Show full content
- The Gutenberg Parenthesis: The Age of Print and Its Lessons for the Age of the Internet (2023) by Jeff Jarvis. History; Historiography; Printing; Language; Social Media; Media.
- The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource (2024) by Christopher L. Hayes. Social Media; Media.
Reading these two books at the same time was a bit of a gut punch. Together, you get a very large overview of where we’ve come from with the ‘attention economy’ beginning with the changes caused by Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press all the way through to Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter in order to force the world to pay attention to him.
Jarvis’ The Gutenberg Parenthesis does a deep dive into the ‘history of the book’, looking in detail at what we know of Johannes Gutenberg and the complexity of his invention. I found the argument of his book fascinating. He’s looking at a concept called ‘The Gutenberg Parenthesis’, formulated by L.O. Sauerberg, which looks at the nature of communication before, during, and after the invention of the printing press. Basically, it argues that printing ushered in a new form of communication. Published books came to dominate the oral culture that had preceded them. However, digital culture–which allows us to communicate without the mediation of printers and publishers–is returning us to a world that it much closer to oral culture. The “Gutenberg Parenthesis” is the period when print dominated, bracketed by different forms of oral/digital culture on either side.
Part of what Jarvis is arguing is that it took literal centuries for all of the changes wrought by the printing press to shake out. Things like the development of ‘novels’; publishing; genres; indexes; tables of contents: these were all things that came out of the creation of printing but took time. While television and radio also changed how we exchange ideas, Jarvis argues that it’s too soon for us to know all of the changes that the internet will cause to our society. While we may feel like we’re at a low point in Internet culture, we still haven’t even dreamed of the different forms that internet-based communication may take in the future.
For me, Chris Hayes’ book, The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource, made an interesting (but alarming) continuation of Jarvis’ argument. Hayes is arguing that attention is now a commodity sought by, well, everyone: other individuals, companies, governments, social/political movements. He looks at two kinds of attention: voluntary or compelled. Voluntary attention is when we’re paying attention to something we choose to focus on. Compelled attention tends to be the kind of thing that will involuntarily draw your attention away from something that you’re choosing to focus on: a large bang; the sound of a tray of glasses breaking in a restaurant; your kid crying.
Hayes is arguing that the tech companies have kind of weaponized this compelled attention. You’re trying to pay attention to something, but you keep getting pulled out of it by notifications. Companies are, basically, optimizing to keep drawing our attention involuntarily over and over. And we’re getting worse at holding sustained voluntary attention because of it. If you think about something like Facebook, Instagram, or X, it’s basically a dopamine slot machine: every post that rolls past your screen is–to an extent–grabbing your attention anew.
There’s also a part of his book where he’s talking about the attention of strangers; the new nature of ‘fame’ or ‘being seen’ in the age of the internet. As he put it in an interview for The Atlantic, “what we’ve done is basically democratize the madness-inducing aspects of celebrity for the entire society. Every teenager with a phone now can be driven nuts in precisely the way that we have watched generations of celebrities and stars go crazy.” Compiments tend to wash over you, but the insult and negativity sticks.
He argues that our attention is finite and valuable. And that the commodification of our attention is alienating us. Social media has gotten too good at grabbing our attention and, for a lot of interactions where we’re not getting the attention, recognition, and depth that communication used to get us. This leaves us feeling alienated, especially since the algorithms of much of our social media select for negative attention and some of our brains don’t necessarily know how to tell the difference between ‘any attention’ and ‘negative attention’.
As a historian, I like thinking about how the changes we’re seeing now, with the rise of the internet, parallels the kinds of changes caused by the introduction of radio/newspapers/telegrams, which maybe parallels the kinds of changes caused by the introduction of printing overall. Both of these books draw our attention (ha!) to the idea that we have been here before and we’ve figured out these conundrums, but it wasn’t an easy path. (It’s been argued that the invention of printing feuled the relgious wars of the early modern era and perhaps the invention of radio/newspaper/telegraphs played a role in the rise of fascism of the early 20th century).
Both books try to offer some thoughts on solutions and what could come next, but it’s difficult to see past our current situation. I have been thinking more about what I focus my own attention on in the past few months. Starting to write here is a part of that: I want to focus more on the developed ideas that I find in books. I still like news, social media, and podcasts, but it can often feel very ephemeral to me: focused on current outrages. (Some of this is a product of the types of news, social media, and podcasts that I am into.) But I’m trying to be a bit more deliberate in my choices.





