Influence of The Internet and Benefits of Reading and Writing Online

From ordering a pizza to reading the news, it is undeniable that the internet has irrevocably changed everyday life. Shaped by information architecture, the internet has changed the ways in which we read, write and think. Scholars have voiced varying opinions on how the internet is changing the conventions of reading and writing. In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Nicholas Carr argues that the internet undermines our capacity for deep thinking and problem solving. In contrast, in “Reading and Writing Online, Rather than In Decline,” Kathleen Fitzpatrick contends that the internet is an ideal platform which promotes new creative ways to read, write, and interact that can facilitate scholarly discourse. While Carr’s warning of the risk of diminishing our capacity for deep, critical thinking is valid, it is clear that the internet is an immensely valuable platform for scholarly discourse and the broad sharing of information that we, as users, must take advantage of.

In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr unpacks how reading on the internet is changing how we think by inhibiting our ability to think deeply. Carr refers to his own experience, suggesting that he is no longer able to immerse himself in long books or articles as his concentration dwindles after reading a few pages(Carr, 2008). Carr uses vivid metaphors to illustrate this lack of capacity for deep thinking, stating “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski”(Carr, 2008). While it is clear that reading in the digital age has risks, Carr fails to consider the many benefits of reading online. When the written language first arose, it reduced our memory capacity, yet, in spite of this, the written language has proved to be of great value. Likewise, while the proliferation of reading online may short-cut the written language’s contributions, it will inevitably bring its own array of benefits as well as risks.

Fitzpatrick addresses this fear in “Reading and Writing Online, Rather than In Decline.” Fitzpatrick suggests that “new technologies are perennially imagined to be not simply the enemy of established systems but in fact a direct threat to the essence of what it is to be human” (Fitzpatrick, 2012). This succinctly highlights the flaw in Carr’s argument in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” as he is limited by his bias in favor of Western traditional culture which idealizes the written language as being superior. To scholars such as Carr, good reading is limited to reading books. Fitzpatrick convincingly critiques this narrow view of what constitutes reading and argues that reading online is still good reading as it entails engagement with the text. Fitzpatrick maintains that the processes of “clicking and browsing” emphasize reading as “an active process of meaning making” (Fitzpatrick, 2012). Furthermore, Fitzpatrick contends that online reading fulfills a definition of reading in which reading is not merely “a straightforward means of downloading meaning constructed by an author into a reader’s brain, but it has always been a form of negotiating meaning through a complex, and often selective, process of interpretation” (Fitzpatrick, 2012). Additionally, Fitzpatrick proposes that the benefit of reading in the digital age is that digital platforms enables reading to be a communal process rather than an individual one. Digitals platforms such as blogs facilitate discussions between authors and readers and amongst scholars. Thus, the digital age has enabled reading to evolve from merely being a one-way stream of information absorption to a conversation within a community of engaged scholars.

When I reflect upon my own experiences of reading and writing online, I recognize that Fitzpatrick’s reference to reading and writing online as being a conversation to be an apt description of my experience as an online user. Through Instagram, I am not only able to keep up to date with the news, following The New York Times, National Geographic and the Guardian, but able to follow individual journalists and activists and connect with them, gaining insight into how they think and formulate ideas and stories. Prior to 2010, these interactions would not have been possible. Of course, I have also experienced how the internet can be used to by marketing algorithms to subtly manipulates us and foster tribalism by appealing to our biases, an issue which both Carr and Fitzpatrick raise in their arguments. I noticed that when I seek out pro-choice articles, I am later confronted by more pro-choice articles that foreground this particular narrative and negate any opposing views. It is important to recognize, however, that digital platforms are not creating this tribalism, but are merely catalyzing a tendency to retreat into enclaves of the like-minded that has always existed. It is, therefore, the responsibility of digital users to be aware of this manipulation and their own biases and actively seek out a range of information and perspectives.

Evidently, the internet offers free access to countless sources of knowledge and allows for valuable discussions and exchanges of information that can broaden our worldviews as argued by Fitzpatrick. However, in order to reap these rich benefits, we, as users, need to be responsible in consciously exploring diverse perspectives and sources information to avoid the tribalism that is rooted in the fertile soil of the Internet and, to instead cultivate an online communities that are rich in both diverse information and opinion and facilitate the intellectual exchange which Fitzpatrick encourages. It is further clear that while scholars such as Carr are insistent in focusing on how online reading and writing is causing us to change neurologically and reducing our capacity for deep thinking, they fail to recognize that the rise of reading and writing online forms part of the continuous intellectual evolution of our species and, like writing once did, will inevitably bring both advantages and disadvantages.