Does Technology Destroy Individualism?

I was browsing the forums and noticed that there are not that many posts that involve the social sciences. I want to propose a question that can relate what we know now, to what it might be like in future societies.Does technology destroy individualism?What I mean by this question is that through technology such as television, internet, and learning processes, do we as individuals grow to be more and more alike each other in terms of our past experiences and what we know. As societies progress it seems as though we all grow up in more and more alike in similar ways. Watching the same television shows, reading the same books, and playing the same video games. Of couse this is currently true to only a certain extent because we grow up around different people, look different, and are brought up by different parents.However it seems possible that because of technology and the way a society evolves, we just get more and more alike over time.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

In my opinion, modern technology is an enabler for the individual. We have see lots of innovation, ranging from YOU-TUBE go GOOGLE to peer-to-peer, to the iPod, to whole new types of crime (phishing for example). And let's not forget forums such as this one.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Okay I get how it is an enabler for an individual in the sense that an individual has greater access to a greater range of audience (or to be an audience for). But I'm not sure if that gets at what lost-apathy was describing.As more people come together in a singular or similar community the influences on those people will be similar. They are less likely to have unique or isolated experiences. Also, these venues will allow for greater social sanction/indoctrination of individuals.Before mass communication people lived in many distinct communities with more unique characteristics and individuals had a capability of separating even from those. Now one has larger communities of less distinct character (because they have access to the same broad array of influences), with greater ability to access one's personal space.AbE: I should note that I think technology is neutral on the question posed, but greater tech will mean quicker assimilation and cultural diffusion, because people aren't going to think about preserving individuality as something important when they go to use it.Edited by holmes, : note

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm a member of many more communities, as a result of technology. The EvC community is just one of those. This brings new opportunities for individualism.Sure, not everyone will take advantage of those opportunities.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Perhaps 'destroy' is a bit hyperbolic, but nonetheless, I understood your concept. I think in a sense, as technology converges a multitude of cultures together, we are definitely losing that cultural uniqueness. Would Japanese ancestors have ever guessed that their country and their culture would be so vastly different, so Westernized and post-modernized? I doubt it. Would they be pleased at what they are seeing-- with all that 'progress?' I doubt that too. I saw the movie "The Last Samurai" in the theater. If my memory serves me correctly, I think I was living in San Diego at the time and there is a high Asian population there. As to be expected, there were alot of Asians, presumably most, Japanese. Nearing the climax of the movie, there was a palpable sense of loss. Amid their tears and sniffles, I felt their pain as the movie undoubtedly spelled out as clear as day that many of them have lost their sense of culture. And though I'm not Japanese, I could sense their pain and almost their self-indignation for allowing their culture to be overrun by a false sense of security in technology.Technology is certainly a wonderful thing for so many reasons. I couldn't very well relay this message without technological advances. But I suppose that everything has a price. In America, we are completely dependent on that technology. And should that technology fail, it could cast us into the Bronze Age with the flip of a switch.And we may see what kind of problems can be associated as we shift into this lofty idea of a single government and culture. It sounds peachy that we might be mving away from cultural differences, and then again, it may have dire consequences.Every culture has its strenghts and every culture has its weaknesses, as does technology. We should probably tread lightly with both. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Maybe these tidbits frim Wikipedia on the film help explain their sadness:* Although many of the film's cast members are Japanese, the production crew is almost entirely American, and most of the movie was filmed in New Zealand.
* The shots shown of Mount Fuji are actually shots of Mount Taranaki, in New Zealand.
* Several of the village scenes were shot on the Warner Brothers Studios backlot in Burbank, CA.Is this enough cultural fusion for you?I particularly liked their report of Steven Seagal's reaction:"Other actors have displayed some bitterness at having missed their chance to be cast as Captain Algren. Most notably, Steven Seagal stated: "I was raised in Japan. I was schooled in martial arts. I was given the title of master. They take a movie The Last Samurai. They have a five foot two inch little guy, whether he was straight or gay, I don't know. I don't care. He had never been to Japan. He doesn't speak Japanese. He has never held a sword. They make him the last samurai. [6]"

Hm from all of your posts, it seems as though societal evolution is almost just another form of biological evolution. The best cultures are the cultures that survive. IE the strongest survive. The biggest difference is that we are seeing major cultural changes in a short amount of time, while biological evolution can take millions of years. Maybe eventually the whole world will have a single culture. It would surely get rid of all the war and poverty in the world. Its hard to imagine a single language being spoken throughout the whole world. It would of course be the most efficient, but then again what would be the uniqueness about that.

