Oh yeah, this is a great one! I keep coming back to his idea that information does not inherently transmit meaning and too much information actually erodes trust.
Not only are we lacking substance nowadays and inundated with so much noise, but there's also so much narrative-peddling, especially when it comes to politics. Part of the reason why it's become such a grift, honestly...
Thanks for that link; it was worth it merely for the following first two paragraphs alone from the interviewer, Nathan Gardels (I did, of course, read the entire piece, and it did give me more insight into Mr. Han -- with whom I'm in complete agreement on the tragedy and detrimental effects of the active destruction and subsequent loss of societal rituals):
"Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once commented that: 'When eras are on the decline, all tendencies are subjective; but, on the other hand, when matters are ripening for a new epoch, all tendencies are objective. Each worthy effort turns its force from the inward to the outward world.'
By that definition, ours is an era of decline that has turned from the outward to the inward obsession with identity and 'authenticity,' both personal and tribal, fueled by digital connectivity. Paradoxically, social media in this sense is antisocial, leading to the disintegration of community through a kind of connected isolation."
I'm reminded of another quote by Goethe that seems relevant, stumbled upon this the other day...
"Speaking for myself, I too believe that humanity will win in the long run; I am only afraid that at the same time the world will have turned into one huge hospital where everyone is everybody else's humane nurse" (1787)
Thank you for bringing the philosopher Byung-Chul Han to my attention, Anton -- interesting insights.
"In his 2017 work Psychopolitics, Han writes of how power today has grown reliant on manipulating psychological states, uniquely made possible by technologies of control."
And to think, this was before our recent -- often comical, as in the "Rephrase" suggestion by Grammarly’s algorithm for your sentence -- but potentially terrifying experiences of and potential biases (and controls) invariably conferred (and deferred) to "Artificial Intelligence" algorithms. [And let's face it: like The Highlander, "in the end, there can be only one!"]
Reductions to mere inputs and outputs, indeed; or, as likely in the case of AI: Garbage-In, Garbage Out (and God help us if and when "it" ever concludes that the human race has been, and is, mostly Garbage by its undoubtedly pre-programmed Utopian standards -- like "Saving the Planet from the Human Cancer Virus" or the like).
BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your concluding paragraph and hope that your thoughtful essays and ideas continue to gain momentum and traction online and beyond. I, for one, (often mired in, as you state in a prior comment, "so much narrative-peddling, especially when it comes to politics") will be an evangelist of them.
Oh, and congratulations on being featured as the lead story in Substack Reads last month. Cheers!
The Internet's effect on society is under discussed. This is the discussion we all should be having. The switch Byung- Chul Han discusses, moving away from freedom, began with the creation of suburbia. That disconnection continues into the internet. I am afraid only a societal cataclysm stops the runway train.
First one, it is a statement by Han. People are being objectified into quantifiable things which makes them transparent and easily surveilled, but at the same time, objects are also incapable of freedom and free will.
"I think the solution, in this case, seems fairly straightforward"
I disagree. In more than half of your post, I felt like you were making broad sweeping philosophical claims without providing concrete examples, without showing how Han's metaphorical rubber meets the road.
What is your proposed solution (i.e. government policy prescriptions) to consumerist culture, burnout, and modern psychological manipulation?
With all due respect, it’s a bit of a disservice to Han’s work to read it just wanting a government policy paper out of it. I wrote this essay to place his work in historical context, citing him in how he describes this new system of power relations, demonstrating its effects (ie psychological ailments), and finally how one can live in spite of this new reality. If you think this essay is too sweeping in its claims, then I assure you, Han’s work is much, much more so, as is the case with continental philosophy more generally. But you also ask for substance while employing a vague idiom as well (“where does the rubber meet the road”) which I don’t know what that means.
You seem to be under the impression one needs to always write with some drive-by policy solution in mind, which is just not how how I write and see the world. Funny enough, I received the opposite criticism for a prior post, where someone claimed I was putting a formulaic “solution” near the end of my piece just-because, as is often a template for hackish online commentary.
This is not a government policy blog, anyway. But as I wrote already, my “solution” or better yet “advice” is to cultivate yourself beyond algorithmic curation and look for third places, live in the world socially with others, which is ultimately the substance of how a public sphere is to be made healthy again. That’s is the main motivation why I write at all, anyway.
Fair enough. I took issue with your use of the word "solution".
As you note, a variety of powerful organizations actively manipulate public perception. The problem cannot be counteracted by voluntary personal advice.
Great essay. I find myself frequently returning to the interview with Byung-Chul Han here: https://www.noemamag.com/all-that-is-solid-melts-into-information/
Oh yeah, this is a great one! I keep coming back to his idea that information does not inherently transmit meaning and too much information actually erodes trust.
Not only are we lacking substance nowadays and inundated with so much noise, but there's also so much narrative-peddling, especially when it comes to politics. Part of the reason why it's become such a grift, honestly...
