The Internet as a Tool for Peace-Making
I.
Almost twenty years ago, my daughter Sara wanted to subscribe to an online service. It was a term that meant nothing to me. Online, it turned out, meant you did things on your telephone line. But what goes through your telephone is not your voice, but things you type on your computer. I was happy to have a $3000.00 typewriter. It seemed silly to me why anyone would want to tie up their phone line to type things, but we subscribed which means we paid money for a service.
A service like American on Line, CompuServe, or a generic local access server, allows you to connect your telephone to the network of telephone wires, which run around the world so that you can send and receive information. It is a service in the sense that you do all the work by typing. So it’s a self-service.
Four years ago, none of this held my interest. Today, I host two weekly conferences online. The Internet not only changes day to day, but changes people.
There are generally three aspects to the Internet. The most common is email. Electronic mail allows a person to write and receive letters through their computer, saving trips to the post office. The important feature about email is immediacy of transmission, how quick it gets there. Like regular mail, people can share information as quickly or slowly as they read and type.
A second feature of the Internet is websites, which are located by directing a browser to an address. I like to think of websites as a
series of flash cards you can call to your computer screen. But instead of flipping through a pile of cards, you click an address, which is called a “link”, and the card will show up on your computer. There are millions of such flash cards to be found inside your telephone, able to be called onto your computer.
Websites are important for two reasons. First, an Alexandrian library of information is available which can be loaded on your computer screen and printed out to read. So, for example, if you have insomnia, and it’s 3 in the morning, and you have a craving to download some information about James Joyce, for example, and don’t want to wait for your local bookstore to open, you can instruct your browser to find “James Joyce.” The browser will lead you to a hundred or so websites where he is discussed or his thoughts are housed.
If, on the other hand, you plug in the word modernist, you may be rewarded with over 3000 locations where discussions of modernism are located.
The point being, on the Alexandrian library, which is the Internet, you can find electronic shuffle cards containing anything from basic information about American holidays to minute discussions of a particular point of law addressed by the Supreme Court.
A second importance to websites involves areas where you can leave information. There are discussion boards where you can talk, by typing, and render your opinion on virtually any issue conceivable.
The third and last technical aspect of the Internet I want to discuss is what is known as I.R.C.. I.R.C. stands for Internet relay conferencing. An internet relay conference is where you may use your computers to enter a specific server or location. At the server, you may link into any of a number of rooms, which are identified by room name or topic. These rooms, again, are like index cards, but index cards, which can be entered into, and are active and alive with conversation.
When a room is entered, several other people are connected to the same room through their computers and any information exchange occurs in real time. If I type something, it is immediately seen by howsoever many people are using their computers to be in the same room, and responded to by whoever has something to say — and sometimes by people who have nothing
to say. With IRC, you may have real time conversations with people in Cleveland, Los Angeles, England, Australia, and literally from around the world.
IRC allows the most immediate exchange of information. I was online and saw people discussing the downing of flight 800 before any of the local stations were reporting the story off the wires. If you have a term paper due, or a particular issue you are interested in discussing you can either find a room where the issue could be talked about, or open your own room and discuss it with whomever enters.
The news occasionally has stories about the Internet, which either makes people shy away from the technology, or at least be wary. There may be reason to be wary. Email has virtually no harm or foul connected to it other than the occasional advertisement sent which you neither asks for nor want. The Internet itself, websites, are sometimes talked about in terms of “viruses,” electronic diseases that can destroy the hardware of your computer. Most browsers, however, are equipped with a virus detector, which warns if you are entering a contaminated site and you can leave immediately. The vast majority of sites are not contaminated.
The primary harm of traveling cyberspace is the quality of information available and the information received. It is wonderful to find a paper in one of the numerous journals or magazine or newspapers, which are available, which tells, for example, about the religious influence on James Joyce. It’s also possible to read the entire Protocol of the Elders of Zion.
It is usual for the news to report on the plethora of pornography on the Internet. It is not usual for the news to report on the copies of Tolstoy’s works in the public library. Nevertheless, the books exist and, in fact, exist on the Internet. What the Internet offers, then, is a choice between pornography and the classic texts of the Western cannon, and everything between.
For the serious surfer, links open up a virtually endless labyrinth of non-linear, robust democracy. Even the most solitary endeavors — creative writing, for example, — are transformed to provide practitioners with a means of eliciting ideas and (hopefully constructive) criticism, which an author can carry into a fuller, more meaningful presentation, which speaks to larger numbers of people. This is not to gainsay the fact that with the incremental increase of choices available on the Internet, choice of information becomes all that more important. Perhaps the criteria of choice or the recognition of what deserves to be chosen will not be so great an issue when we begin practicing W.E.B. Du Bois’s insight that the function of education is not “to furnish teachers for the public schools, or to be a center of polite society; it is, above all, to be the organ of that fine adjustment between real life and the growing knowledge of life, an adjustment which forms the secret of civilization” (The Souls of Black Folks: Essays and Sketches).
