Netflix and the Fragmentation of Culture
Or, On how on-demand media breeds individuality.
I've been reflecting on the changing landscape of culture lately. The last five years trace an acceleration of a trend towards the individualization of cultural consumption and the consequent relaying of culture to the exclusive realm of entertainment. Ironically, the age of the internet brought instantaneous communication between virtually everyone, but the consumption of culture has never been more isolating and unrewarding. Culture's goal is primarily to create bonds between individuals, bringing them into a communal whole. Rather than being mere entertainment, culture serves as an expression of this community of individuals. When culture becomes a reflection of an isolated individual, it loses its meaning.[¹] I pinpoint the decadence in this shared aspect of culture on the inverse rise of on-demand media. Particularly two aspects of it, which, while not limited to on-demand media, define it. These are: algorithmic bubbles, and asynchronous consumption. Together they beckon the fragmentation of culture, and thus the loosening of societies' bonds.
This essay will be a reflection on the tendency towards individualism and the loss of communal bonds due to the particular dynamics of on-demand media, and on what its potential consequences will be. I also offer the example of Greek paideia as the paradigm for a contrasting culture.
Algorithmic bubbles
First, let's reflect on algorithms. Algorithms are not so mystical and sci-fiesque as we are led to believe. They are simple mathematical formulas that interpret vast amounts of data. Take Youtube's algorithm for example. Youtube gathers information about our behavior while on the platform; from what videos we watched or liked, up to minutiae like how many seconds we contemplated a thumbnail, or the number of times we scrolled down to check comments. This information is compiled in a way that guesses our preferences. Youtube then changes its behavior in order to entice our attention, most conspicuously through the recommendations page [²]. Simply put, algorithms store what they know about us and try to formulate profiles with that information. They then 'choose' what recommendations fit these profiles. What has been made clearer and clearer is that algorithms are not innocuously made. The hand behind them is the hand of a wannabe puppet master. This system is ubiquitous in pretty much all major on-demand media. Think Netflix, Spotify, and even Goodreads to an extent. Not unlikely, even our travel destinations have been influenced by algorithms [³].
Putting aside the ominous third-party manipulation (for now!)- even without such a looming threat behind them, algorithms still affect negatively our consumption of culture. Algorithms have become the primary railway between cultural artifacts. Consider how, finishing a movie on Netlifx you are again brought to "recommendations", "popular", (alleged) "top", et cetera; or how Spotify turns on the "radio" feature as soon as you finish listening to a fixed playlist. This is to say nothing of doomscroll media which literally forces you into the next algorithmic suggestion. Algorithms guide your engagement with culture. At their more innocent, algorithms easily pull you (and themselves) into feedback loops: one Youtube recommendation about conspiracy theories in The Simpsons suddenly proliferates into a recommendation page 80% filled with The Simpsons and conspiracy theories. Diving into this rabbit hole will further extend the length and specificity of it.
My point is that algorithms, as they work today, create bubbles [⁴]. This is obvious in the case of lesser media, such as Youtube, Instagram, TikTok. You come to these platforms with a more lighthearted expectation of culture. You can easily manipulate the algorithm of Instagram to only show you very specific content: so specific that you quickly lose the ability to distinguish one video from the other. More alarming, though, are the implications of such a system in a more serious type of consumption. We read books and watch movies with a deeper investment, there's always a (bigger) implied cultural benefit borne from it. There's the expectation that a good book will change our perception of ourselves and reality.
Imagine the work of algorithms in this context. You read one fantasy novel, and consequently you were recommended more fantasy content. You read another, and then another. The deeper you go into one of these bubbles, the more individualized your bubbles become. You are being dragged deeper and deeper into a walled garden where you are only shown what interests you. We should imagine Plato's cave, but one where the prisoners were dragged there by their own affinity towards shadows, to the point where they've forgotten everything else. If we allow algorithms to choose our individual cultural paths, we will only find ourselves losing contact with the surface, sinking into the depths of extreme individualization, as you cultivate evermore specific interests.
