A couple of days ago I saw a modest little item on “Memex 1.1,” John Naughton’s web home. As I’ve noted earlier in this Lenten season, I’ve begun reading blogs again as well as writing them, and Naughton’s blog was one of the very first I re-subscribed to. The little item was this notice:
Memoir of a recovering Utopian
I was invited to give a brief talk on March 16 at a (virtual) symposium on the history of UK computing from the 1950s to the 1990s organised by the Royal Society. The video is here if you’re interested. It’s short — just under 5 minutes. (It’d have been longer if I had a Nobel prize, I guess.)
When I saw the title, “Memoir of a Recovering Utopian,” I felt sick at heart. Here would be another lament by an early celebrant of the Internet’s and the Web’s potential who who tell us about his gnawing disillusionment, or perhaps even his sense of shame for ever having promoted a hopeful view of this global lightspeed telecommunications network. I don’t like to read these, for lots of reasons; certainly one of the most powerful reasons is that from time to time I feel pretty gnawed and ashamed myself. But only sometimes. As I say, I’m a teacher: with regard to human capacities and ingenuity, I’m committed to hope, no matter how I feel on any given day.
Today I finally felt strong (or numb) enough to watch the video. I was delighted, comforted, and encouraged that the title was misleading. Naughton is not a “recovering” Utopian the way folks are recovering addicts. I’m not entirely sure why he gave the video this title. Perhaps the “recovery” in this case is the recovery of utopianism. I like to think so. I offer in support of my reading the way the video ends. The internetwork is still here. The technical framework we need to build a better Web are here. It may still be possible to tear down the inimically walled gardens and use this gift hopefully and justly and not in thrall to late-stage data-mining market capitalism.
I offer only one friendly amendment to Naughton’s list of what we underestimated as the Web turned toward toxicity: not just the somnolence of governments, but in the main, the somnolence of higher education, too. Or perhaps something worse than sleepiness, in both cases.
Nevertheless, as Naughton so beautifully says, without the essential hopefulness that underlies utopianism, we’re done for.
I do believe we can create the evidence to support our hopefulness by continuing to work to build that better world.
I’ve followed Naughton’s work for nearly twenty years now. I am glad to see there is a light that never goes out. A candle in the window, still.
Thanks for this. And, for whatever little it may be worth, I’m still subscribed (in an RSS reader!) and reading your posts.
It’s worth a lot to me! Thanks for sticking with the stream.
Gardner – I think you’ve started a resurgence of commenting! I worked with Eric back in my Henrico County days so it’s awesome to see him here.
I have a hard time criticizing optimism when it comes to trying to bring people together to think and communicate. Lots of garbage happens but I see it as evidence of what was there that we didn’t want to see.
For me, corporate greed is the driver for the continued corruption of possibilities and the entrenchment of all kinds of other bad things. Reminds me of Lessig starting with copyright reform and seeing the need to move up a level to campaign finance. Never-ending greed lies at the base of lots of our issues. To go back to the old days – Corporations see a bag of gold and think . . . “This is heavy. I bet I could use this to knock people out, steal their spare change, and charge them for the privilege.”
Tom, agreed. On all counts. Well said.