As human beings are becoming both more aware of their renaissance-like need to have fingers in several intellectual pies, and have the computerized access to dip into several tasty treats in succession, Internet Relay Conferencing becomes an important means of sharing ideas on a populist level. IRC is a potential force, as I hope to show below, for effective peace making between cultures and civilizations. The potential is harnessed to the fact that familiarity does not always breed contempt but may as likely breed understanding. However, like everything else in life, the occurrence of either the one or the other depends upon choice. The Internet, however, defuses significant features, which might impel an individual to choose to be offended and assume one is being attacked. The absence of face-to-face contact does not permit either the grimace of the other to challenge us to battle, nor does the presence of the other inspire us to punch someone in the nose (and if it does, we have inhibited by distance). The Internet compels human beings to rely on their ability to communicate.
Of the numerous fundamentals which contribute to peace-making, education is a priority. Education means not only consuming knowledge, but thinking and creative involvement. Reliance on dialogue allows people to learn as well as teaching. Peace making, then, is fundamentally pursued through interaction, creative involvement. Computerized conversations allow creative involvement without the threat of immediate violence.
Although convention has taken to calling the electronic imagery through which people converse over their computers “rooms,” the Internet in general and Internet relay conferencing in particular are non-territorial. If you do not want to participate in a particular room, which you have chosen to join, you can leave for another room without feeling you are being exiled.
Conflict in the “real world” is frequently sponsored by geographic limitations. Conflict is facilitated not only by landmasses, which prevent our meeting together in a timely manner but also in he sense of local limitations, which influence our behavior. The World Wide Web, as the designation implies, is an environment without geographic boundaries, inhabited by people who do not have immediate racial or color, facial or feature presences, which would act as barriers except as they choose to express themselves through language. The one current limitations is, indeed, the language barrier. But just as there are programs, which can print, in different languages, one day there will be programs, which can translate one communicated language into another. One does not have to be a seer to think such a possibility feasible; one need only have noticed the exponential grown of the net.
The “room” where like-minded discussants meet is a room without walls. The only ceiling or floors are those we supply. Persons enter a room where the announced topic (the ‘label’ on the atrium of the room)interests them. Entry itself is proactive, based on the assumption of discovering a conversation or peoples with whom one can share (as opposed to assumptions of what another is going to take away from us or demand from us).
The user (using his or her brain, and language … and computer rather than using another for diverse purposes) meets conversant s through language rather than through language as mediated by facial features or body language. Although the Internet does not permit conversation with that all-important look in the eye, at least not yet, conversation also does not become inhibited because of the flinch of another’s arm, the slouch of their back.
II.
Unlike “real life” where first impressions are often so rudimentary and definitive, IRC continually offers the opportunity to ‘redeem’ oneself through clarification, the drawing out of implications, further insights, and so on. Alternatively, one can be a name on the screen in a realm where Chris or Pat are not only dismissed because they are a women or a mere youth, but Marvin and Stanley need not be male, nor Lucy and Barbara a female. Although the testing of gender may be an extreme case, it is notable that the testing of ideas may occur more frequently than in daily situations.
For example, people general feel an obligation to defend, or at least not criticize, the predominant ideas of their community of identification. With certain wonderful exceptions, a fundamentalist Christian may feel compelled to accept the literal accuracy of the Bible and the absolute necessity that Jews be converted to Christianity. The Internet offers the opportunity for John Doe to sign on as Mike Newbie and test the idea that perhaps the Bible means something different than he or she has been taught. Similarly, a Jew might sign on as Bob McWho and engage fellow Jews in discussion about the possibility that God loves and allows fundamentalist Christians their own form of worship and praise.
The topic line of a room embodies not flesh but mind. Personal appearance are not made a part of the conversation. Ideas are tested, and no individual mediates any other individual. Diversity is not a position to aim toward; it is a reality to be dealt with. The multiplicity of ideas is also the ‘room’ we have chosen to enter. The fundamental question when making the choice is not “What can this _______ (insert a designation of a human being based on color or community) think about _____ (insert a topic of your choice).” The question can only be, “What thoughts are occurring?” and “secondarily, but more importantly, “What are the proofs, the evidence, the consequences of those thoughts?”
People meet other people literally from across the globe. Communication occurs through the expression of ideas, not the color of flesh. One is compelled to assert (type) the content of their character rather than the razz-ma-tazz of their pride or fear. When one chooses to reduce himself or herself to a fearful conversant or a belligerent conversant, both are immediately perceived in analogous terms as psychologists have asserted for years. Fear and arrogance are of one cloth, and on IRC the assertion of either is easily found out and dismissed.
