Leading forms of social media like Facebook and Twitter are heading towards being one of contemporary society’s great lost opportunities.

In theory, social media provides mechanisms for sharing the wonders and joys of living. These devices can help foster greater understanding between disparate individuals and groups. In practice, however, they are all too often characterised by vacuousness and a verging-on-obscene self-indulgence.

The underlying premise of the majority of posts is an overwhelming belief in the primacy of self. Why else would it be standard practice for posts to be on intimate personal details that offer very little in the way of enrichment to others? For example: ‘I’m having a beer’; ‘I’m going for a run’; ‘I am switching laptops’; ‘I’m tired’…

If social media is essentially about sharing, shouldn’t it be inherent in that notion that what is being shared is of some sort of value to others (i.e. society)? Is it being old-fashioned (and, ipso facto so it seems, redundant/irrelevant/recherché) to ask that if you say something that it should be worth hearing?

The ‘me-centred’ skew of most social media communication emphasises the medium’s proclivity to be a platform for ego. Perhaps those producing the posts have a lack of self-esteem and their stream of self-centred inanities is a cry for attention.

The social media-framed attention-seeking is also likely to be a reflection of western society’s seeming addiction to fame. The average person will not get movie star coverage in New Idea, newspaper gossip columns or breakfast TV shows. But social media provides an opportunity for people to be a legend in their own digital lunchtime, by continually posting about their lives, no matter how facile the nature of their thoughts and activities.

‘Audience’, in fact, seems a more appropriate noun to use for those linked in to people’s networks on mechanisms like Facebook and Twitter, rather than ‘friend’.

Whilst it is obvious that having the brain in gear is not a pre-requisite to participate in social media, even more sobering is the tremendous level of insensitivity that exists as to what might be of relevance or interest to others. Social media often seems to facilitate a reduction of intelligence or intelligent thought, giving people an easy platform to chatter away when, arguably, the time might be better spent reflecting on whether to raise a topic or not.

This leads to another downside to social media: it lessens the opportunity we have in a frantic world for silence and stillness, factors which facilitate calmness, equanimity and the reflection that often, ultimately, leads to wisdom.

There is the argument, of course, that you can tune in or tune out to whatever information/posts come your way. And that you can ‘de-friend’ or unsubscribe from any source you choose. That ignores, however, the wanton randomness and intellectual flatulence of most of the posts and what it says about individual and/or collective mind sets.

I believe that many forms of social media emphasise the lack of reflective/thoughtful capabilities of human beings. This, ultimately, leads to less intelligent thinking and, perhaps, less overall intelligence in human beings themselves. And will it also accelerate our frightening obsession with the inanities and superficialities of life that are best off just being suppressed as much as we can possibly manage?

To my mind, the most interesting posts are references to art, culture, business and aspects of society that, otherwise, would be remain unknown to the posts’ recipients. This sheds light on the interests and personality of those who posted the information in a positive way, whilst also providing insights into society that potentially enriches those who view the material.

Surely, and this is very important, it at least it marks the person posting the information as someone interested in more than their own bodily functions and myopic fixations and, believe it or not, as actually interested in others.

Social media, patently, has the mediums to help us tell stories that mean something to people, that elucidate and resonate, that enhance our wanderings through life. However, unless you go down an academic and maybe even (dare I say it?) post-modern path of analysing meta-narratives, the primary stories and connections to human beings you get are overwhelmingly concerned with the intimately inane (or the inanely intimate).

I shudder to think what a rigorous, scientifically-based analysis of posts on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter would reveal about the human condition. The loss of intelligence is my guess.

Of course, social media is an entertainment, too. People do it for fun. And there is some evidence to support the notion that the networks help people remain sane and mentally healthy and happy by linking them into like-minded folk. But there is something evil about the assumption that this cannot occur in an intelligent manner that achieves social media’s potential.

There are legions of folk who proselytise about the value of social media and digital communication. It will democratise knowledge and allow greater access to services and information, they say. Perhaps.

To me, it currently emphasises the divide between those who care about sharing useful information and life-enhancing knowledge – and those narcissists who vainly sit by, looking blissfully at their own reflection in the digital mirror of social media, wasting away. They think they are connected and contributing, when in actual fact they are frozen in brittle seclusion and stealthily dissolving the value of their social network’s worth.

Tweet This Post