On Netsurfing
De-bunking the myth of the Internet?
By Brian Farenell
(c) 11 Sept. '98
Much has been made of a recent study released concluding that prolonged use of the Internet was linked to an increase in depression, social detatchment and a general unhappiness. Many have seized upon this to claim a de-bunking of the so-called myth of the inherent goodness of the Internet.
The basis of this myth was the perception that use of the Internet was active. That's to say, the net surfer chooses of his or her own accord which sites to visit and how long to stay. Furthermore, she writes and replies to email and joins chat rooms. All of these activities engage the expressive and communicative functions of the brain. Basically, in order to use the Internet, you must know how to read, write, respond and express yourself.
The active nature of the Internet was presented in stark contrast to other media forms, most notably television. Television has been alternatively referred to as "the boob toob" and "a vast wasteland" and those who watch it "couch potatoes." Television caters to the lowest common denominator because people just sit around and stare (blankly, we are told) at images. If Internet use is active, watching television is the definition of passive.
Internet is active, television is passive. Therefore, the Internet is inherently better, right? Not necessarily. To say "yes" is be to assume that active is inherently better than passive. It is just very assumption that is the cause of many a heart attack. After all, fighting a war is active, while sleeping is passive. Which is better for your health?
Real human beings need a combination of both the active and the passive in order to achieve happiness. Researchers have long said that sitting in front of the television for too long is not good for you. So if we all know that watching TV for six hours a day is bad for you (too much passive), why should we be shocked to learn that using the Internet for the same period (too much active) is equally harmful? After all, sleeping for 20 hours a day is just as unfeasible as sprinting for 20 hours a day. Doing just about anything to excess is bad. Variety is the spice of life, as they say.
There is also the physical aspect of Internet use (or any kind of computer usage). You are sitting down for long periods of at a time, in a position that's usually physically not the most comfortable, staring at a computer screen (which is not good for the eyes in large doses). It's agitating unless you break it up.
Finally, I'd also challenge the assumption that the Internet is really a social activity whereas television is anti-social. The overwhelming majority of people use the computer by themselves. Personally, I find it very disconcerting to have someone looking over my shoulder when I writing email or looking at a web site. *I want to be left alone.* While there is communication occuring, it's between me and a person far away. Someone who I've likely never met, whose face I can not see, whose voice I can not hear. So while the activity itself may be active, there is the physical person-to-person contact missing.
Whereas people often watch television with their friends or family. They laugh together, they cry together, they curse at politicians or cheer on their baseball team together (or perhaps in opposition). The act of watching television, while passive in itself, can be rendered into a social activity. People gather together to watch the Super Bowl. People discuss the previous night's Seinfeld episode at the water cooler.
I don't mean to turn television into a pancea, nor deny the fact that most tv programs out there are utter garbage and a profond waste of time. My point is merely that, when consumed in moderation, it serves its role, just like the Internet. The former's role is to provide one with relaxation, an escape. The latter's role is to engage, to nourish with information that might not otherwise be available.
In conclusion, one must keep in perspective the possibilities and limitations of the Internet. It can provide information and perspectives from all around the world, on topics for which it would be otherwise difficult or even impossible to learn about. It can help emigrés stay in touch with their homeland, researchers gain invaluable data. But the Internet can never serve as a substitute for real person-to-person contact. It is not a voice. It is not a laugh. It is not a touch. It is not a relationship.
The Internet is a vitamin suppliment for mind, not the main course.
Click here to go back to my Writings' page
Page last updated: 11 Sept '98, 2350 EDT
Email: saabrian@capital.net
