Cliff Mak
Technology, the Church, and the Symphonic Imperative
Not to pick a fight with the most venerable R. Scott Clark, but this isn’t about being capax infiniti. Instead of misusing (read: hijacking) John’s article to illustrate a rather glib hooray for Reformedom, we should consider the different ways we can use technology (and the attendant multi-tasking) to maximize our efforts to love each other. (In the same vein as Drew’s comment, that is.)
The truth is that there are many gifted individuals who can multi-task without sacrificing quality or performance, and this fact means perhaps a) that we can and should find a way to teach more people to multi-task effectively and b) that the problem is not the technology but the church.
As a church, we should not succumb to the frenetic pace of global capitalism. Too often we see this in a church’s numerous teams, ministries, and outreach programs. But these programs themselves are not the problem: the problem is that we sometimes lack a true center for the life of the church, we lack the liturgy (in Word, in song, in people, in sacraments) that should measure out the rest of our lives.
I mean “measure” to be taken in its fullest musical and symphonic sense. The problem is not that, in our churches, we have too many instruments in our orchestra: no, the problem is that we lack a well-written score and often a competent conductor. When we fail to come to the Lord faithfully in accordance with his Word every Sunday, we have not an orchestra but a cacophony.
This immediately affects our individual lives, too. (Lest you think I’ve already strayed too far from the post.) The liturgy in which we participate on the Lord’s Day provides the rhythm in which we dance the rest of the week. When we have no rhythm, we cannot keep time, and when we attempt to do many things at once, we fail like a piano student who cannot play a complex passage correctly without his instructor counting (and banging) out the beats for him.
We should not renounce technology any more than we should renounce musical instruments. They are all wondrous inventions. What we need to do, however, is learn how to play them well and in time with each other. If the choreographer knows what he’s doing, if the dancers can dance and sing in sync, it does not matter how many dancers shake the stage.
So there’s a danger in multi-tasking. I myself have watched in dismay as friends who’ve gotten iPhones have only gotten harder to reach. But at worst, this means only, perhaps, that they, that we, are not ready for the iPhone yet. (Maybe an intervention is at hand?) But at best, it means that one day, I hope, we’ll be ready for something even better than an iPhone—something less frivolous, something less gimmicky, something more attuned to people’s actual needs. Not a technology that consumes time but one that redeems it.
Do not be afraid. Love will conquer all.
Recent Posts
September 6th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Hi Cliff,
I think your criticism is a little unfair. I drew a reasonable inference from John’s post.
I don’t see why you see a few lines about basic Christian theology (the Creator/creature distinction is hardly unique to Reformed theology) as either Luddite or Reformed partisanship?
Our culture tells us that we can transcend time and space, that we can electronically ubiquitous. Nonsense. We can’t do it. From what I’ve read at least some scientists suggest that we don’t really multi-task, we just switch between one task and another rapidly We used to call that being distracted and now it’s become a virtue.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:18 am
I will actually have to agree with Professor Clark on this point. See, I don’t think we can use multitasking to better love each other. I think it inevitably leads us to take each other less seriously. In the moment, it means we do not give each other our full attentions. We are distracted and unfocused. In the long run, it shortens our attention spans so that even when we aren’t multitasking, we have more difficulty focusing on the person in front of us. We get bored. Our mind races ahead, our thoughts are in too many places. We cannot rest. These, I believe, are the symptoms of multitasking, and they are unequivocally bad.
Technology may certainly well be used to love people better, but multitasking cannot. Insofar as technology enables us to multitask and encourages us to multitask, I think we need to be more conscious how we use it. (I will have more thoughts on this subject in the future.)
But technology is not at fault for our multitasking; it is merely an enabler. I think Professor Edmundson diagnoses the root of the problem quite well in his article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (quoted in my original post). It is the desire to dwell in possibilities, to be everywhere, to do everything. (”Be everywhere now — that’s what the current technology invites, and that’s what my students aspire to do.”) We want a world without limits. We, ourselves, do not want to be limited. I think Professor Clark is also correct in arguing that our culture does invite us to transcend time and space. This promise is part of the allure of technology.
