It must have been in the early or mid-1990s. I was sitting in my 80-something great-uncle’s kitchen chatting with him over a cup of tea, when he asked me a question that completely stumped me. ‘What’s the Internet?’
I seem to recall that I mumbled something about it being a kind of online magazine with lots of information about more or less everything, but the truth was I really did not know. I had never surfed the net, had no idea what a search engine was, and had only very recently been introduced to the wonders of email. Trying to imagine a similar conversation in 2010, it is difficult enough to conjure up an image of an eighty year-old who is not at least vaguely familiar with the rudiments of the technology, never mind someone in their mid-twenties as I was at the time.
The organized Jewish community may not be known for being at the cutting edge of technological innovation, but it has embraced much of it. Email use has become all-pervasive, organizational websites are a community-wide norm, and there is increasing use of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. However, while there is plenty of evidence of the Jewish community’s embrace of technology, scant attention has been paid to how the Internet may be altering its contours, shape and nature.
Nevertheless, the growing literature on how the Internet may be impacting society as a whole raises some challenging questions for the Jewish community. Regardless of whether analysts ultimately see new technologies as a force for good or bad, they do appear to agree on one key point: the mere existence of the Internet alters our lives in ways we are only just beginning to comprehend. Indeed, two leading commentators with dramatically different views – Jean Twenge, professor of psychology at San Diego State University, and Don Tapscott, researcher, best-selling author and teacher at the University of Toronto – have gone so far as to suggest that the generation born after the late 1970s/early 1980s that grew up with the Internet, should actually be labelled the ‘iGeneration’ or ‘Net Generation’ because of its influence on them. Twenge is a pessimist: her research leads her to conclude that the iGeneration can be characterized by its narcissistic, disrespectful and miserable nature.[1] Tapscott, in contrast, paints a highly optimistic portrait of youthful tolerance, wisdom and collaboration. Nevertheless, the two commentators find common ground in a shared belief that the Internet has changed the very way in which people function, interact, think and learn.[2]
Consider one of Tapscott’s most intriguing insights. In previous generations, education was linear. We worked our way through a prescribed curriculum in a highly ordered fashion, beginning with the first lesson and ending with the last, referring at all times to a set textbook, and deferring at all times to the classroom authority – the teacher. Today, children do more and more of their learning online, and, driven by their personal preferences, interests and needs, explore the vast world of cyberspace on their own terms. In seeking to complete a given task, they do not follow a set pathway; they blaze their own trail, clicking at will on the links that appear most intriguing or compelling. Tapscott’s claim is that learning thus becomes non-linear; there is an inevitable shift away from content-driven education to student-centred learning, and the role of the teacher shifts away from being the authority and towards becoming the enabler. In essence, one of the main debates of educational philosophy – whether to locate content or the student at the heart of the enterprise – has been resolved in favour of the student simply by the existence and pervasiveness of the Internet.
There is also clear evidence that the Net Generation increasingly collaborates online. The image of the loner sitting in front of the computer screen for hours on end may have been true before the advent of Web 2.0, but is not any more. In the past few years, the Internet has shifted from being a platform capable mainly of broadcasting information to individual users to becoming an interactive facility capable of engaging with and responding to user-choice and opinion. As a result, all sorts of shared activities are happening on the Internet: from multi-user video games, through chat groups and file-sharing, all the way to product analysis and creation. Brands are being discussed, opinions are being shared, and articles, activities, music and video are being assessed. Far from the dystopian vision of a world comprised of socially-inept recluses, the Internet is actually building connections between people in new and highly imaginative and intriguing ways.
Indeed, Web 2.0 alters the nature of community. Traditional communities were geographically bound. We mixed with people in our immediate vicinity, and whilst we may have encountered others through business or travel, a combination of internal familiarity and external distrust tended to buttress the real or metaphorical walls that surrounded us. The world was opened up in new ways as a result of the Enlightenment, Emancipation and Industrial Revolution, but it is only as a result of the Internet that we have become able to create forms of community that ignore both natural and man-made boundaries. Today, social networking platforms such as Facebook and MySpace create, sustain and deepen ties across continents and oceans in ways that allow us to remain as up-to-date with someone we have not seen for twenty years, as we might be with someone who lives across the road. Other sites create other communities: Mumsnet allows mothers to ask questions of one another and share wisdom; Beliefnet brings people together from one faith group or many to discuss religious issues and share personal or spiritual concerns; Care2 builds connections between social activists, organizations and responsible businesses from around the world in order to affect social change. Each of these examples, and countless others, build online communities, and in so doing, redefine the very concept of community.