By existing in an individualized bubble, which tends to become deeper and deeper, and weighs us more and more, we forget what else exists. Even worse, we never find what else there is. Taken to the extreme, we'll be living in pods where only our most intimate tastes are fed, never interacting with alien others. For how could they penetrate into your bubble, or vice versa? No bridges are built between perfect Individuals, those that exist purely alone. (It's no coincidence that the Greek word for individual means at the same time unskilled, unemployed, and is the root of the word Idiot. It reflects the unwillingness to interact with society[⁵].)
Since culture's point is to build bridges between people, how can it fulfill its purpose if there are no common cultural landmarks? If only I read Conrad's Heart of Darkness, its cultural value will be greatly diminished. If each and everyone of us consumes solely what interests us, at best we will find a handful of like-minded individuals. But who's to say that even these are similar enough for us to bond with, in a world where specificity is taken to the extreme? If I've been accustomed to only engage with exactly what I like or agree with, any disparity will be an infinitely stark contrast. But the point is that algorithms, and the choice to consume only what they lead me to, will lead to a world where no one can build communal bridges, because there is no ground on which to set them.
This is particularly worrying with the emergence of AI, as it possibilitates the creation of ultra specific content without a human creator. Before AI, you at least knew there was a creator that engaged within your bubble. With AI, you can be the creator of your own bubble, and live completely alone in it. This feels heavily masturbatory. I could fabricate videos of pink cats somersaulting while declaiming Shakespeare to my heart's content!
Asynchronous consumption
The other aspect of on-demand media and its impact on the fragmentation of culture is the ability to consume culture at one's own leisure: asynchronous consumption. To keep it simple, this is the possibility of watching a show, or reading a book, only when I want to. Extending this privilege to everyone, we are all consuming culture with no regard for each other's timing. Again we are faced with an individualistic tendency which limits the bonds between individuals within a community. This element of on-demand media is primarily relevant for visual and musical media. Books have always had an asynchronous aspect to them, and later I'll discuss a bit more about how books fit into the cultural dynamic employed here.
Think back to a time before the prevalence of on-demand media. Not being that old, I remember how in the not-so distant early 2010's nearly everyone was watching the same TV shows. The specific example in my mind is How I met your mother, but I recall Lost, The Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad generating similar dynamics. The release of each new episode was part of our schedule. You either saw it on that day, or would wait for the inevitable, albeit undefined rerun (the ability to rewind TV broadcasting was not widespread at the time in Portugal). It was something anticipated as a community. But the value in watching it, especially watching it at the proper time, was not for the sole pleasure of individualized entertainment. You'd watch the new episode because you knew that would be a major topic of discussion at school tomorrow. It was an opportunity to discuss your likes and dislikes, understand your friends' point of view, reflect on mutual ideas. There isn't much more to bonding than this! And even in this dynamic you would be asserting your individuality. You would present your opinion, you would convince and be convinced, you would deepen your bonds with others. Naturally, this form of individuality is anchored in a community.
Music had a very similar dynamic. An album was teased; everyone anticipated it. The album was released; it would be the topic of conversation for a considerable time. I still remember Arctic Monkey's AM release. Even if you didn't particularly like it, you were aware of it, and would've listened to it at least once. Music has been butchered by on-demand services due to the forced changes in economic dynamics. Album sales, like DVD sales, are no longer the main source of revenue for artistic endeavors. It is necessary that artists should produce as fast as possible and as much as possible in order to stay in the spotlight. The staying power of a solid album has dwindled in an economy defined by inattention.
Now consider the following. Since a good part of the consumers will watch a show at their own leisure and pace, the potential for conversation and connection is fragmented. Game of Thrones might be the most watched show of all time, but what bonds can it foster if it was watched at different paces, and different times? I finished GoT last week. Mike finished it 3 years ago. Sam is still on the second season. What conversation can there be between us? Mike already forgot most of it, Sam is allergic to spoilers. What good is culture that can only be enjoyed individually? This dynamic puts culture in the small sphere of entertainment. We only consume culture to pass our time.
