The Net as the New Jerusalem

Like the late Romans, says author Margaret Wertheim, our civics are no longer sustained by a firm belief in our society; we are no longer sure of its purpose. This is clear enough from the presidential campaign to date. Cyberspace, she writes, will fill the void. The Net, she says, is the New Jerusalem, our new common and profoundly spiritual space. (First of two parts.)

Wertheim says we live in a time marked by inequity, cynicism and fragmentation. She isn't the first or only social observer to point out that our civics are no longer sustained by a firm belief in our society, that we are no longer sure of its purpose. The primary message emanating from the current presidential campaign is that most Americans have lowered their modest expectations about politics, and now believe their government is dominated by a coalition of interests -- corporations, big media, political parties, lobbyists -- rather than by them.

Like true believers watching the sunset of the Holy Mother Church, we have a growing sense of political ennui and disintegration accompanied by a surreal air of prosperity. Some seek to fill this void with a yearning for traditional spirituality; others (like Wertheim) are coming to see cyberspace as a transformative new spiritual geography.

For all its stumbles and shortcomings, the new cyber-culture at its political heart has always had a clear sense of purpose: freedom of speech and thought; the interactive and open distribution and liberation of information; the exploration and development of creative new technologies, the shared creation of a culture with its own particular values.

In response to the decline of old notions of politics and society, Weirtheim writes in her provocative new book, "The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace," Americans in particular look to religion and spirituality for grounding in their lives. She sees a palpable spiritual yearning -- reflected in the right-wing zeal of the Christian Coalition, in California-style mysticism, and in the pseudo-Native-Americanism of an executive retreat at a sweat lodge -- vibrating throughout U.S. society.

Wertheim sees cyberspace as part of a continuum dating to medieval times, through the discovery of astronomical space in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, to the relativist conception of space in the twentieth century, and on to contemporary physicists' eerily beautiful ideas about hyperspace.

Wertheim believes this has brought us full circle. Once again, we have a physical space for the body to inhabit, and an ethereal space a number of people believe will ultimately become the home of the soul. She even goes so far as to suggest cyberspace will become the technological version of the Christian heaven.

It's a big idea, one many people will be attracted to. I think I see what Wertheim means, but can't quite enter this kingdom myself, or buy the notion of cyberspace as heaven. The world is probably ripe for this new techno-spiritualism, but it probably doesn't cover all generations. Perhaps it applies mostly to the disillusioned and fatigued Boomers, who talked about revolution and spirituality, but didn't quite achieve either. Now they rush to fill their moral void, to overcome their political disappointment by trying to infuse politics with some higher purpose, perhaps the highest of them all.

Boomers have a bad name at the moment, but they did -- some quite consciously -- lay a framework for a different kind of revolution, one they were able to pull off. They did the legwork and visionary planning, and built the preliminary distributed architecture, that became the Net. In a way, the Net is one of the Boomers' greatest legacies, though it would take the next generation to patch together the Web and push cyberspace to the next level. That turned out to be quite a leap.

But if you take Wertheim's idea and apply it to politics, the whole notion takes a new, highly relevant twist. Cyberspace may not be the gateway to heaven, but there is definitely a new kind of geography here, and we could well be witnessing the Birth of a Nation. Or at least, of a 51st state, a new sort of space with intensely political as well as spiritual significance.

Scholars like Wertheim see global and domestic politics going through a sea change. The kind of politics being played out by Bush-Gore-Nader and their anemic parties is clearly exhausted, overwhelmed by change and challenge. The process doesn't seem to have any purpose, and does suggest a culture whose political structure is in decline. Because the system has no moral purpose, it has no moral authority; a growing number of people ignore it. Online, an entire generation has grown up learning how not to take government seriously.

Cyberspace, writes Wertheim, is a completely new kind of space, a New Jerusalem, potentially welcoming male and female, First World and Third, "...is open to anyone who can afford a personal computer and a monthly Internet access fee ... many cyber-enthusiasts would have us believe that that the Net dissolves the very barriers of race and gender, elevating everybody equally to a disembodied digital stream."

This New Jerusalem stuff is appealing but, again, relates as powerfully to politics as spirituality.

Younger Americans, especially those who spent a large part of their lives as citizens of this new space, have mostly detached themselves from the institutions producing the last days of politics. They don't often read newspapers or follow the evening news or check out the newsmagazines. They don't see themselves as Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives. There's a lot of earnest chatter about the importance of voting, but it's defensive. Mostly, people talk about voting to prevent something from happening: a certain person's being elected, the judiciary's being tilted too far in one direction or another. It's hard to find a citizen who's voting for something.