What might all of this mean for the Jewish community? Educationally, it would appear that the shift Tapscott describes – from content-focused education to student-centred learning – means that it is increasingly difficult to teach an established formalized curriculum controlled by a centralized authority. Because Jewish students are, and will continue to be able to explore multiple ideas from multiple sources, any attempt to control or limit that which is ‘kosher’ and that which is not is likely to fail. Any attempt to protect young people from alternative versions of Jewish life and existence (not to mention non-Jewish life and existence), becomes largely impossible. The Internet allows Judaism, in all its various forms and styles, to become freely available and accessible in ways that were completely unimaginable until very recently. It simultaneously locates Judaism alongside every other cultural and religious lifestyle option, and demands that it stand up and be counted in that broad context. It is difficult to predict what the consequences of this will be, but it is clear that, if Judaism is to continue to be a serious choice, the quality, integrity and creativity of the Jewish product will be critical in the ever-expanding marketplace of ideas.
The collaborative culture that Web 2.0 has engendered may also be highly significant from a Jewish perspective. Consumer assessment of products and services is becoming more and more commonplace; applied to Jewish products and services, only the best and most valuable are likely to survive and thrive. We will have to become far more attuned to the needs and wishes of our members or participants, particularly in densely-populated Jewish areas where numerous other educational, spiritual and cultural options exist. Mistakes – particularly those that indicate inconsistency between values and practices – are likely to be costly. Whereas in the past there was a strong sense that individual behaviours were being judged by those in positions of communal authority, the existence of Web 2.0 turns that power balance on its head, enabling individuals to judge the behaviours of communal authorities and institutions, and then share those opinions with the widest possible audience. When the judged become the judges, the world inevitably becomes a very different place.
The result is that new Jewish organizations and initiatives are becoming ever more commonplace. Feeling coerced, bored or alienated by the offerings of the mainstream, more and more committed young Jews are simply bypassing it and setting up on their own. Recent research conducted by the New York-based Jewish innovation research unit Jumpstart identifies more than 300 new initiatives of this type that have been established in the USA over the past decade, reaching in excess of 400,000 Jews. There is evidence to suggest that the UK is following suit – LimmudFest, Grassroots Jews, Wandering Jews, Moishe House, Jeneration are just a handful of examples of new initiatives that have appeared on the British Jewish communal landscape in the last few years. New minyanim are being formed, new educational programmes developed, new social causes highlighted, new websites set up and new cultural forms created. It is difficult to know where this type of activity is heading – whether it is simply a fad or represents the beginning of a fundamental change in the way the Jewish community functions – but there is little doubt that Net Generation Jews feel more empowered than any previous generation to redefine the shape and contours of Jewish life.
Mark Twain is quoted as once saying that ‘The art of prophecy is very difficult, especially with respect to the future.’ Yet several commentators are claiming that the Internet Age may be compared to the Renaissance or Industrial Revolution, and has already changed human society in ways that we are only beginning to comprehend. As two of these commentators write: “For the first time, human beings can act in mass collaboration, using the kind of collective intelligence once reserved for ants and bees, but now with the human IQ driving the mix. The result is a quantum increase in the world’s ability to conceive, create, compute, and connect.”[3] Whether or not this is a good thing depends, of course, on how we use that intelligence.[4] Tapscott’s claim is that the “companies able to adapt to the new demands of the Net Generation will gain a tremendous source of competitive advantage.” His warning, however, is stark: “Those that don’t will be left on the sidelines, unable to refresh their workforces at the Net Generation flows to other opportunities.” Applying these sentiments to the Jewish community, the charge is clear: adapt, or face the consequences.
Notes
[1] Twenge, J. Generation Me. Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled – and More Miserable Than Ever Before. (New York: Free Press, 2006).
[2] See: Tapscott, D. Growing Up Digital. The Rise of the Net Generation. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1998), and Tapscott, D., and Williams, Anthony D. Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. (London: Atlantic Books, 2007).
[3] Libert, B., and Spector, J. We Are Smarter Than Me. How to Unleash the Power of Crowds in Your Business. (New Jersey: Wharton, 2008).
[4] See: Shirky, C. Here Comes Everybody. The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. (London: Allen Lane, 2008).
(This article was written for the JPR publication, New Conceptions of Community)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment