She was complaining in print about the fact that 437 “friends”
were following her on Facebook or MySpace as she described her
eventful walk to the refrigerator to make a sandwich. Her
complaint was that these people were not really friends, but
faceless voyeurs with only a glancing interest in the important
details of her daily life. It reminded one of those Hollywood
celebrities who rail against the paparazzi, but crave their
attention.
Welcome to the Me-Myself-and-I Generation. It is not made
entirely of teenagers desperate to be in constant contact with
their friends. It’s them, but also many who glide into young
adulthood addicted to “texting,” Twitter messages and the
aforementioned “social network” web sites. These are people who
think the world—or at least their acquaintances— is itching to
know the quotidian aspects of their lives. Perusing MySpace and
Facebook one wonders how anyone could be interested in this
stuff. Apparently, though, millions are.
There is even a new online service that let’s users tell their
friends exactly where they are. The user can peg this global
tracking to the moment of transmission or keep it active for
hours. So, one’s adoring “friends” may keep one in their sights
for extended periods. Just the ticket for those Hollywood
celebrates.
Columnist
Cheryl Wetzstein says that all this self-absorption emanates
from the generation born to the “Me Generation” of the 1970s. She
worries that too many teenagers and young adults try to emulate
the faux celebrities who till our television screens and YouTube
snippets, people obsessed with their bodies, sexuality, drugs and
outrageous behavior.
Granted the celebrities seem to care only for themselves, like
the legendary Narcissus who spurned all advances because he had
fallen in love with a reflection in a pool—his own. Now, they
seem to have millions of mimics.
To be self-absorbed is to care little for others, even to exploit
them. Certainly more than a few are addicted to social networks
and seek self-reinforcement by collecting large numbers of
“friends” who will admire whatever it is they describe or any
photos they may post to glorify themselves. They also rattle off
their tastes in this or that.
Along with all this craving for attention from others is a short
attention span. Short, monosyllabic text messages on cell phones
take the place of conversations or letters. Running comments on
one’s social networking slot are stream-of-consciousness, not
requiring advance thought or writing in coherent sentences and
paragraphs.
Is rampant self-absorption related to the ongoing coarsening of
the culture? Social scientists will have to decide that.
Some already have. In 2001, Charles Murray, in an article in the
Wall Street Journal, mused on Arnold Toynbee’s A Study of
History (1961) in which he said that a healthy civilization
is led by a creative minority, setting society’s behavioral
standards. Conversely, in a “disintegrating” society, Murray
says, “the upper levels degenerate and abandon the role of
leadership…This leads to a behavioral code that rejects the
values of being ‘brave, loyal and true’—one that rejects
acceptance of responsibility and blame, when appropriate…one
that rejects beings modest and gracious in victory and a good
sport in defeat…Many of the accepted ‘rules’ collapse and are
viewed as old-fashioned, out of touch…Peer pressure expands
exponentially to enforce strict adherence to ‘political
correctness.’”
Murray summarizes Toynbee’s conclusion of 48 years ago this way:
“To recognize a disintegrating society, look for a culture that
is in the process of being shattered, riven, torn apart. Those
who sound wake-up calls of alarm and try to invoke the ‘old
norms’ are shouted down, ridiculed, marginalized and censured.”
Sound familiar?
