Office plankton in networks and a bit of politics

The head of the Board of the International consortium "EUROBELARUS", philosopher and methodologist Uladzimir Matskevich is very skeptical about the prospects of social networks, especially to an overestimation of their organizational and motivational...

The head of the Board of the International consortium "EUROBELARUS", philosopher and methodologist Uladzimir Matskevich is very skeptical about the prospects of social networks, especially to an overestimation of their organizational and motivational capabilities. He laments the lack of mediators in communications between the expert community and mass consumers, talks about the social functions of intelligentsia, and as a result, compares office plankton with the one of a decade ago to the current one. Moreover, this comparison is not in favor of today's managers.

Not too happy Uladzimir Matskevich’ judgments about the virtual life of modern Belarusians cause additional interest, also due to the fact that relatively recently, he has taken somewhat view different view, and have had much more optimism about the prospects of Bynet [Belarusian internet – EUROBELARUS], including its role in the socio-political life of Belarus. Where had gone to all the potential and what is the difference between the virtual space of today and of ten years ago?

About Bynet and politics

- Of course, I'm not motivated only by some theoretical assumptions; I try to test everything empirically, try it in practice. Therefore, once the Internet of the late 1990s became a prominent and wide phenomenon in Belarus, I considered that I should check out its capabilities and potential. It was a time when humanitarian public, people in responsible positions, experts, not to mention politicians, at best, were profiting only from e-mails, or were taking advantage of computers simply as of typewriters. I realized that it was yet early, but I was quite worried about the possibility not only to receive information by means of Internet but to create also the content that Belarusians will fill the virtual space with. Yes, the challenge was obvious. That was the time when mobile phones seemed to be exotic things; exactly the same exotic thing was connection to the Internet. But soon Bynet became quite spread, and all office plankton in all advanced companies in one way or another began to be connected to the Internet. Widespread forums with interactive elements not only gave more opportunities for the users themselves, but also provided opportunities, so to speak, for many to see the world. And I could not help but to take advantage of it. Once I had the opportunity to have access to the Internet at any time, I became an active user of the forums on TUT.BY. And I must say that 10-15 percent of the public at the time were rather interesting people; it was possible to discuss something with them, to reveal new topics, to rise issues. If to compare the level of communication on the forums at that time with the present level, it is very noticeable decline. It is natural, since any phenomenon that becomes popular, declines.

- Today's Internet users will obviously argue with you about this ...

- But it’s enough just to consider who had the access to the Internet: workers of large and advanced corporations and staff of different research institutions, ready to communicate on any topic, to begin from theology and to end with historical sciences. In all the areas there were very qualified people, willing to discuss these topics with no trolling, no mockery. At that moment I thought that, given the various manifestations of popular culture on the Internet, narrow circles will be formed, where something serious will be discussed. But soon I realized that everything that is spilled out for extensive discussion, rapidly leads to degradation of the content, level and the culture of debates. I was watching worthy people, able to express their thoughts in cultural way, just rolling down to the level dominating on the Internet more and more. Of course, somewhere the level is higher, somewhere is lower, but today there is an irreversible process of the artificial introduction of people whose goal is to promote specific policies in the Internet. Secret agencies carry out their tasks, companies promote their services, products and brands. And here thus the quantity is clearly dominating over the quality. Likes, clicks, ratings according to the number of views, visiting the page etc., and other technical parameters are in the foreground. But such development can last forever. The current processes in the online environment are kind of repeat of the evolution of cities’ processes. When old cities appeared, the place of communication was a market-place, which equalized the people of any status. It took centuries before people returned to their social circles, their reference groups with their language, their rules of etiquette, and their manners. Development of cities in XVIII – XIX centuries is the result of separation of communication. High and low culture appeared, and a language revealed the status of a person. I think that sooner or later, something similar will happen with the Internet. It is happening gradually even now: there are specific networks, more closed communities appear. But this is not a very good moment either, because it can lead to a certain closeness and isolation. So I personally, still continue to use open social networks, as well.

- In 2004, you initiated a big movement in the Bynet, among whose tasks were quite ambitious targets. For example, "liberation of Belarus and the Belarusian society from the totalitarian legacy in the form of steady unprincipled, immoral, inhuman political regime". Among the declared targets there was even displacement of Lukashenko as a head of the state. Were there too high targets or have you realized already in the process the impossibility of carrying out your plans?

- Naturally, is absolutely impossible to replace Lukashenko by virtual communications. At that time I had consciously declared steep targets, and I was well aware of it. In order to gather in Internet a group of 20 people, invitations should be sent to two hundred users. And I still continued to live in reality, not in virtual world, because I understood that when the virtuality starts to prevail over reality, a person starts to live with illusions. It should not be allowed in any case. Although exactly the Internet has at the time helped me to return to active political activity and, in fact, has led to what I do today.