My own sense is that they are witnessing and participating in the birth of a different sort of nation, seeking not so much spiritual as moral and ethical renewal. We have the sense of being present at the revolution, even if it's not clear what kind of revolution. People are hungry not only for spirituality, but for a sense of purpose, and they don't see one advanced in the election.

The birth of any legitimate political system begins with a moral purpose, an ethical underpinning for existing. Some see cyberspace as a new kind of sacred space, and maybe they're right. Politically, it's an empty place waiting to be filled up. The people running the other system seem out of ideas and ethical impulses. Perhaps the void could be filled from within. Then cyberspace would, in fact, become the New Jerusalem Wertheim describes.

Next: Politics and ethical technology in the New Jerusalem

Comments

Reality check?

[Gendou]

Although I partially agree; the Net is certainly a thing that can really increase someone's knowledge and understanding, and potentially lead to enlightenment...

But it's currently chuck full of commercial nonsense and porn pop-up ads, so I don't think we'll be seeing any of that happening soon.

I think Margaret Wertheim has been reading a bit too many Gibson novels. :-)

Re:Reality check?

[Syllepsis]

Although I partially agree; the Net is certainly a thing that can really increase someone's knowledge and understanding, and potentially lead to enlightenment...

But it's currently chuck full of commercial nonsense and porn pop-up ads, so I don't think we'll be seeing any of that happening soon.

Replace "Net" with "Physical Reality". Pretty scary, huh?

Naive

[fatphil]

New revolution, year right.

Sure, the guys who got there first may have been great thinkers with their idealistic morals. And as the thing grew a new 'society' of sharing and cooperation sprung up. And then e- happened. Ignore the drugs warnings about 'E', the thing that's a bigger problem is 'e-'. Every advert on television has a www (stands for wank wank wank amongst the group of hackers I hang around with) .com address, and if you go there all you see is marketing material.
It's turning into another way for big corporation to shove adverts down our throats.
That's an entirely different thing from the new society some previously (naively) hoped for.

FatPhil

I wonder if in 20 years time there'll be web pages dedicated to "classic old web pages", like oldies' radio???

New Jerusalem

[ranulf]

Fairly fundamental to the New Jerusalem, as a concept, is the idea that it is the ultimate perfect environment in which we, as people, can relate to our creator. I really don't see how this can be applied to the Net. Sure, it has many good points, but it's nothing like something we should be spiritually hoping for.

The Net gives us another community to exist in, but far too commonly at the expense of that which we already have. Whilst it can help build relationships with other people, even people we're never likely to even meet in real life, if we fail to build relationships with people in our own physical community then this is hardly improving our lives or society as a whole.

Despite the idea of a global village sounding appealing to many, in many ways the Net is causing us to become more insular.

Who is Margaret Wertheim?

[wiredog]

Jon, how about a reference? If her work isn't online, how about article/book titles? It's hard to evaluate her ideas if we don't see them!

Jaded?

[Kiss the Blade]

It's interesting to me to see the different ways in which different nations can be said to be purposeless and jaded. Here in Britain, a government commisioned report came to the conclusion that the word 'British' is inherently racist. Britain is losing the sense of itself as a nation. In America, people are mistrustful of government, but many are still religious, so clearly the majority have a spiritual belief in something. In much of Western Europe, the church going part of the population numbers about 5%, whereas in America it is the Majority.

What is the trend in America regarding religion? Is it on the increase or on the decrease? It seems that many in Britain have quasi-religious beliefs, but define such things for themselves insofar as they do at all, is this happening in America?

KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

yup... it IS the new jerusalem..

[radja]

with corporations as colonists, shooting at us with heavy guns(lawsuits) for looking at them suspiciously.

//rdj

Is God in the Net?

[John_Prophet]

I think Margaret Wertheim has been reading a bit too many Gibson novels. :-)

This might be considered off topic by some, but if you look carefully, it is actually right on topic.

Ever noticed how the Gibson books seem to progress toward a living matrix? Like at the end of Neuromancer Case is talking to the AI and it says it has BECOME the net. And he even sees a little ghost of himself walking around in the matrix with Neuromancer and Linda Lee. Ok.. now in Virtual Light, there's the character (Security Guard with all the allergies whose name escapes me) who grew up in a trailer park that believes that God is in the TV. (Neuromancer?) In Idoru we have the "walled city" which is a virtual community created out of a shared killfile (with the help of Neuromancer?) There are other examples in his other books, but it's too early for me to recall them.

Is god in the net? Well, philosophically speaking, yes. The Christian, Muslim & Hindu gods are generally looked at as being omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (everywhere at once) and of course omniscient (all knowing). How could this be? Hindu philosophy suggests that GOD (a symbol) exists in each of us. If so, anywhere we project our consciousness (including when we place our awareness "online") there GOD (still a symbol) is.

