Yesterday a friend was telling me that she had discovered, to her chagrin, that many young people she knows — people in their early 20s — do not recognize the word “Holodeck”. For those of us who were around when Star Trek the Next Generation was on the air, such cultural ignorance can seem shocking.
After all, the Holodeck was, for an entire generation, a kind of shorthand for “the future”, and in particular of the limitless possibilities of technology. In the fantasy world of STtNG it was a virtual environment that enables its to users experience, with full sensory immersion, any virtual reality at all. What could be a more perfect embodiment of “the future”, with its promise of endless possibility?
I pointed out to my friend that to young people today, such a fantasy is, in a sense, quite retro. The 1980s ideal of virtual reality, exemplified by Jaron Lanier interacting with imaginary worlds through his VPL goggles and cybergloves, was in fact a kind of technological successor to the 1960s fantasy of a drug induced utopia. Or, in the words of Marshall McLuhan as channeled by Timothy Leary: “Turn on, tune in, drop out.”
Today the ideal of entering one’s own personal imaginary world has been passed over. Rather, the compelling vision for young people is now of a shared virtual world, a world in which people who are far apart can use technology to join together in a massively shared experience that is not constrained by mere geography or physics.
This concept of people coming together in cyberspace, of some advanced technology permitting geographically separated people to experience a group mind, did indeed exist in the fantasy world of STTNG. But back then it was seen as the very essence of corruption, of horror, of all that could go wrong in a world of technology run amok. It was technology as Destroyer, as bringer of soul-sucking spiritual death and mindless despair.
A difference in perspective which is reflected in word choices. For example, we now call such a concept “Social Networking”. Back then, they called it “The Borg”.
I have to disagree here a bit. I don’t think “Social Networking” is the same thing as “The Borg.” The Borg implies a single hive mind, and social networking is fragmented and distributed and disconnected primarily because different entities own different pieces of those services.
Now if you want to call facebook, “The Borg,” we can talk about it. :–)
Actually Sally, I think you and I agree.
In the 1980s they did not yet have the reality of massive social networking to refer to as an actual data point.
So when they imagined what might come about in a world where millions of people were synchronously connected through technology, what they imagined was a nightmare scenario — an erosion of that independence of mind and spirit which American culture prizes so highly.
We can now see that the reality of social networking is indeed, as you say, quite different: fragmented, contentious and interesting, just like people. There may be instantaneous “trends” on Twitter, but the humans behind those trends remain ornery and quirky individuals.
You wrote:
“For example, we now call such a concept “Social Networking.” Back then, they called it “The Borg”.”
I disagreed with that statement and still do.
“Social Networking” is not the same as “the Borg” for the reasons I stated above.
You wrote:
“In the 1980s they did not yet have the reality of massive social networking to refer to as an actual data point.”
Actually, they did. It was in analog form and they chose to ignore it.
The way people connect socially hasn’t changed.
For you to say that what we refer to today as “Social Networking” was the past’s “the Borg” is misleading.
Again, unless, you are talking about facebook.
This is interesting! Tell me about this analog form that they chose to ignore.
Just the general way we have social networks–kinship ties, friendships–the social relations people have always had form networks. They just aren’t digitally bound.
Yes, I completely agree. Humans are all about social networks. But people don’t always recognize the familiar when it comes dressed in different clothing, and that lack of recognition is what my post was speaking to.
In particular, a general moral panic took root in the 1980s concerning young people and role playing games, and I think this atmosphere of moral panic led to the Borg concept. The Borg were a shorthand for something people were already worrying about.
To take just a few examples, the years leading up to the debut of STtNG saw the films “Mazes and Monsters” (1982) and “Hobgoblin” (1983), both built around a nightmare scenario of role playing gamers turning into psychotic killers. Several other events, such as the 1988 Lieth Von Stein murder, added fuel to the fire. The Borg were first introduced in May 1989, when this moral panic was at full swing.