Before individualized consumption, one's sense of taste was still individual. Everyone still had quirks and oddly specific shows, or music they liked and identified with. But we all shared in the mainstream. And we engaged with it collectively, each one bringing to the main stream a bit of their little creeks and brooks. The mainstream had depth because of it. Today's mainstream culture feels progressively more formulaic, appeasing to algorithms and fast-moving trends. We are walking towards a future where mainstream culture is shallow, with no valuable input from fringe and deep movements.
Ray Oldenburg's theory of 'third places' has had a resurgence in the last years. It defends that modern society, particularly in the US, has no place where one can go to interact with his community. The best examples of third places, according to him, are British Pubs, Austrian Cafés, and German Biergärten. All these are notably dead or dying, as far as their relevance for community is concerned. But even if there was a reemergence of third places where we could go to meet our fellows, we'd have a hard time finding something to talk about. There's only so much you can say about a show only you've watched, as there is only so much you can listen to about a show you haven't. It is not necessarily a question of the quality of cultural artifacts. Many fruitful conversations were had about random Family Guy episodes.
Greek paideia
I'd like to offer an overview of Ancient Greek culture as a contrast to our present situation. Paideia is the term for the overall education of the elites in Ancient Greece from Classical times to the Byzantine Empire. It included the training of both mind and body, through the study of philosophy, and the practice of athletics. But most importantly, it taught one how to read and write, and how to do this beautifully. The curriculum was more or less fixed for nearly a thousand years. This bred a society where everyone who had access to education (admittedly a privileged minority) had the same education. They read Homer, Demosthenes, studied Plato and Aristotle. They learned how to mimic their writing, and in this way, their thoughts.
Since nearly everyone who could read and write had consumed the same cultural artifacts, referencing these texts was part and parcel of every engagement between cultured people. Many scholars have made careers solely on catching these references. But what interests us is that these Greeks shared a cultural framework which allowed communication. Referencing Homeric passages, using Platonic literary images, employing Euripidean turns of phrase, all these methods served to signal that one was part of the culture. The fact that paideia was a static canon did not prevent new forms of culture from being developed. Look at the Ancient Novel, a genre which only emerged in Late Antiquity. But even these new genres engaged in conversation with the canonical framework. The most important aspect of paideia was that, if you encountered a stranger on a voyage from Lybia to Greece, had both of you gone through basic education, you shared common ground. Total strangers were brought into conversation solely through the interest and knowledge of literature. [⁶]
Conclusion
Compare this with the trends in our days, when our culture becomes ever more an individual experience. By allowing this trend to go on, we are distancing ourselves from our family, friends, neighbors, strangers. As it stands, things are not yet that dramatic, but I do wonder if AI's influence won't be an acceleration of this trend. But it is important to remember that the individual experience of culture is not culture at all, but pure entertainment. Culture is a language of communication of ideas. But ideas cannot be communicated without a shared ground on which to stand.
Notes
[¹] - My understanding of culture is whatever purposes to communicate a fragment of lived experience, usually characterized by spatial, temporal, social, economical, linguistic and every other kind of limitation. But no grand and philosophical definition is needed. Culture is what everyone already knows: books, movies, series, music, art. In this essay I will mostly be referring to movies and TV, as they are arguably the dominating medium.
[²] - On the other hand, you can rest assured that every pixel you see on these platforms has been a subject of intense research by behavioral psychologists. Even the precise shade of red in Gmail's logo is intentional. See https://test.ntinow.edu/why-does-the-gmail-logo-decorated
[³] - https://www.transparency.travel/insight/how-algorithms-are-turning-destinations-into-hot-spots
[⁴] - Also referred to as "echo chambers", but I will not use that expression, as I read it with a more political context into this expression.
[⁵] - https://www.etymonline.com/word/idiot
[⁶] - I think the limited number of artifacts one had access to is also responsible for the common cultural ground previous societies enjoyed. Medieval philosophers, for example, have produced deep systems of thought having read only 5 or 6 books their whole lives. I might write something exclusively about abundance of choice.
If you want to share your thoughts, send me an e-mail: odoardus@proton.me