Timothy DeChenne, Ph.D. No, this is not a youth-negative diatribe from yet another social critic of a certain age. Actually, it’s a defense of contemporary youth. Sort of. First, the name. Following an apparent fetish for the alphabetical, many are calling our children and teens—those born roughly between 1995 and 2010—“Generation Z”. Some prefer “iGen”, although the heavy handed product placement is off putting to others. Some, including this author, prefer “Digitarians”, just on grounds of specificity. For after all, what mostly sets these folks apart, aside from their youth and assigned name? Unlike the rest of us, from the very first moment they got out in the world, it was already a digital world. It’s all they know. That makes them interesting. And in some ways, perhaps, cursed. You’ve undoubtedly seen the press releases. Where to start? It may be that attention spans are decreasing (although this is a somewhat complicated and sharply disputed subject). There is some evidence narcissism may be increasing (although this apparently began several decades ago). And then there is evidence that sizable numbers don’t read books, in any format, for pleasure anymore (no quibbling with this). Unsurprisingly, much of this is laid at the door of our enchanting digital applications. If you’re a Digitarian, you may have devised strategies for countering these accusations. Yes, you might mumble to yourself, I tend to skip from one thing to another. But hey, I also have a great ability to scan information fields for relevant details, and then quickly prioritize my decisions. So there. A valiant retort, but somehow not enough. You need more . . . ammunition. Please allow me. Next time try mumbling this: “Maybe so, but we must cope with a truly unbearable lightness.” One of Milan Kundera’s finest moments was the titling of his 1984 novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being. The “lightness” refers to several things, but mostly the transience and unpredictably of everything we hold dear: our loves, our work, our very lives. Being is “light” not only because it is pushed about by happenstance, but also because it ends far too soon, never to come again. Now clearly Digitarians don’t have a monopoly on this dilemma. In fact, it could be argued that “unbearable lightness” has fueled all of religion, and much of philosophy, for millennia. For those of a theistic bent, religions promising an afterlife tackle the dilemma head on. Light? Don’t be absurd. We continue forever. For those of an atheistic inclination, the problem is no less important. In Buddhism the suffering linked to impermanence is central, and the suggested path is through rather than around, with a mentality of accepting awareness. In philosophy, much of twentieth century existentialism concerns the meaninglessness, even the absurdity, of a life destined only to end. A suggested remedy has been the authentic and whole hearted commitment to one’s own conception of meaning, letting the chips fall where they may. Obviously this a timeless, species-wide issue. In that sense Digitarians are hardly special. They may not even begin to appreciate the disconcerting lightness of mortality until they become, well, a critic of a certain age. But what they must bear, I suggest, from the very first moment their little fingers start tapping the screen, is an insidious new twist on the whole “lightness” thing. They face the lightness of electronic selves. The phenomenology of the digital world is rapidity, multiplicity, and intangibility. No other person is physically present, and everything comes and goes quickly, from everywhere. As is often the case, these features are both a strength and aweakness. They are in fact the foundations of the astonishing digital contributions to contemporary life. But a multiple, rapid, intangible existence is also intrinsically “light”. It is a sparkle off the surface of the sea, split into a thousand brief flashes. It has its own beauty, indeed. But as a way of life, it can become an insecure, even anxious path. In the rapid digital world our speech, one of the primary ways the self is represented, can lose its impact, sometimes even its felt reality. One’s sense of agency can be eroded. Messages stream quickly, endlessly, indiscriminately. All of one’s good sense to the contrary, the most recent message, even if inept, can seem the most relevant. And even if some message seems to have impact—if it garners views, or likes, or goes viral—the force of it can be dispersed through the unfathomable multiplicity of the digital community. As Mark Poster observes, the author moves “. . . from the center of the text to its margins, from the source of meaning to an offering . . .” Or in the rewording of Stanley Fish, “meaning everywhere and nowhere, produced not by anyone but by everyone in concert . . .” And then of course there is the intangibility of the digital world. To borrow a phrase from Gertrude Stein, “there is no there there”. One is never actually face to face with one’s correspondent. Even the person sitting next to you is not really there, but instead engaged in an intangible discourse with someone else, maybe half way around the world. We become somehow less situated; multiply connected, perhaps, but ironically less engaged. Sherry Turkle has suggested this may leave people rather lonely. I would add: and perhaps a tad too light. At present all Digitarians are in the process of forming an identity. For them this might be a little tougher than it looks. Granted, there are many, many more models than ever for developing elements of a self. But most flash by in an instantaneous culture of disembodied spectacle. They cannot be appropriated more slowly, more “heavily” if you will, by face to face interaction with peers. In the past even a shy child or adolescent could engage in at least one version of that slower, “heavier” process: namely, the vicarious experience of reading. Well written novels, in particular, offer a suitably sustained contact with a variety of character types, each a potential source of identification. But unfortunately, as pointed out earlier, this is less and less a refuge for our nimble Digitarians. Now it’s important to keep all of this in perspective. Digitarians do not face collapse. In fact I suspect the digital world may turn out to be an oddly character building challenge for this generation. But it is at least another source of “lightness” beyond the well-known, millennia old versions. And for many that added lightness must surely be a stress, a source of unconscious, or perhaps just mysterious, anxiety. So let’s give the Digitarians their due. In some sense, they are on the front lines. As Sven Birkerts so eloquently notes, the digital inserts “. . . still another layer between us and the world, another source of lightness, and not a balletic, agile lightness, but something more like the metaphysical disconnectedness Milan Kundera evoked in his phrase ‘the unbearable lightness of being’.”
The times are a-changing and there is not consistency in the trends, in any trend whether fashion, culture or even food. Like now, the youth of the digital age cannot be compared with the youth of the pre-digital age simply because the habitat is not the same. I believe that globalization is now descending on us and people of all nations will somehow be united in terms of culture. Even the language barrier is getting obsolete as days pass because of the internet.
Generation Z grew up when the internet and technology was rapidly changing and as such they evolve to the changing phases as well. I think when we touch on topics that are "unbearably light" I think Milan Kundera was talking about how our choices constantly change in this life and parallel lives as well. There is no one grounded reality and so every action is fleeting, it's light.
I mean you pasted a whole article on here. You could have just summarized it, and added your own two cents to the fold. Instead you took a whole article pasted it ambiguously. Are you in agreement with it? Or in opposition? Neutral?
Hey Spinoza99, do you think you could post some original content instead of pasting somebody's stuff all over the place? Unless your name is actually Timothy DeChenne, Ph.D. and I hope it isn't. A real Ph.D. not only wouldn't need to resort to Usenet style cross posting but could get published in a genuine and noteworthy publication.
I think this world we live in is very technologically advanced but social relations are a little left behind. Yes, we go out, eat at restaurants but the downside? We are too engrossed on our gadgets that we forget to talk a little and bond with our loved ones. Kids nowadays learn how to use a gadget before learning to read a book. Relationships are formed via mobiles, which is no problem if the one you are talking to is being his or her real self. That's how messed up people are nowadays, not just the Generation Z. It is affecting everyone of us and we need to start relating to other people again.
