Dandy

A couple of weeks ago, Baroness Susan Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist, claimed that social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are harming children’s brains. Apparently they infantilise language, shorten attention spans and damage young people’s ability to communicate “properly”. They might also be responsible for the rise in autism and, according to this chap, cancer. 

I’ll let Dr Ben Goldacre go into the lack of scientific evidence to support these claims, but as someone who loves language, has an active social life, is interested in a wide range of cultural activities and enjoys gadgetry, I find this demonisation of technology – and younger people – a bit tiresome.

Firstly, if English standards are declining – if kids can’t spell, construct a sentence, write a job application or concentrate for more than five minutes – it’s not technology’s fault. I know plenty of adults whose literacy levels are poor to say the least. Surely it’s up to parents and teachers to ensure young people are taught, in an engaging way, the basic mechanics of reading and writing.

Secondly, that the English language is being dumbed down is an argument as old as language itself. As a copywriter, I regularly come across people who hate to use an informal tone (using don’t instead of do not, for example) even though it’s appropriate for the piece and the audience. People have always fretted that language today isn’t what it was when they were growing up. But I think this misses a crucial point: that the English language is constantly in flux.

In his excellent book, The Adventure of English, Melvyn Bragg romps through the centuries, describing how English evolved to become the dominant language in the world precisely because of its Darwinian ability to adapt and absorb new words. As a result, our English is a beautiful magpie of a language, stealing shiny gems from Anglo-Saxon, Latin, French, German, Indian and, more recently, American English and West Indian.

I suspect that a lot of people are frightened by new technology and the way it’s changing how we communicate. Marshall McLuhan famously said that the medium is the message; that the medium we use affects what we say and how we relate to each other. Take texting. Should we really worry if someone writes c u l8r? Not especially, provided this isn’t the language they use in a different medium; a school essay or letter to an employer, say.

Thirdly, I’m unconvinced that the internet is turning us into a society of social hermits or cultural Neanderthals unable to function in the “real world”. Anecdotally, virtually everyone I know on Facebook or Twitter has plenty of friends and interests, and is perfectly comfortable in real-world settings. Social networking is merely an extension of their busy, active lives. 

Of course, there’s a lot of pointless chatter on social networking sites (there are plenty of pointless TV shows and books), but they’re also brilliant for bringing distant friends together, for motivating community activism, for sharing ideas, tips, links and cultural activities. Surely, as with television and the printed word, there’s room for both frivolity and inspiration, entertainment and education.

New technologies will come and go, and the way we communicate will change with them. There will be new ways of interacting that will infuriate and bamboozle some, only to be embraced by others. Self-appointed guardians of what’s proper will lament that society, the English language and the young in particular are going to hell in a handcart. They will blame technology and cultural influences.

What we really should be doing is taking greater responsibility for the education of our children, so they’re as ready to write their university thesis as they are to update their Facebook status.