Fear of another’s expression or reaction is wildly out of place on the Internet. IRC in particular flows precisely on communication of opinions submitted to the critique or alternative communication of opinions. While the conversation may be distracted by sub-standard means of communication (repetition instead of argument, faulty logic, ad homonym, and so on) the very nature of the Internet, like the very nature of peace-making, is to pursue the more accommodating argument, the better logic, the superior means of discussion. Like authentic Peace making, the issue is not compromise but achieving understanding of another’s perspectives and reasoning. Not compromise, but new and better ways of discussing an issue are more likely than a “reasonable” hatred. Hate is based on what others are perceived to have done. On the Internet, disliking another is more a confession of our inability to respond to their arguments. Further, in the pursue of the electronics of communication, the realization that improving our means of communication is the fullest use of the internet would compel us, like the spirited rabbinic academies or the blessed Italians people and others, to appreciate the opponent who requires us to think deeper.
We learn who others are through their communication, not the mole on their left cheek, their breast size, or the degree they hold. IRC cuts away the definitions or pigeonholing characterizations, which allow face-to-face conversant to summarize and dismiss one another.
This benefit to Internet relay conferencing is eventually also an inhibition to communication. We do not have the cultural modifications of facial expression or the enhancement of raised and lowered voices to communicate the nuances of what is being said. We are compelled, then, to rely on our own thought. Not infrequently, reliance on our own ability to deduce the gradation of a persons meaning proves our that assumptions haphazard. More often than not, this results in our query for clarification. The incremental increase in the question, “What do you mean?” is an invaluable tool for peace making.
What we do not find in physical associations in the real world we might find in spiritual associations on the Internet. It is rare, in the real world, to be toying with an idea and, within minutes, have a quorum with whom to test ones thoughts. The availability of mindless activity is certainly a choice one can make, but this may largely be alleviated with maturity or the development of more sophisticated interests.
The democratic possibilities of technology are, of course, limited by the affordability of computers, modems, software and the like. This can be compensated for to some degree by recycling and refurbishing technologies as upgrades become necessary.
A word should be said about “flames.” A flame describes vile or abusive language which one may be hurled in ones direction while in a room discussing serious issues. However annoying they are, flames are not an attempt to shut down or back another in the corner as the are in the real world. There are no corners in cyberspace, and only the user controls the shut-off switch of his or her computer. Flames are more often than not an expression of (unenlightened) misery at generalcircumstances, but on IRC flames are defused of their potential for violence. Most software is equipped with an “ignore” function, which can easily solve the problem. Although my wife and I have frequent discussions about the advisability of our children coming across certain words, it has been the perception of us both that our sweet and innocent children know all the words we would wish away from them, and use them quite succinctly when they feel a need.
Effective peacemaking, however, is provided a wonderful opportunity when flames are hurled. Fists and weapons are not a reason to rationalize non-involvement. The effective peace-maker will query the person who expresses angst and help the flamer to identify the cause of their misery, analyze the genuine complaint which may underlie their abusive behavior, question whether abusive words effectively communicate what they would prefer to say, and offer alternatives, or suggestions for relieving the distress. This is the timely and timeless function of peace making. The Internet, as indicated above, is a “natural” arbitrator and facilitator for dialogue, research, analysis, and creative alternatives for those who choose to engage in such behavior. The Internet makes peace an available choice for more people who have skills they may care to apply. One can only live by ones words on the net.
III.
I am obviously an evangelical believer. The Internet, especially in it conferencing capacity, offers an abundant opportunity to build community, and build inter-communal friendships. If language is the house of being, as Heidegger said, then the World Wide Web is the home of abundance.
The Internet is right where educators and activists ought to be in terms of enhancing and displaying those ideals in which they believe. The Internet is the ground of opportunity to choose to stand amid the pornography and nonsense and other trivial pursuits which one can just as easily find in their neighborhood, and promote intercultural, interracial, inter-gender and interfaith wisdoms and oral traditions.
On the net, it is more difficult to claim that “our kind” are alone, or have the only access or expression of thoughts and ideals, which are unchallengeable, correct. Even when such a claim might be made out of momentary ignorance, a physical retort is not possible and the intellectual challenge becomes paramount. The Internet offers the enhanced possibility of communication without the possibility of physical abuse. It is, by that criteria alone, effective peace making. What is required to make the Internet, and IRC in particular, a viable tool for peace is the choice of intelligent communication.
Lines of communication glide across the flow of electrons. Keyboard at hand, and ideas in mind, we are offered new ways of imagining ourselves in relationships. Community occurs at the committed stroke of keys. We are superseding national agendas as we type our way toward international relationships. The Internet offers the potential of delivering fluid texts of conversation and thus handing back, or allowing us to find, our creativity on a more democratic basis. Anchored in unchangeable classics, which express our private interests, we speak into unpredictable transcripts, which broaden our horizons and possibilities. We have nothing to do on the Internet except share, and the sharing occurs with more diverse people than are usually possible around the block.