In that sense, "heaven" is merely the place where our spirit comes to contentment and bliss. Heaven is really just a state of mind, not a place you go when you die. Most humans live in a state of mind called "hell" because they choose to focus on the negatives.

If you project your anger and fear and self-loathing onto the web, then it will be just as dark and dirty and unwholesome as you believe it will be.

If you project your good will and positive thoughts onto the web you just might find it heavenly.

(and that goes for any other kind of internal or external interaction)

If you want to be happy, think happy thoughts, and the world around you will get more and more beautiful.

If you want to be angry, think selfish, angry thoughts, and the world around you will get uglier and uglier.


-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)

Just another class device.

[Acafla]

As much as I love my internet access, the thought that it will bring the classes together, without the boundries of race, sex, religion, or class, is a bit naieve.

What the web is doing is creating a new class of global citizen. Admiteddly it is one that that crosses many of the traditional boundaries, but it is still not an inclusive one. As the article states: "[Cyberspace] is open to anyone who can afford a personal computer and a monthly Internet access fee". Perhaps that puts the middle class on equal footing with the upper, but it still leaves out a global majority, and a large minority even within the US.

Furthur, while those who have access to the net have a voice, it doesn't mean anyone is listening. Discusion forums such as this one are still dominated by the educated and by those with a gift for public expression.

Before we tout ourselves as a new Utopia of political and social equality, or allow others to hold us up as such, let's all remember that we are not representative of the masses.

There is some merit to this article

[shankster]

Yeah, yeah, this whole technology-as-salvation thing is wearing quite thin these days. Technology is a tool. Nobody worshiped looms or mills or iron horses, did they?

The merit to this article, though, is Katz' discussion of Americans' profound sense of dislocation. We Americans are a very lost group of people. We are divided, fragmented, powerless, very deeply scared of everything, and yearning to find a meaning to it all.

Some posters here have wondered "Why does America need a 'national mission'? The Brits don't have one, the Canadians don't have one." The reason is that if we do not have a national mission for ourselves, we just might see our country for what it really is--a vast money-making conspiracy that has absolutely no regard for human life or human rights or human dignity. And that's a pretty shocking thing to realize. No wonder we're burying our heads in the sand.

Technology can NEVER be a religion, or a salvation, or the answer to our problems. It can be a useful tool to help revive the American people and save ourselves from doom, but only in the context of a broader socio-political movement that aims to truly fix the American system.

The Sacred and the RFC Compliant...

[Remus Shepherd]

Look, it's a lot simpler than Wertheim's convoluted forecasting. As Eliade wrote in his work 'The Sacred and the Profane', humans feel a need to connect to a higher power, a source of strength. Often their attachment is to a place because something historical happened there, or to a time of the year because something historical happened then.

Because we perceive things as happening 'on the net' -- and that perception will only grow stronger as virtual reality becomes more common -- it's fairly safe to predict that people will derive a sort of spirituality from cyberspace. Already there's a sort of sanctity attached to internet 'places' like Slashdot; people regard it as special, and they get very incensed when it does things they regard as 'out of canon'.

So yes, in time as groups and places evolve on the internet, I can see the sources of strength people find there becoming sacred, even spiritual to them.

But unlike Wertheim, I discount any involvement of Christianity in this evolution. Christianity is based around the sacredness of the teachings of one man. Whatever spirituality arises from the internet, Christians are most likely to see it as a threat and an aberration.

Internet Spirituality will arise, but it will be wholly non-traditional and likely highly individualistic. And as the internet is unique in human history, the spirituality that people find in it is also likely to be unforseeable and new.

To take the new Jerusalem don't we need. . .

[kfg]

To drive out and kill all the Cannanites already residing there?

Re:OT tangent

[TWR]

They claim to have owned the space the flat was built upon two thousand years previously, but have no real evidence of specifici ownership of your flat or the land it was built on, beyond a vague history that it was once ruled by their ethnic group (even in the days of the Israelites non-israelites traded with and lived in Israel).

And they still do. Arabs who didn't run when Israel was founded (either because they thought they'd be killed or because they thought they were regrouping for the final assault to push the Jews into the sea) still live there. Roughly 20% of the Israeli population isn't Jewish. Their freedom of religion is respected and they are able to vote and hold seats in the parliment (in fact, there were 3 Arab members of the first Israeli parliment). The recent problems with Israeli Arabs rioting in support of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is a new phenonmenon.

Oh, and by the by, the holy books of both Christians and Moslems say that the land of Palestine is Jewish land.

