Myth as Social Technology

I used to think that ants were blind

They seemed to be probing the air all around, ready to bump into the world in any direction. The poor beings were foiled again and again by the pace of the ever-changing world. They could never catch up, their frantic waggling a sign of constant confusion. They had memorized their paths from home and to food, the familiar steps between one dune and another. But they had no paths to anyplace new, nor any way to find each other in vast black deserts. No footprints to be seen, all they had were their little memories in their little heads reminding them what mere inches of the driveway felt like yesterday. 

~

Narrative is central to our existence as human beings because it is the product of having a conscious relationship with our own existence. If narrative is consciousness at work, then the stories we tell are also the stories we become. We embody our stories, create from them, and shape ourselves and the world around us by how we interact. Those creations and interactions then go on to shape us in return and the cycle continues. If there is a mode of intervening in the process of storytelling, it is the paradigms they emerge from and reinforce in their emergence. How we think, relate to, believe in, and frame our own existence is what becomes our existence. Then the importance of our paradigms becomes obvious - they have the ability to affect every aspect of us including the wellbeing of our psyches, bodies, relationships, and environments. When we create without regard for those effects, or without the ability to wrap our minds around those consequences as a collective, the seeds of our discontent are sown in every fabric of our co-creations. 

Ideally, the process of creating and sharing story would be a careful one that includes questions of beneficence. Yet many of our current modes of disseminating myth and story at-scale rewards the opposite approach. Social media platforms are especially problematic in this way, with algorithms being highly biased toward promoting content that is: inflammatory and/or false (because false information is often fabricated for inflammatory purposes), morally charged, offensive, or incites a strong reaction. The higher likelihood of virality for these types of content incentivizes users to churn out ‘hot takes’ in rapid response to capitalize on the momentary collective outbursts. The speed at which users are obligated to contribute does not lend itself to care and nuance - in fact, social media platforms in general are not structured to support the depth and complexity necessary to an effective dialogue. Content is often limited by time constraints, character counts, number of photos, etc. Long-form content that encourages long-term entanglement doesn’t induce the same dopamine response as short-form content that produces short-term gratification, but the inherent aim of the platforms then cannot be to connect or to inform. The “function of a system is what it does” and social media companies function to make as much money as possible off their users’ time, emotional energy, and desire to belong. They profit from users engaging, entertaining, addicting, and overwhelming each other within an endless stream of consciousness, as well as both preying on and exacerbating our anxieties and insecurities. In terms of attempting to heal social rifts and personal struggles through learning, discussing, and seeking community, the means that are available for us to heal at this scale are not assistive because they ultimately serve capitalistic aims. Currently, companies intend to profit from our efforts at healing. They intend to extract the energy that we attempt to pour into ourselves and into each other. 

~

I would move single grains of rock, or a nearby leaf around to obstruct them. To see how they might make sense of catastrophe. 

They remained confused, crawling all over everything 

searching searching searching 

they've dropped something in the sand 

it's there somewhere if only the map 

would stop changing if only the ground 

could stay the same 

we might carry it home together, whatever we've lost, 

and it wouldn't matter that we've been blind

~

We appear to be a collective that has forgotten how to create a reality that sustains us. With aspects of our lives beholden to the attention economy which benefits from foiling attempts at consensus, agreement, or social cohesion, we seem trapped: trying to make meaning together in spaces that prey on our deepest fears. We are also not in control of the shape of these digital spaces that we occupy together, with a subsequent lack of ability to hold each other accountable to standards of cooperation. In both appearance and effect there is a growing rift, though the appearance is exaggerated. Generally, research into this divide shows people do desire to get along, to be kind, to be informed, as well as to be heard, seen, and appreciated during shared learning processes. But the kind of online discourse we’re constantly exposed to tells a different story, one where shared values don’t exist anymore because the discourse doesn’t adhere to or exist within systems that assume those values. This leads to a breakdown in trust, a dissolution of truth, and a loss of shared purpose. What are we supposed to do? Especially when we function at a physical and emotional distance from the relative strangers whose messages we practice deciphering and enacting. Where can we turn?

~

I remember them stopping to greet each other, embracing and identifying each other by touch. What it would be like, to feel the details of such a tiny face in my palms. To let its antennae gently rustle my hairs. Would it know me as one of its own or one of its paths? I know it would turn away too soon, its cryptic gestures leaving me unmoored and not knowing if my face alone is enough of a name.