In part, I believe this desire for transcendence is rooted in the sin of our hearts: We want to be gods. Part of being human is accepting limitations. One of those limitations is our inability to truly multitask. Instead, we mostly get distracted, and our culture turns this into a virtue. We call it efficient — in truth it is anything but!
Cliff, I completely agree that our rhythms in worship are incredibly important. One of the most significant of these rhythms is the Sabbath, and it is telling that few moderns keep the Sabbath. Part of the rationale for the biblical imperative was to limit the work that could be done in the week: this much and no more. We need to say the same thing to our use of technology insofar as it tempts us to multitask: this much and no more. No multitasking.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Hey, John. And greetings, Professor Clark.
I think the problem, again, is that the issue of multitasking is not about being capax infiniti–or rather, it shouldn’t have to be. It is true that “our culture does invite us to transcend time and space,” but whoever said we have to play by our culture’s rules?
John, you have, for example, already lost the game by buying into our culture’s norms. For who says multitasking must “inevitably” lead us to take each other less seriously, to become distracted and unfocused, to become bored? Who but our culture–the very same atmosphere that bids us to become gods, as you would have it?
It might be a very male thing to believe that we can only truly devote ourselves to one task at a time. But this is a very narrow vision of humanity. After all, who hasn’t watched his mother handle multiple children, a husband, a house, dinner, and dishes all at once? And her multitasking does not necessarily mean that she devotes any less attention to any of those things, especially the children. There are, we must acknowledge, both good mothers and bad mothers. And I doubt the good mothers are trying to be transcendent gods, bursting forth from the bondage of space and time. They are just trying to be mothers.
Some people are born to multitask. (And some, like me, I am arguing, can be taught.)
So I don’t see why this needs to be about being capax infiniti at all. It is about being flexible and wise. I myself am forced to multitask at my current job for many hours, but I can at any time also stop and take a break. Multitasking does not necessarily mean that I have forgotten how to rest (and even reflect). Nor do I ever become bored–you know me better than that, John! (I only get unfocused when I haven’t had my coffee, which is sounding like a good idea right now.)
What I am proposing is that we reclaim a Christian understanding and use of multitasking. It is possible and right for us to transcend the rat race of our society (instead of trying to transcend space and time). Just because something is does not mean it has to be. To say otherwise in this particular case is to admit defeat.
We do not have to attempt to become gods with our multitasking. It is well and good to limit the amount of work we do each week, as you point out. And I certainly do not want a world without limits. But the problem is that we are letting contemporary culture both set our limits for us and then tempt us to go beyond them. As Christians, we must reclaim these limits for ourselves and adapt existing technologies to biblical ends. Just because we have largely failed to multitask correctly does not mean we cannot do otherwise.
There are some first and elementary steps we can take. Let us imagine (with our Christian imaginations, John!) that a) we can multitask, b) we can teach people to set their multitasking aside to rest, and c) we can teach people to enjoy creation properly and thus not become bored or unfocused. These are all made possible by a faithful Church, and none of them demands that we become infinite beings or “electronically ubiquitous.” I ask not for nonsense but for hope.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
So now we have to reclaim mult-tasking for Christ? Tell me it ain’t so! Another law I can’t keep!
Thanks again John for your provocative (in the best sense) and thoughtful essay.
Cliff, you alleged that I abused John’s post. Do you still think so?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I think we should first establish what we mean by “multitasking.” I am using the term to describe the situation in the examples I provided in my original post, to wit:
1. Listening to a lecture while also reading blogs, sending e-mails, playing games online, and chatting on Gmail.
2. Doing homework while texting, watching television, and chatting on AIM with several friends (Professor Edmundson’s example).
3. Responding to e-mails as they arrive, answering phone calls, and trying to finish several projects at once while on the job.
I contend that, except in rare cases, all three examples of multitasking are inefficient. And the multitasking in the first two examples is at least close to unredeemable. The multitasking in the third example may occasionally be necessary depending upon the work environment, but it would nevertheless be more efficient if the worker could tend to one task at a time. This proposition is true both anecdotally and according to the studies cited by Christine Rosen in her article from the New Atlantis (cited in my original post).