About slaps and the intelligentsia

- Why have expert sites created in Belarus in recent years in the Internet turned out to be in demand only to a small degree? This is the problem of their irrelevance or, to some extent, a confirmation of underdevelopment, low competence of the expert community and the lack of internal consolidation?

- Laws and principles of virtual and real communication are very different. Similarly, different are serious scientific magazines and television news or newspapers. One can not, for example, publish in a newspaper a very serious article able to change the paradigm of scientific thinking, to change the world-view or to become a very important cultural event. It is foolish to place in a newspaper an article about Einstein's general or special theory of relativity. Experts who are doing a serious analytical work are placed in a similar situation. It makes no sense to expect of them the same work for the mass media. It is very difficult for serious analysts and experts to make their ideas attractive for the masses. There should be mediators between the experts and the mass consumer: journalists, popularizers, commentators and interpreters able to tell serious things in other words, in another form, by other means, including, by the way, in social networks. Here we should take into consideration such parameters, as duration and volume of messages from an expert to a user, which vary greatly in different means of communication. In the very social networks one can not expect people unable to articulate their thoughts in three sentences to be heard by public. "Too many lettars" [“Too many letters” written in Padonkaffsky jargon – using of Russian language with intentional misspelling of words, frequent use of profane and slang words; most commonly is used when writing comments to texts in blogs, chat rooms and web forums - EUROBELARUS]- this is a very succinct aphorism concerning the fact that the Internet is unadapted  for deployed texts.

In this case, the number matters. The thing said by an opinion leader, should be repeated in different voices in different ways and for different audiences. Actually, this is, may be, the social function of intelligentsia and its cultural and historical mission. What really the intelligentsia? They read Kant, in order to tell and to write about him for the rest of the population. And as soon as the intelligentsia ceases to perform this function, it loses its social relevance. Why has so significantly deceased the status of the intelligentsia? That’s because they have ceased to read Kant, Marx, Habermas, Heidegger, and, accordingly, ceased to retell their works. And nothing can be done about it, because egalitarianism, destruction of social barriers is an irreversible process. It is not simply declared that all people are equal, but they become more and more equal in reality. But this equality is improperly treated by the very people. For example, people begin to believe that they not only have equal rights, but also are equal regarding their opinions. Yes, the very Kant teaches that each person should live his own mind. But living your mind means working with your own mind and not taking the first stupid thought that came into your head for the ultimate truth. How can a thought, which you have worked on for half a second, can be equal to the thought of Kant, which he had been working on for several years? And this reluctance to make an independent mental work leads to the fact that everyone starts to fuss over his every thought like a child over a new toy, and to believe that all people are equal in terms of mental work.

And in social networks it is just rushing all around! A pimply-faced 15-year-old teenager, not having read a single book to the end, considers it possible to present all his views to the public. Moreover, he believes his opinion to be equal opinion to any expert’s opinion. And he demands his opinions to be considered. In reality, we can at least give a slap to such guy, but how to do it online? As a result, this makes the circle of experts very narrow and eliminates all the authorities.

About revolutions and illusions

- You assure that there are no grounds for exaggerating the importance of social networks and affirm that mobilizing and organizational capabilities of social networks are scanty. Can you convince of it those who think different?

- When I’ve expressed this opinion for the first time, it seemed that there were objections. The main objection was: the author does not know what he talking about. But, I think I’ve already told enough about my many-years work in social networks. So this is not a unsubstantiated statement of a boy, who has read many somebody’s statuses in the "Odnoklassniki" [Russian social network - EUROBELARUS]. And even when I express a categorical opinion, I do not insist that it is true, I insist only that it is justified. I have empirical and logical grounds to speak that way. Here I’m given as an example different revolutions through social networks. First, it is a myth. No revolution in social networks took place. Here, we saw dozens of people who came to these events, and it was possible to gather these people without social networks. That's why I’ve defined that the mobilization effect of social networks can be obtained from one or two percent of users. In 2004, I had a rate of about 4 percent, and I consider it's an amazing effect. And as for examples of Greece or Egypt, it does not even worth saying. Those who give these examples were not present there and did not analyze the situation. It's just someone told that "Twitter" have had some effect. And if would it have been just SMS-messages? Yes, the "Twitter" increases their effect, but the things that bring people to the street and encourage them to act are real reasons, not social networks. In this sense, “a little bird told me” is no less effective warning system than the "Twitter". So that all the objections to my address are unsubstantiated and theoretical, they are either about someone else's reality, either in the form of some fantasies.

