Homo digitalis are moral beings who seek truth and justice through digital communication. They are easily hurt, including by words. Hoaxes emerge from vulnerable hearts and serve as an entry point for evil.
By
F BUDI HARDIMAN
·7 minutes read
Kompas/Handining
.
At the beginning of the age of modernity, Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan (1651), which attempted to offer ways to resolve societal chaos. He imagined a condition before the foundation of states, which he termed “state of nature”. Under such a condition, the freedom of a single individual was seen as a threat to the freedom of every other individual to the extent that it would practically negate others’ freedom.
“In such a condition,” Hobbes wrote, “The life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Hobbes then offered his solution to this sorrowful state. Each man must submit their right to act to a party – or primus inter pares – so long as every other man also submits their respective rights to this party. This party is the state. Only the state can impose violence upon others. Thanks to this monopoly of violence, a lawful state will enjoy internal peace. The threat of punishment forces individuals to control themselves and to respect one another. The state civilizes man.
Humans of the digital era
Recently, as the sun has begun to set on modernity, drastic changes have ensued. Lawful states remain standing and are visibly strong, but rapid changes are undermining the manmade “leviathan” from within. No blood is being spilled and the air does not carry the scent of gunpowder. What is happening is a pandemic of hoaxes and hate speeches that lead to horizontal conflicts.
Racial demagogy and oral expressions of hatred against other religions, as was witnessed in the Jakarta gubernatorial election, are being widely spread on the silent mediums that were created by the digital revolution. Through these clicks on modern gadgets, a new state of chaos has emerged: a digital state of nature.
Homo digitalisare not merely users of gadgets. They exist through these gadgets.
Amid these drastic changes, we need to question the above. In pre-digital societies, Aristotle called men zoon logon echon, a rational animal that uses language. In that era, public speakers were physically present for their listeners. In the digital era, the two are “telepresent”.
Humans are mere components in a system of media communications. They seem to be using these media but are, in fact, part of the system themselves – because in the anonymous network of digital communications, all humans are mere messengers. These humans, who are controlled by the media, who function as media and have adapted to the environment of digital technology, can be called “homo digitalis”.
Homo digitalisare not merely users of gadgets. They exist through these gadgets. Their existence depends upon their digital activities – uploading, chatting, posting, commenting and other activities. With these gadgets, homo digitalis share and display their need for recognition. To borrow Heidegger’s term, they are “being-in-the-www”. Technology makes possible their rise from birth to stand on the stage of history. They are at first a user of gadgets but, when the digital communication network becomes its own world as separate from its creators, they become utilized by digital communications for goals beyond their control.
Therefore, “society” no longer comprises humans, as humans no longer control communications. They both control and are controlled by communications. In a digital communication network, society comprises continuously and anonymously posted messages. We are mere players in the creation of the artificial reality of the digital world.
The moral control and supervision that restrict and discipline corporeal societies are being neglected.
In the past, in the age of Hobbes and the modernists, society was one: a corporeal society that comprised real people. In the digital era, there is the added society comprising digital beings of WhatsApp groups and Twitter, Facebook and Instagram feeds. This is an era in which the message is more important than the messenger. In a digital society, it is not the people who communicate. It is communication that communicates with other communication, as messages have become separate from the messengers and in fact, control their messengers.
Freedom and brutality
As in other revolutions, the digital revolution has released men from the shackles of the old order to achieve new freedoms. Homo digitalis enjoy digital freedom as prisoners released from the Bastille enjoyed Paris.
The moral control and supervision that restrict and discipline corporeal societies are being neglected. Freedom is being promoted to the level of the freedom to hate adherents of other religions. Homo digitalis seem to find themselves in a new world without states, a digital state of nature. In such a condition, fairness and the lack thereof is no longer recognized. Every man is a judge, and even a god, of others. The ever-advancing sophistication of gadgets leads to gadget users’ increasing lack of awareness that they are engaging in brutality through their messages. Homo digitalis then become “homo brutalis”.
Digital space fosters no chronology of events, no societal classes and no value hierarchy. What was private has become public, and what was public has become private. It is difficult to separate the one from the many, as social media users are exposed to an audience of thousands. Upward mobility in the digital hierarchy is only a click away, as long as the message is provocative. That they are alone in a crowd is hard to recognize, as a multitude of crowds chatter within the gadget in a person’s hand, even when they are physically alone. Sensation, not rationalization, is the principle of creativity. Superstition has become rational, so long as it is sensational.
The explanation for this phenomenon is always the same: the black smoke of hatred always rises from the hearts of those suffering from social inequality and a deficit of pride.
Public sentimentalization begins in the most intimate spaces. Private issues, such as religion, race and even sex, serve as stereotypes to divide nations into friend and foe. In the digital era, radicalism is nurtured by mass breeding through gadgets without any demagoguery in auditoriums. Every gadget can be a space for the indoctrination of the “sanctified madness” that destroys unity.
Speeches that accuse the other as “heathens” are made viral by mischievous humans who lack the power to fight back in the real world. The explanation for this phenomenon is always the same: the black smoke of hatred always rises from the hearts of those suffering from social inequality and a deficit of pride.
This new barbarism emerging from digital spaces will surely reverberate into democracy. Hatred and prejudice, incubated and nurtured through a twisted post-truth logic, will infect the organism of society. Leaders no longer need to distribute subversive flyers or gather masses in open fields. Through a single digital click, done while sipping hot coffee at a street-side stall, and a digital mob will form, provocation is spread and the masses are mobilized to sabotage an election, prevent religious adherents from practicing their faiths or to persecute people. How easy it is in this era of hoaxes to subvert democracy and to undermine the lawful state from within.
Managing communications
What must we do, then, to resolve this “digital state of nature”? Imagine a leviathan that monitors and deletes all hoaxes. Such a filtration authority is necessary. This Hobbesian solution would be effective only if is undertaken without monopolizing truth. This authority does not dominate all, but merely monitors the freedom of communication. The freedom of communication meets its limit in verbal violence. It is this limit that must be eradicated to ensure the broader freedom of communication. An authority that is intolerant of intolerance is necessary to guarantee the freedom of communication.
The solidarization of digital community networks to engage comprehensively and continuously in debunking hoaxes.
New forms of barbarism in digital space are communication chaos. Efforts must be made to establish the democratic management of communication. First is the juridification of digital interactions, issuing detailed laws that manage digital spaces. Second is the moralization of digital space, establishing etiquette and ethics for digital communication. Contained within are the golden rules of digital interaction. Messengers must treat their audience as they wish to be treated. Herein are included the basic principles of ethics, including justice, good will and respect toward others. Third is the solidarization of digital community networks to engage comprehensively and continuously in debunking hoaxes.
In the end, homo digitalis are moral beings who seek truth and justice through digital communication. They are easily hurt, including by words. Hoaxes emerge from vulnerable hearts and serve as an entry point for evil. These hearts must be made whole through a genuine protection of others’ feelings, instead of with lies. In the domain of telepresence, imagining real faces behind the anonymous messages will allow the protection of feelings. As alienation is reduced, digital communication will become more humane.
F BUDI HARDIMAN, Philosophy Lecturer, Driyarkara Philosophy School of Higher Learning (STF)