You offer a fourth example of multitasking, and it is one that I would agree can be redeeming. A mother may indeed (and must!) watch and care for her children while carrying on conversations, etc. This very afternoon, I engaged in similar multitasking as I walked home and cooked dinner while talking to my parents on the phone. I was not considering this variety of multitasking in my original post, but I will grant you that it is one that can be good, if done properly.
I would set forth a balancing test for multitasking:
First, what is gained from the multitasking? Is it more efficient? Does it actually allow us to accomplish more in a given time?
Second, what is lost? How much does the attendant distraction detract from the tasks in which we are engaged?
To take my final example, in talking to my parents while I walk and cook, I gain the chance to accomplish two tasks simultaneously. Neither my walking nor cooking is slowed to any appreciable extent by the fact that I am talking at the same time. As for the second prong, I am marginally distracted: I’m slightly more likely to be hit by a car while crossing the street, I’m more likely to end up with soggy pasta, and I might lose the conversation from time to time because I have to concentrate on not getting run over or not burning the peppers. Thus, the gain is substantial and the loss is very slight.
But consider the first example. What is gained is the ability to play an online game or to make fun of a professor in Gmail chat. What is lost is the ability to actually engage the subject, to take good notes, and to remember the lecture. The gain is minimal while the loss is substantial. In this case, multitasking is bad.
Further, if multitasking does have long-lasting deleterious effects on memory and attention span and if it increases stress as several of the studies I cited have suggested, this is another factor to weigh on the “loss” side when considering how worthwhile multitasking is.
Cliff, I do not see how this argument is buying into our cultural norms.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Cliff, Cliff, only one thing is needed. John has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from him :P…
Luke 10: 38-42?
September 13th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Hi everyone,
Regarding the three multitasking scenarios John described, I think that they’re probably not good in terms of time management and efficiency. But I’d just like to say that I highly doubt those scenarios will cause any sort of atrophy. Cortisol and adrenaline are stress hormones, but there are a million things that stress us out, all to varying degrees. (Reading your articles even stressed me out a little bit.) But unless you’re about to be destroyed by a lion, and your body is getting ready to “fight or flight,” you’re not getting a huge surge of those chemicals.
I think one of the reasons that we multitask is that we get bored easily. At least that’s why I check my email or chat during class. And I remember reading an article somewhere about how watching TV as children makes us more restless and easily bored later in life. This makes sense to me since TV is so fast-paced and sensational, and our lives usually are not like that. In my opinion, if this were definitely true, it would be a much bigger problem than the risk of too much stress from toggling between two activities.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Yes, I think it is true: We multitask because we get bored. But we also get bored easily because we multitask. The multitasking exacerbates a problem that may very well trace its roots to a childhood that was nourished by video games and 30-minute television spots. But the phenomenon must (or should) stop somewhere and since boredom can’t as easily be controlled by the will, I’m choosing the multitasking. And, yes, I think it can be controlled even if it is a difficult task. No internet windows open during class! (Or join me in the pen and paper revolution.)
Steph, you also make an excellent observation insofar as it is indeed disturbing that many of us seem to expect that our lives will be as entertaining and fast-paced as the lives of television characters. This is not the case (obviously), but it seems that many recent college graduates experiencing their so-called “pre-life crises” have not yet come to grips with the realities of this truism. We wonder: how could our parents and grandparents ever have been content to settle into jobs right out of college that they might hold for decades? Our attention deficit disorder does not stop in the classroom. The problems abound! But solutions…
October 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
NPR’s “Morning Edition” featured a story about multitasking today. As one researcher at the University of Michigan explained:
“For tasks that are at all complicated, no matter how good you have become at multitasking, you’re still going to suffer hits against your performance. You will be worse compared to if you were actually concentrating from start to finish on the task.”
That’s the criterion, Cliff: “tasks that are at all complicated.”
Listen to the whole piece for further support of my original argument. The story also reports that research suggests multitasking may be addictive and that it can increase stress.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Which brings me to my next point. Why should “productivity” or “performance” be our end-all? God could have easily made our world in one day, but He didn’t. There is a story in that week that is more important than God’s efficiency.