And there is one more thing. No matter how wide-spread social networks are, they still involve people of approximately the same social circle. There is the so-called generalization of illusions for every person. For example, “All my family votes for Lukashenko". Or vice versa,"I do not know a single person who votes for Lukashenko". Neither the first nor the second case demonstrates the choice of the whole country; both show only of the closest environment of this individual. People sit in their burrows and think that they are familiar with the whole planet, or at least with a hill in which their burrow was dug. And social networks which extend for a bit a user’s usual social circle create even more illusions. No need to take the views of the people around you for the real state of the world and no need to think that virtual communication in networks is capable to be transported into the reality in the same volumes.

- The other day in the Belarusian segment of social networks a significant case occurred. A number of users appealed to like-minded people, who have personal vehicles, with a request to respond quickly and to provide a real assistance in moving accross Minsk of a convicted Siarhei Kavalenka’s mother. Only one person responded to dozens of messages posted in various communities...

- It's probably still an extreme case. Yes, only one person responded, although one would expect a greater number of responses. There are opposite examples, confirming the possibility of solidarity in social networks. So you shouldn’t shrug off such things.

About sociality and asses

- In one of your discourses on this topic you said that in order to understand the functional characteristics of social networks one should change a lot in the methods of analysis and in understanding of contemporary society. What exactly did you mean?

- As a philosopher and methodologist, I’ve been thinking on this question for a long time. I’ve stated and I still state that somewhere from the late 70s of last century, human knowledge, social knowledge has begun to be in great retard behind social change. Scientists, experts, analysts simply fail to keep abreast of the time of these changes. And we quite poorly know the Belarusian society, in particular. And in issues of knowledge of Belarus no one has even made a dent in this work.

Social networks, which have, incidentally, quite a stupid name, that is completely inappropriate to the essence of the phenomenon, is also an attribute of modern life. Please, pay attention to such phrases, like "welfare/social state", "social revolution", "social network", "social responsibility", etc. The beautiful word "social" is everywhere, but what's the point of it is completely unclear. First and foremost we all need to understand just the essence of today's society which we live in. Today the important is change of perspectives and attitudes. Today we need to think not about the help to the poor, but how to dispose great welfare of the rich. Today we need to think not about how to tell a web user or a voter about any policy of a state or a party's program, but to look for the individuals who a few in a million, and who know and understand what is really happening in the world. But the networks are not an appropriate space for such discourses, are they?

- Many users of social networks have offended when you stated that "VKontakte is the usual leisured chatter of adolescents, and Facebook is the exchange of greeting cards". Weren’t you confused?

- And what should I be confused with? This is my conclusion from what I do and this is my assessment of what I see. I see with my own eyes a massive barrage of Cupids, naked asses, glamorous pictures and romantic cards.

About fool and glamour

- No less harsh assessments caused your assertion that "99.9% of all views and opinions that appear as comments, even large articles and detailed texts in the Internet is a poor paraphrase of banal things and retelling of nonsenses, already made earlier and old tired that are given for personal opinions like which their authors came to by themselves, invented by themselves. There is so much foolishness that has never been thrown into a public space before the era of social networks"...

- Actually, this is hyperbole, exaggeration. But this hyperbole is shocking, hurting other people, at least, for two reasons: it counters to the general ideological setting, and also offends some people. But I am ready to defend this claim, even in an exaggerated form. The number of ideas and opinions on Earth is much smaller than the number of people. Take cosmology, where it is considered that the Earth is at the center of the universe and all the stars with the Moon revolve around the Earth. There is in this regard another version that the Sun is at the center of the universe and the Earth with other planets revolves around the Sun. And no matter how many people discuss this issue at that moment; at best, they can reach in their arguments the statement of Giordano Bruno: the Sun is one of the stars, and each star has its own a planetary system. And this is not a third opinion; this is the second one that has spread over the Galaxy. That’s all. But apart from these judgments there is the sea of foolishness all around. These statements are obviously stupid, that just should not be taken into consideration. And there may be millions of such judgments. If you think that our world is like the eye of a fly, it's up to you. I do not care what nonsense might come to your mind. It's your problems. But just do not bother me or someone else with the requirement to take your opinion into consideration. That's it. And as for me, I definitely know: 99% of my opinions and judgments I took from classics, intellectuals, philosophers and scientists. My world view consists of own contribution, at most, perhaps, by one percent. And I can say with confidence that people who have different proportions, and who rely in everything on their own opinions and judgments are idiots and crazy people.

- Separately, you have formulated your attitude to the so-called "cult of Friday" in social networks: "Four days a week Facebook is filled with longing for Friday. On Friday there start cults and shamanistic rituals, inhabitants of the networks, office plankton start to throw out in the Internet pagan sacrifices to "Friday": mainly pictures of glamorous cocktails, flowers, stylized languid ladies, sometimes with barbecues, baths, at best, with bicycles and active forms of recreation". Why do you consider it abnormal?

- When I realize that a person, who does not need to work on a daily basis for someone, is in expectation of Friday with everybody else, I consider it ridiculous dissemination of the work ethic. I extremely do not like it.

