being made available. But when the word community is used to describe what goes on in chat rooms, we realize, if we think about the matter at all, that the understanding of community is euphemistic in such a context. Real community means to be in relationship in the flesh or for that to be a possibility in situ. The advantage of cyber‑community is that you can just log off if you don't want to deal with a member of your community anymore. Human relations take on a quality of temporariness and proceed on strictly cost‑benefit lines.

 

I have not found that my "connections" that I have experienced are either "thin" nor do the people to whom I connect relate to me as "strangers".  I often compare and contrast my experience of face-to-face Church over the past decade as largely impersonal,  lacking in any depth of community.  IN contrast to that,  my "online connections" put to shame the lackluster and ineffective efforts of the traditional Church toward this end.  To say that "Real Community means to be in relationship in the flesh" is to reveal the bias -- and the ignorance -- of actual online community;  of shared stories,  of mutual support.  In fact,  to actually call it "Real Community" is to betray the assumption that there is something "unreal" and thus illegitimate in online community,  as a matter of definition.  And to this,  I will come to the defense of online community everytime.

Much of this smacks of trying to "pin the blame" somewhere for the predicament of our world.  I ask the question in another , reverse sense:  Why is it that people have "found" themselves drawn to online community?  The proponents of the "Real Community = Face to face" requirement will accuse the online community evangelist of seeking alternative means of communication due to failure or unwillingness to relate to people around them -- a kind of "anti-social" psychosis.  But ignored is the motivation to seek community by "alternative" means;  to seek relationship that fills the need that has been sought in society and , in the Church itself,  but because of the tendency of Churches to "pander" to the crowds and be more of an "event" than a community, they often find more personal relationships online than offline.  At least,  more "theological" depth discussion;  I rarely hear much "theology" discussed in the corridors and vestibules of Churches.  It's usually much like the discussion one would hear "at the water cooler" at work,  or at a ball game. 

My interest is that we seek "extension" of relationship.  That neither offline OR online is diminished or minimized. That we utilize and seek online relationship to help offline relationships flourish,  and seek out offline relationships where feasible with those whom we may discover online (and when Churches try out this "online community thing"....they may well find members "discovering one another" online by becoming aware of interests and concerns and stories of one another they never knew,  and many of these people they sit next to in Church).  

 

Of course, Schultze will be taxed with alarmism and overstating his case. Nearly everyone who moves beyond boosterism in this area is thus charged.

 

It seems that here, the accused are not given the same latitude.  Nearly everyone who is such a "booster" is clearly heard.  Often,  the areas in which they "state the cases against mere boosterism" are ignored. 

Let me also say that the "warnings" I sense are coming in this book are OFTEN warranted.  So this makes a case for the importance of such a book as Schultze has written,  if the 2 or three reviews I have read are any indication of what he actually does say.  Another good case for the importance of such a book is to lay the arguments on the table.  Whenever the Church has been faced with climates of social change,  technologies have often come under fire and viewed with suspicion. I look forward to the dialogue with the ideas,  even though I may feel myself getting quite exorcised in the effort to state my objections.  One of the largest hurdles in the struggle to faithfully utilize the Web in the Church will be to address the source of the objections to certain kinds of use,  and to "illustrate" how the Web can be used to meet some worthy goals,  while recognizing that the Church faces a severe test in its attempts to speak to a "connected" society (or a "Wired" and soon-to-be "Wireless") one.

The forward author closes with a well-written challenge:

Responsible stewardship demands nothing less, and it is responsible stewardship alone that will determine whether the future is one in which we are all wired as millions of isolates or whether we are connected as creatures of the flesh who can be lifted up in spirit and nurtured in hope only through community. The "primordial questions" will not be gain‑sayed.  Echoing Vaclav Havel, Schultze bids us ask ourselves, "Who are we? Why were we created? What is good and worthy of our attention? How shall we then live?" We are creatures whose very natures cluster around the modal point of such questions. The asking of them honors our Creator. Hopefully, the way we answer does too.

 

Indeed the way we answer such questions are imprtant,  but also to avoid approaching them with such presumptions about the matter:  namely, that "being wired" is assuming isolation,  which ignores the ways in which we can be "wired" in order to be relationally more connected -- if we are armed with more "stories" about each other; stories which intermix facts about our life with feelings about our experiences and expressions of our deepest hopes and envisioning of a better future for the Church,  then this is a good thing.  If it calls into question an ingrained way of "doing Church", then so be it. This is the angle with which I will enter into dialogue with Dr. Schultze.

Schultze Preface| Intro: Identifying the Techno-Moral Crisis

© Copyright 2003 Dale Lature. Last update: 9/23/2003; 3:38:48 PM.