Running Head: TECHNOLOGY’S INFLUENCE ON LEGACY
Technology’s Influence on Legacy
Amanda Dejonghe
Virginia Commonwealth University
TECHNOLOGY’S INFLUENCE ON LEGACY
2
Abstract
This paper discusses the future repercussions of our current use of technology.
Specifically, it talks about whether or not the contemporary practices in using technology
will help our generation create a more memorable legacy or a more forgettable one.
Things such as culture, cultural revolutions, and predictions of the future help us answer
the question. The past and how the current generation looks back on it help predict and
look ahead to how the future generations will look at the current youth. And while the
current idea is to define oneself as an individual another question is brought up as to
whether the future adolescence will want to take the time to see their predecessors as
such, or whether they will just group them into a whole. Also as to whether or not, if
grouped, the present youth will be remembered for their use of technology.
Keywords: culture, cultural revolutions, future, legacy, youth
TECHNOLOGY’S INFLUENCE ON LEGACY
3
Technology’s Influence on Legacy
In contemporary society we have mass amounts of information being posted on
the web and none of it being taken down. Creating social media accounts to document the
happening of everyday have become quite popular especially with younger generations,
leaving no gap for privacy and a craving for individuality and remembrance. Many
describe this period as the “End of Forgetting” (Bossewitch & Sinnreich, 2013, p. 224242). So much information is loaded on the Internet and can never truly be “erased” at
least, not yet. This brings about the question of whether or not our current use of
technology and the Internet ultimately help us be remembered or forgotten by those who
will proceed us. And while as a generation and a culture the internet will help us be
remember and create a social footprint; as individuals it will not help define us to future
generations because of the general tendency of human nature to group things in the past
in order to define a generation.
Ever since the Internet was introduced to the public, there have been rapid
changes in the definition of “technology”. One could even say that since social media
was introduced through programs like MySpace and Facebook that technology took
another turn, and took on yet another definition. After many years to develop and become
an everyday practice, our current use of the Internet and social media programs has
become a large part of our everyday life. Not only does it affect what we do on a daily
basis but it also affects how we learn, and think. In other words, it has evolved to be a
core entity of who we are. While currently there are large debates over the definition of
culture there are some key words that seem to consistently lead to the definition of
TECHNOLOGY’S INFLUENCE ON LEGACY
4
culture: symbol, idea, personality, functional, and relationship (Blumenthal, 1940, p.571586). It’s fair to say by looking at all of these terms that both modern technology and
some form of social media fit into them all. When the human race looks back upon a
generation, or a certain period of time (usually in decades) they tend to define the era by
their “culture”, it’s the first thing you think of and it’s usually involved with the youth of
that time. The 1960’s were known for social revolution and protests, the 1920’s were
known for the extravagant parties (although Fitzgerald probably had a lot to do with this).
In both of these examples we remember groups as a whole, not select individuals.
Classrooms do not think of individuality, and history classes look for something that was
prominent and reoccurring during this time. The argument can be brought up of whether
or not the future will have similar teaching techniques as now can be brought up;
however, if textbooks are looked at and stories are heard from the past, we see that this
technique of grouping and defining has been around for a long, long time.
Talk of culture and revolution also leads to the idea that currently we are
undergoing a technological revolution as well as a secondary social revolution. As
mentioned previously we have gone through a radical change with our definition of
technology and this is exactly what a revolution is. It’s a drastic and sudden change in an
area that leads to a new definition of a certain aspect of culture. In the 1910’s there was
the industrial revolution, in the 1930’s the Great Depression (while this does not have
revolution in it’s name it was a very sudden and drastic change), and in the 1960’s the
first social revolution. When looking back to all of these periods, it can be seen that focus
on an individual is not very common. Sure for the 1910’s there was Rockefeller and
Carnegie, but these are a select few. Mark Zuckerberg might be the primary example of
TECHNOLOGY’S INFLUENCE ON LEGACY
5
our generation. Everyone knows who he is, and most know what he did to get the
recognition he does. Although he created something to define the individual,
individuality is not thought of when he is brought up. Olorunnisola and Martin (2013)
mention that the media has already coined terms such as “Twitter Revolution” and
“Facebook Revolution” especially to describe their affect on other social movements
happening throughout the world (p. 276). This proves even more that currently we are
undergoing two “revolutions” and that in the future this could be something they focus on
to remember our generation.
This brings up the idea of the future itself. No one really knows what the future is
going to bring. Technology may be completely different in 30 years, and it may be
completely different in two at the rate that we are moving. Some of the files we use to
define ourselves may not even be accessible in seven years. If this happens, is all of our
self-identity and personal legacy erased? Even if it is accessible to young people
generations from now, will they even want to see it? Our main audience for our profiles
is ourselves. Bossewitch and Sinnreich (2013) mention a key idea by stating “…if the end
of forgetting is upon us, we must also ask who is doing the remembering” and that “…we
want to know more about our lives than any third party possibly could.” (p.226-227). The
fact is that even if all of this information is still available in the future, who will want to
see it? Many have the opportunity to research individuals in the their family, and few take
it upon themselves to do so. It simply isn’t realistic to say that everyone in the future will
be so interested in our past lives that these things will be important to them. Once again
the argument against this is that we do not know and cannot predict the future, but if
TECHNOLOGY’S INFLUENCE ON LEGACY
6
human trends continue as they are and have been for quite a while, our future generations
will not care much about the past, and instead focus on their present.
Technology and its use in our culture are huge. And while it seems that
individuality has also become quite popular, we are all similar in the ways we are trying
to be individual making it monotonous. In the future, it is most likely they will group us
together by our actions, and fail to see and define us as separate. In this way, our use of
technology helps define us as a whole and a group, and only a few select individuals stick
out, usually the ones who helped create the movement. No matter how hard we strive for
individuality, it is hard to attain that perspective from future youth groups, for it is human
nature to take key elements such as culture, and cultural revolutions and associate an
entire decade or longer with that, while focusing on their own present.
TECHNOLOGY’S INFLUENCE ON LEGACY
7
References
Bossewitch, J., & Sinnreich, A. (2013). The end of forgetting: Strategic agency beyond
the panopticon. New Media & Society, 15, 224-242
Blumenthal, A. (1940). A NEW DEFINITION OF CULTURE. American Anthropologist,
42, 571-586
Olorunnisola, A. A., & Martin, B. L. (2013) Influences of media on social movements:
Problemizing hyperbolic inferences about impacts. Telematics and Informatics,
30, 275-288