As a class, we’ve moved on from Aeneas and the Roman Empire and waded into the world of the Enlightenment, and ruin imagery. With that comes the works of Enlightenment philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, who wrote a series of Discourses regarding the state of affairs in Europe.
In his Discourse of the Arts and Sciences, Rousseau claims that progress is regress. In common terms, he’s saying that as humanity makes advancements in the artistic and scientific fields, society loses the most important part of it’s makeup. In Rousseau’s mind, the mores of society—customs or traditions—are most important to people.
Rousseau backs up his argument with historical examples, and as a bit of a familiar surprise chooses to use ancient Rome as a case study. He compares Republican Rome and Imperial Rome, and points out that although Republican Rome was less advanced technologically, it expanded and thrived as an empire. Imperial Rome, despite being significantly more advanced, was the time period that ended up in the destruction of the Romans.
Now, the question is: How valid is Rousseau’s Argument? Are our advancements in technology and the arts causing us to lose our grasp on society?
Throughout the course of this blog, I made it a goal to relate technology to the course theme of “Empire and its Ruins” and Rousseau’s claim in his first Discourse offers a unique opportunity to do so. Up until the invention of the telephone, people could only communicate in person. People knew each other’s names, faces, hobbies, and more. There was a much closer bond, as face-to-face interaction was the only form of communication.
As technology advanced, the telephone became cheaper and more accessible, and within a short period of time it existed in the majority of households. When talking to a friend is just a phone call away, how much of an incentive is there to make an effort to meet in person? This problem would only be compounded with the invention of cell phones, as instant communication became available worldwide.
Personally, this easy access to communication with others has made social interactions different. There have been plenty of nights where I have chosen to sit down, turn on my computer, and play video games online with some people I know rather than going out as a group. I was still communicating with my friends through Skype, but the level of interaction was a lot less significant and meaningful than seeing them in person.
This brings up an interesting dilemma: On one hand, without these sorts of technological advancements, I would not have been able to communicate with my friends at all. On the other hand, I did not hang out with them in person because the technology existed. This problem has, is, and will be discussed often.
Perhaps the worst offender in the technological game would be the invention of social media. To preface, I don’t want to come off as an old man, who hates millennials and all their new fangled technology. I use social media, rely on it, and probably wouldn’t be able to go without it. Not to say that I’m addicted (some people truly are), but I enjoy using it. However, if there was one tangible form of evidence to prove Rousseau’s statement right, social media is it.
Social media has gotten to the point where the people who developed it are speaking out against the Frankenstein’s Monster they helped create. Chamath Palihapitiya was Facebook’s Vice President of User Growth for four years. Last year, he spoke out about the “tremendous guilt” he held about working on Facebook, and how he felt that social media had eroded “the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other” (Washington Post).
When a key executive from the world’s largest social media site says something like that, it’s a big deal. His points are valid: me, you, and almost everybody else has experienced this. Social media provides us with validation through “likes” and “comments,” and it keeps us coming back. We want those likes to feel good about ourselves, to feel that people like us, and that they want to hear what we have to say.
I’m not a scientist, but it makes me feel good when I get a high number of likes on my Instagram posts, and it sucks when you don’t get a lot of likes. According to a study done by RadiumOne, social media “likes” trigger a dopamine high in the brain. And whenever a product we use is affecting chemical activity in our brains, maybe we should rethink our habits.
Does Rousseau have a point with his statement? I’m a bit iffy on fully agreeing with it. Technological and artistic advancements are necessary for society to flourish. Are we worse off as people or social beings as a result? I would say so.
Works Cited:
Soat, Molly. “Social Media Triggers a Dopamine High.” AMA, www.ama.org/publications/MarketingNews/Pages/feeding-the-addiction.aspx.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Discourse on the Arts and Sciences. 1750.
Wang, Amy B. “Former Facebook VP Says Social Media Is Destroying Society with ‘Dopamine-Driven Feedback Loops’.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 Dec. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/former-facebook-vp-says-social-media-is-destroying-society-with-dopamine-driven-feedback-loops/?utm_term=.563893b2071e.
HumCore Blog 