“Privacy is dead,” proclaimed a recent article. Yes, we know that. This is not news. I am glad that someone is writing and through their writing is lamenting the loss of things, which are supposed to be sacred in our lives. The author mentions a famous painting by Vermeer—a woman in blue reading a letter—and comments on the sacredness and secretiveness of the moment. This woman, Vermeer wants to tell us, is doing something which is close to her heart and it will remain so. As it should. We don’t have moments like that anymore, tells us the author, thanks to purely public arenas such as Facebook, Twitter and others (I am sure there are many more that I am not aware since I don’t spend too much of my time on the Internet).
These are all facts that cannot be disputed. And yet, I am finding myself yearning for more from this analysis. In many ways, we have been talking about the ills of the post-everything society that we are currently experiencing and let’s face it, this is a sad state of affairs indeed. But is it enough to look at this particular problem of privacy only on the surface? No, it never is. In order to get to the solution (even if it’s partial, which will most likely be since we are flawed beings), we simply must get to the root of the problem.
People out there have been pretty bold and crazy with the way they’ve been using the Internet tools. The need to exhibit oneself has become actually obsessive. This is happening on television as well (“reality” shows are a perfect example). Yes, we are living in a “me” culture. I have written about this before in many of my blog posts. This way of life is threatening the order of things.
There is a need to reveal more and more about oneself, presumably because we are post-everything kind of folks. And so we are post-privacy. But the question here is not how much are we revealing, but WHAT?
An example may be in order. “Oprah” show is a perfect place to see the post-everything world manifested in its feeble understanding of its micro universe. Perhaps a few years ago, there were guests on the show, a couple who had this terrible, SHOCKING (they always are) secret that after so many years of marriage and a few children, they both finally came to the conclusion that they are gay. Frankly, something was stinky in this whole set up; they were far too rehearsed. As if they wanted to see the reaction of the people watching. So, they put themselves of their own will into the relativist cage open for the viewing. A few months later, on another show, the woman of the couple revealed that she really isn’t gay; she was only confused. The question is which is true?
You might say, I really don’t care which is true. And I would agree with you. But this is an example of how far are people willing to go for what…recognition?
The truth of the matter is that the more one reveals (as today’s backward culture does), the less we really know anything about that particular person. The more obsessively exhibitionist one is, the less are they truthful or truly vulnerable. Life and relationship is viewed in relation to ratings and fame, whether it happens on television or the Internet. The more one attempts at “radical” self-revelation, the more is he thrown into the world of loneliness and despair. The reason being that all this affected confession that we see means nothing without the relationality that we experience with our fellow human beings. And of course, with God. But being alone with God seems like a tall order to have these days and yet it’s ‘doable’.
Let me steer away for a minute from everydayness and venture into theology to perhaps find an answer to these questions. A Swiss German theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a multi-volume work entitled Theo-Drama. In volume I of this particular work, he writes about trends in theology (using theatre as a metaphor for human transformation) that point to some understanding of human and divine drama. One of the aspects that Balthasar examines is the most significant question “Who am I?” This question involves our role and mission in life and is best seen through the prism of duality that all of experience: there is a tension between what I represent and who I am in reality.
In order not to engage in superficial vulnerability, one must ask who is this ‘I’ that I am faced with without sinking into the hole of extreme individualism, that is, only seeing the internal self and losing the sight of the Other. On one hand, the questioner that engages the question “Who am I?” must ask it alone, and he must answer it for himself. On the other hand, the questioner cannot be absorbed too much in the personal identity to the point where self-reflection becomes a complete exercise in self-indulgence.
It would seem to me that all those people for whom privacy is dead and who are gluttonously self-revealing, do not know the meaning of ‘I’. In order for someone like that to actually engage in questioning that Balthasar is proposing, he would have to cease the habit of self-revealing first. But one thing he can do is begin by living in reality, and not just living in it, but also loving it. The loving reality will bring into the foreground the things in life that are important. The theatrical mask will be taken off and suddenly, he will be faced with the ‘I’ that is real. And maybe instead of posting strange videos of himself, looking for attention, he will see his own ‘I’.
[article mentioned in the blog post can be found on here: http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/03/features/sharing-is-a-trap?page=all]
No comments:
Post a Comment