Bicycles and active forms of recreation I consider normal any day. I am not against drinking cocktails and fine drinks. In general, I support all kinds of pleasures in life. But I consider abnormal glamour, pop culture, exaggerated romanticism and blue snivels. It is also abnormal, I think, hating your work, and dreaming Friday all week long. We must remember that labor has not only made a man from an ape, but labor is also a consumer of human’s nature. Therefore, the greatest value of the person is free from work time. Working extremely hard and senseless burying of your work results is abnormal. A man should spend the most little time and only for the necessary labor. For example, I do not like cleaning my apartment, but if I love my apartment, then cleaning it is necessary for me to exercise. In this case, even a hard work isn’t burdensome. I can not imagine, for example, how one can love cleaning off manure. But I can easily imagine, I even imagine that cleaning of manure can be completely normal thing, if I love animals. Let's say I have a cow, and I clean her manure, but this is not love to clean the manure, this is love to the cow. It is hard to pull heavy things. And if a person sees the sense of his work in a simple dragging the stones, then he should hate his job. But he feels very different when, for example, he drags the stones to build the temple. He loves the temple, which isn’t yet there, and he is still happy lugging the stones. And when people are deprived of any meaning in their work, this work is done poorly; they do not know what kind of work they do, good or bad. They just work hard and dream only about the end of this work. Here begins the senseless expectation of the time when they will get relaxed. Five days they are pointlessly expecting for Friday and then they spend their free time also pointlessly, playing the field. The horror of the "cult of Friday" is that people work pointlessly and spend their other time likewise pointlessly; they live pointlessly.

About astronauts and the Bible

- Let me quote one of the comments to your post about the "cult of Friday": "I consider the fact of this phenomenon’ existence due to the very reality - what we can do, well, we have not become astronauts or travelers or military leaders. And we’ve became those who we are – we are, mostly, office plankton. And for at least some rehabilitation of the conscience maximum what you want is to become the head of the department. While Friday just lets you forget for a couple of days who you really are - the plankton, and allows you to do if not a vocation, then not the thing that makes you sick. Our fathers, torn out from the ground by the party, have been suppressing and they still suppress this sadness with alcohol. We do with virtuality. What is less harmful is obvious. What should be more important, the virtuality or reality, is obvious either. But what the things are really like?" So, what the things are really like?

- Actually, I do not know what the things are really like. This comment’s author is somehow right, of course. Life is not given to a man as a gift, life does not consist only of pleasant things. Life is a challenge for the person, a challenge of destiny, a challenge to the circumstances. And we respond to these challenges. All the good world literature describes the attitudes to these challenges. Let’s suppose a man wanted to become an astronaut, but he did not. He can say: "All astronauts are dung, and the space is an unworthy occupation". This is one way of response and I think it's wrong. It is much more correct to revise your own attitude to the results of the challenge. Another way to answer to the challenge it's torturing your child; like, “if I did not become an astronaut or a musician, then my child will”. Another frequent response is when a person begins to be proud of what he's like, "Yeah, I’m an alcoholic, and you all – dung because you are the same as me, but you pretend that you are different". But these are the wrong answers to life's challenges. Devaluing the achievements of others and looking for excuses for you is wrong. It is quite possible to live a full life even if your dream haven’t realized. There are always plenty of opportunities to get in touch with something beautiful and not just sitting in social networks waiting for Friday. Life gives to everyone not only challenges, but also offers plenty of opportunities.

- Another user under the discussion of your statements has written not too flattering comments about the most amateurs of communication in social networks and concluded that he could not imagine "what would happen if suddenly those 99% began talking about the impermanence of life and reading the Strugatsky brothers. Let it be like this". Do you agree with it?

- No, I do not agree. I do not think that everyone definitely needs to read the Strugatsky brothers. There is only one book, which is desirable to be read by everyone: it is the Bible. But I'm not a fanatical missionary, so that I would someone persuade everyone to read it. The talk is about that people do not read, are not interested in anything, do not aspire to the values that go beyond the ordinary; this is the way to the despair in which people are driving themselves. And then there is not too important, where people are living through their despair: in social networks or in real life.

- The last question. Why do you personally need such an active participation in social networks, if their mobilization and organizational capabilities are scanty, and the vast majority of users are office plankton?

- My activity pierces through all social levels of modern society. On the one hand, I am dealing with decision-makers at the European politics’ level. This is one layer of my consciousness, of my mind. And while plunging only into there, I might lose touch with reality due to lack of communication with other people. I believe it important to know and feel how people live around me. And as far as I can’t reach them with my hands and get to everyone by feet, then the social networks for me are a kind of peephole through which I can see those people whom I can not get to in live. Because of this I can know, what they think, what they do, what want people that are not in my immediate circle of communication.