Sometimes I think throwing a wrench into the machine is the only way to go.
The conflict between single-tasking and multi-tasking need only exist in a system where “productivity” is our final measure. But what if we got rid of that mindset entirely? What if we were instead to strive to enjoy life (one thing or many things at a time) and to take life as it comes?
The example I keep returning to is of the mother tending to her family. This is not a flippant example but rather one of the truest examples we have because it betrays our modern notion of “productivity.” Why should a mother, after all, care for productivity? She must take care of her children, ten billion tasks at a time. If she were to sacrifice the scattered attention she has for a child in pursuit of some ideal of “productivity,” she’d fail as a mother. Her children, her husband, her house demand her constant if imperfect attention, her rather stressed and perhaps “addicted” life.
So it’s not, as Laura tried to comment above, the difference between a multi-tasking Martha and a single-tasking Mary. It is the difference between the objects of attention. Anybody who claims we must either single- or multi-task in order to be “productive” and to “perform” is a Martha missing what is truly valuable in life. It is Mary sitting at the feet of Christ for the sake of faith and truth and not for the sake of productivity who has it right.
If we’ve made an idol of productivity, we must smash it with His love.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Cliff, let’s not ignore the nice people at NPR, here. It’s not just multi-tasking Martha and single-tasking Mary, it’s stressed-out Martha and spiritually-nourished Mary. If the evidence suggests that multi-tasking of a certain sort can increase stress and become addictive, then it doesn’t sound Christ-centered to me, which, by your logic (and, like, the Bible’s), should be the standard of correct behavior. And, naturally, vice versa.
Also, (um, sorry, I can’t ignore this) let’s address the issue of mothers: I don’t think your example is flippant, but it is a little demoralizing. “Scattered attention,” “rather stressed,” and “perhaps ‘addicted’ life” are not particularly positive phrases, and “ten billion tasks at a time” sounds positively daunting. Just throwing that out there. And that’s all: as this is off-topic.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Cliff, I absolutely agree that there is a time and place to smash the idol of productivity. However, my specific point was to address your contention that we need to teach effective multitasking. Yes, as I acknowledged above and as you point out again, there are times when multitasking is necessary and times when it is somewhat beneficial. What is false is the illusion that multitasking gives us of the ability to accomplish many things at once. As I continue to emphasize, if we just concentrate on one thing at at time, the evidence shows that we will (1) be more productive; and (2) be less stressed.
I will concede that it is important that we “take life as it comes.” For instance, when working, one of my most frequent interruptions was people coming by to ask me questions. Sure, answering their questions as they came along was inefficient. I could have gotten more done if I’d made them form a queue and waiting until I was finished what I was doing. But that would not have been loving. Part of what it meant to take them seriously as humans was to take their time at least as seriously as I took my own, which meant answering their questions as they came. However, the same logic does not extend to reading or answering e-mails as they come, chatting on Gmail in class, or answering text messages while talking to someone else.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
And now an article in the New York Times reports on the deleterious effects of multitasking: “While multitasking may seem to be saving time, psychologists, neuroscientists and others are finding that it can put us under a great deal of stress and actually make us less efficient.” One of the researchers interviewed for the article suggested that, in addition to the other dangers I’ve previously noted, multitasking is also bad for innovation. In other words, multitaskers are actually less creative.
The author of the article concludes with a suggestion that I’d like to echo: “So the next time the phone rings and a good friend is on the line, try this trick: Sit on the couch. Focus on the conversation. Don’t jump up, no matter how much you feel the need to clean the kitchen. It seems weird, but stick with it. You, too, can learn the art of single-tasking.”
December 6th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Da-da-da-DUM! Yes, many of us need a place in the orchestra in order to keep our brains functioning. Boredon is the same as rusting.
December 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
…or “rage spread thin.”
February 24th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
[...] that facilitates our propensity to try to do so many things at once. This post sparked some disagreement. I turn now to the question of how Christians should engage technology, particularly as these [...]