Scrawled in Wax

For all of the praise we heap upon our beloved internets, one of the most serious and difficult-to-argue critiques of online culture is the change it has wrought on literacy and sustained thought. Many commentators suggest that blogging and other forms of online media reward short attention spans with shallow analysis, foresaking the depth and rigour of books for convenience. A couple of days ago, Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 put forth an intriguing response to these criticisms in a post entitled The Evolution From Linear Thought To Networked Thought. In it, he argues that such criticism unfairly and inappropriately prioritises the linear, vertical thinking of the book over what he calls the ‘networked’ or lateral thinking of the internet.

Networked thinking, Karp suggests, is about making lateral moves in thought through the link-based nature of the web, connecting ideas to each other in new, unique ways. The emphasis, rather than ‘digging through to find the truth’, is on oblique, often unseen tangents that examine how information and ideas are interdependent or mutually enabling, linked in complex horizontal networks rather than vertical hierarchies based on sophistication or importance. It’s a fascinating idea, one that seriously challenges common thinking and also my own conceptions of the continuing need for ‘deep thought‘. Indeed, one of the most promising ideas out of Karp’s post is that the web, like the book before it, is starting to change not just what people think, but how - that lateral, networked thought is a new mode enabled by the technological shift engendered by the ‘net.

I do, however, think that the contrast posited by Karp between books and blogs may be too distinct. After all, when Karp argues that books are linear, one assumes that he is not talking about books of fiction which, especially over the past century, have seen a radical shift away from linearity. It is difficult to read The Wasteland or a novel by Ondaajte and still talk about them being linear in any straightforward sense. What’s more, the kind of lateral thinking proposed is something that was at least foreshadowed by a new understanding of language in the twentieth century that argued that words are always moving laterally - and will never stop. That’s not to say that books were ‘doing networked thought before blogs were even a twinkle in your father’s eye’. Instead, what’s more interesting to think about is that there may be a common cause at the root of the analogous shift towards the lateral and non-linear in both literature and the interent. I think there is an argument to be made that vertical thinking works best in relation to fixed hierarchies of meaning - that getting to the core of an idea only makes sense when one believes there is actually a centre to get to. Thought of that way, the internet, in addition to being a catalyst for a new way of thinking, can simultaneously be thought of as a historical response to a change in how we think of truth and knowledge in light of postmodernity.

There is, of course, much more to be said about all this, particularly how the lateral mode of thinking may impinge too far on what Mathew Ingram calls books’ capacity “for relaxation and thoughtful reflection, and… escapism as well”. For the time being though, if you have any thoughts or responses, please feel free to leave a comment.