Thanks for that link; it was worth it merely for the following first two paragraphs alone from the interviewer, Nathan Gardels (I did, of course, read the entire piece, and it did give me more insight into Mr. Han -- with whom I'm in complete agreement on the tragedy and detrimental effects of the active destruction and subsequent loss of societal rituals):
"Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once commented that: 'When eras are on the decline, all tendencies are subjective; but, on the other hand, when matters are ripening for a new epoch, all tendencies are objective. Each worthy effort turns its force from the inward to the outward world.'
By that definition, ours is an era of decline that has turned from the outward to the inward obsession with identity and 'authenticity,' both personal and tribal, fueled by digital connectivity. Paradoxically, social media in this sense is antisocial, leading to the disintegration of community through a kind of connected isolation."
I'm reminded of another quote by Goethe that seems relevant, stumbled upon this the other day...
"Speaking for myself, I too believe that humanity will win in the long run; I am only afraid that at the same time the world will have turned into one huge hospital where everyone is everybody else's humane nurse" (1787)
Thank you for bringing the philosopher Byung-Chul Han to my attention, Anton -- interesting insights.
"In his 2017 work Psychopolitics, Han writes of how power today has grown reliant on manipulating psychological states, uniquely made possible by technologies of control."
And to think, this was before our recent -- often comical, as in the "Rephrase" suggestion by Grammarly’s algorithm for your sentence -- but potentially terrifying experiences of and potential biases (and controls) invariably conferred (and deferred) to "Artificial Intelligence" algorithms. [And let's face it: like The Highlander, "in the end, there can be only one!"]
Reductions to mere inputs and outputs, indeed; or, as likely in the case of AI: Garbage-In, Garbage Out (and God help us if and when "it" ever concludes that the human race has been, and is, mostly Garbage by its undoubtedly pre-programmed Utopian standards -- like "Saving the Planet from the Human Cancer Virus" or the like).
BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your concluding paragraph and hope that your thoughtful essays and ideas continue to gain momentum and traction online and beyond. I, for one, (often mired in, as you state in a prior comment, "so much narrative-peddling, especially when it comes to politics") will be an evangelist of them.
Oh, and congratulations on being featured as the lead story in Substack Reads last month. Cheers!
Thanks! I really feel like Han’s work cuts across what so many are experiencing nowadays.
I thought that name Byung-Chul Han was familiar. He's discussed in this podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0FgTunWWQeOlofYgWcRVRH
The Internet's effect on society is under discussed. This is the discussion we all should be having. The switch Byung- Chul Han discusses, moving away from freedom, began with the creation of suburbia. That disconnection continues into the internet. I am afraid only a societal cataclysm stops the runway train.
I have found this really useful, thanks.
Great read, thank you. In the third paragraph of the bulk Han attribution quoted, is it supposed to be:
"But at the same thing, things are more transparent than persons."
Or is it:
"But at the same time, things are more transparent than persons?"
First one, it is a statement by Han. People are being objectified into quantifiable things which makes them transparent and easily surveilled, but at the same time, objects are also incapable of freedom and free will.
Right..."But at the same time..." Fascinating stuff.
I think Han breaks up sentences like that for effect. His style of writing is very polemical, sometimes even pamphlet-like.
"I think the solution, in this case, seems fairly straightforward"
I disagree. In more than half of your post, I felt like you were making broad sweeping philosophical claims without providing concrete examples, without showing how Han's metaphorical rubber meets the road.
What is your proposed solution (i.e. government policy prescriptions) to consumerist culture, burnout, and modern psychological manipulation?
With all due respect, it’s a bit of a disservice to Han’s work to read it just wanting a government policy paper out of it. I wrote this essay to place his work in historical context, citing him in how he describes this new system of power relations, demonstrating its effects (ie psychological ailments), and finally how one can live in spite of this new reality. If you think this essay is too sweeping in its claims, then I assure you, Han’s work is much, much more so, as is the case with continental philosophy more generally. But you also ask for substance while employing a vague idiom as well (“where does the rubber meet the road”) which I don’t know what that means.
You seem to be under the impression one needs to always write with some drive-by policy solution in mind, which is just not how how I write and see the world. Funny enough, I received the opposite criticism for a prior post, where someone claimed I was putting a formulaic “solution” near the end of my piece just-because, as is often a template for hackish online commentary.
This is not a government policy blog, anyway. But as I wrote already, my “solution” or better yet “advice” is to cultivate yourself beyond algorithmic curation and look for third places, live in the world socially with others, which is ultimately the substance of how a public sphere is to be made healthy again. That’s is the main motivation why I write at all, anyway.
Fair enough. I took issue with your use of the word "solution".
As you note, a variety of powerful organizations actively manipulate public perception. The problem cannot be counteracted by voluntary personal advice.