It's my view that even though the cultures of the world will most likely display some form of merging in the future our individualism will be stronger than cultural influences.Look at two people from the same city, town, village what ever, they will be inherently different. If you add the action of technology to import previously isolated 'cultural genes' into the mix and you have an increased pool of cultural identities to exploit.Given that we are all individuals with independent thoughts and motivations we can gravitate towards the cultural ideal that we find most pleasing, rather than being lumbered with the one we are born into.This is the choice we have from the technology we have.Cultures can change very quickly but only because we (humans) have brains that drive the afore mentioned changes.There used to be a term bandied about a lot: culture shock. I have not heard this phrase in a long time because, I would suggest, we have reached a point where an individual (living in the technological world have) can cope with the changes while retaining his or her individuality.The incidence of change resistant thinking such as religions and idealogy would also prove resitant prehaps to this cultural merging.

As more cultures come into contact they will blend and share norms and influences. As individuals cross cultures the same thing will happen. Thus over time there will be fewer unique normative systems as well as ways of thinking.Relative isolation is required for uniqueness or individuality to develop or maintain itself. As comm tech develops isolation is made less possible.I'm not sure what is so amazing in this concept. Before world travel was fast and efficient we had more unique and diverse cultures, and consequently the possibility for more unique individuals. Efficient travel changed everything. Comm tech is eliminating travel as the fastest mode for cultural unification.Unless we are discussing different concepts of individualism?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think Stephen is just bitter that he's washed up and bloated. I find it rather distasteful to be criticizing Cruise for getting the role. First of all, whether Cruise is crazy or not, he did a good job playing Algren. Secondly, maybe they didn't cast Segal because he's 1. Bloated, 2. Washed up, 3. Plays roles in cheesy martial arts flicks. Nobody is going to cast hiim in a serious role.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I agree that there seems to be a homogenising of culture at the moment, and that this is in part driven by technological innovations.The death or diminishment of regional accents in my country, for instance, is a indication that national homogenisation (Estuary English) and international homogenisation are occurring. I suspect the culprits are television (imported predominantly from America but also Australia) film (ditto America), and to a lesser extent radio. All can erode local difference.However, I think that local difference - in ideas and language - isn't necessarily an indication of individualism. Whether you inherited your vocabulary and outlook from a small group or from a much larger international conglomeration, you are still "learning" your individualism from others.Also I think that when we talk about the international community, it's easy to overlook those people in the world who are so poor or isolated (and there are millions of them) that they can't take part in international dialogue, hear the news, or be influenced terribly much by foreign imports. There are millions of people who don't have very much access to modern technology at all, so I don't think your question has much relevance to them.But to return to the point I made originally: I think as well as a "horizontal" homogenieity around the developed world, there is also a "vertical" homoginieity developing also. We have sound and video recordings going back a century now, and are much more readily able to engage with people long dead. I wonder if this over time will slow the development of certain new linguistic, perhaps even cultural trends because we are so well aquainted with our grandparents outlook and appearance, and their parents, and so on.

Hm, you make a lot of good points Tusko, most individualism comes from the people we are around when growing up.I think eventually the world will eliminate poverty. Its like in politics, things can only get more and more liberal. Conservatives just slow the process of change, while liberals are for change.In my opinion the past video recordings don't slow the development of linguistic change. We don't talk like people of the past at all. But its hard to imagine how much this will change the outlook of family. We usually imagine our parents and grandparents as very responsible and wise people. With video and pictures it can prove these wrong, with things of of our past where we werent as mature.