Meanwhile you can trace the deed to your property back hundreds of years, documented by authorities established there hundreds of years previously and recognized by the entire world (including the United Nations), the exception being an occupying power making claims to your land in direct violation of international charter and law.

You mean like Yassar Arafat, who was born in Cairo? Or Eduard Said, whose family had left Palestine before the formation of the state of Israel? Strong claims they have there.

And where is the compensation for the Jewish refugees who were kicked out of Arab lands? Just because Israel took care of Jews who were kicked out and didn't leave them to rot in camps like the Arabs did to the Palestinians doesn't mean that the Jews shouldn't be compensated, too.

So, based on this vague notion of history and spurious claim, they kick you out of your flat and, when you join a protest against this action and begin throwing rocks at those you feel are oppressing you, fire bullets into the crowd killing you or some of your fellow protestors, then pat themselves on the back for their "restraint." This, in a context where any civilized country answers rioting and rock throwing with tear gas, water canons, and night-sticks, not machine guns, tanks, and rocket fire.

I take it you aren't aware of the Intifada which ran from the mid-80's to the early 90's. That was mainly rock-throwing children and teens against rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannons. There were still deaths, but at a far lower rate than what we're seeing now. The new uprising has people with guns using rock-throwing children as cover. They should be ashamed of themselves. Instead, they bus in more children.

What's going on in Gilo/Beit Jala is more of the same. People who don't even live in Beit Jala are coming there at night, and shooting at Jews in Gilo, hoping to get the Israelis to damage the property and kill the residents of Beit Jala, so the international media will condemn Israel, and the residents of Beit Jala will join the fighting. The Israelis, ham-handed as they are at PR and the like, don't know how to get this story well-publicized and instead act like big bullies by shooting rockets at Beit Jala.

Are the Israelis doing the wrong thing? Yeah, probably. As I said, they don't understand PR. Israel sees itself as an island surrounded by hostiles in a world which has shown time and again that it would like nothing more than to get rid of the Jews. Condemnation by the UN isn't a big deal compared to the fallout from being called Christ-killers for 2,000 years. The Israelis are going to do what will protect themselves the most, and damn the consequences. This is a highly paranoid and stupid strategy which is going to backfire, sooner or later.

But anyone who thinks that all of this fussin' and fightin' is going to be ended if the Israelis just packed up and left the West Bank and Gaza is delusional. The Palestinians aren't going to be satisfied until there isn't a Jew left in the land. If you don't belive me, listen to some of the lovely sermons being given in the mosques, or some of Arafat's speeches when the Western media isn't watching. If Israel doesn't figure out how to get more of the world's opinion on its side, when the time comes that the Palestinians/Arabs do seriously threaten to push the Jews into the sea, the rest of the world is going to sit back and say that they deserve it.

I wish I had a solution to the problem that everyone could agree to, but I don't. But at least get your facts straight before arguing your point.

-jon

Re:OT tangent

[TWR]

Now I see that the Jews are repeating their historical tendencies to be an extremely selfish people. Nation after nation, throughout time have sooner or later, realised this. Its time to realise it again.

The Jews have suppressed and taken advantage of the working class time and time again. Currently, they have strong influence in the film industry (MPAA), and in the music industry (RIAA). What will it take to reform them?

Ah. A Jew-hater. Very good. Easy to pick apart.

Since you seem to think that there is no individual Jew, but rather a single, nefarious Jew, I'll talk about it that way.

Isn't it funny how those pesky Jews took advantage of the working class, and yet they wrote the Communist Manifesto (Marx) and founded the CIO (Samuel Gompers). And they hate the poor so much, the evil Jews wrote the poem on the Statue of Liberty (Emma Lazarus). And then there's the evil Einstein Jew, who founded Pugwash.

Those black-hating Jews helped found the NAACP, and its first three presidents were evil, evil Jews.

Selfish Jew Haym Solomon helped fund the American Revolutionary War. Jew organizations like Mazon raise money to feed the hungry (and as I'm sure you'll tell me, all Jews are rich, so obviously there aren't any hungry ones, yet they are raising money for hungry people, and they only raise money for Jews...is your head going to explode?). If you take a look at http://www.ziv.org/ziv_links.html, you'll see a whole page of charities for Selfish Jews, like the one which raises money to keep poor Pakistani children from being used as child labor (but, your feeble mind says, that's helping poor workers AND Muslims! Those dastardly Jews, always trying to cover for themselves!). And those Muslim-hating Jews in Israel were among the first countries to offer support to the Muslim Kosovo refugees, far earlier than any of the Arab nations did.

I could go on and on with examples that refute your stupid bigotry. But hate-filled people like yourself won't listen, and those that understand that your head is filled with straw don't need the examples.

-jon