“What we, or at any rate what I, refer to confidently as memory–meaning a moment, a scene, a fact that has been subjected to a fixative and thereby rescued from oblivion–is really a form of storytelling that goes on continually in the mind and often changes with the telling. Too many conflicting emotional interests are involved for life ever to be wholly acceptable, and possibly it is the work of the storyteller to rearrange things so that they conform to this end. In any case, in talking about the past we lie with every breath we draw.”
― William Maxwell, So Long, See You Tomorrow
Since humans developed the ability to tell a story, the first telling of an event was the first changing of the event. The tale morphed, transformed ever so slightly, occasionally with intent to deceive, but usually just a fractional addition or subtraction to make the telling (or the teller) more interesting – more memorable.
With another telling would come another change or two. The teller’s inner fact checker was constantly shoved into the wings by the inner performer. After all, who doesn’t prefer an entertaining story to one that’s handicapped by reality?
So went storytelling for millions of years. Unencumbered by facts beyond immediate observation, storytellers (or historians as they like to call themselves) could not successfully claim the sky was green today, but it was hard to refute its green-ness some time or place the listener had not been.
The ability to record stories imposed limits on the most creative history makers. A recorded story was frozen, fixed. I suspect many storytellers were not thrilled to have their stories documented, as their habit of leaving out or adding to the story became substantially more difficult. Story-creep lost a little power. Oral revisions are easy when compared to the hammer and chisel skills required to edit a cave drawing.
The ability of storytellers – from drama lovers to power hungry politicians – was dealt another setback by the printing press. The disruptive power of recording and distributing stories must have been a serious threat to those who sculpted history into self-serving shapes. As one version of history became fixed in print, the storyteller could no longer self-edit the story as they told it. As that version of the story was distributed to many, it was also fixed in many minds.
This subjected the story to cross examination and comparison. Imagine the frustration (and accountability!) politicians must have felt when they could no longer make a promise to one neighbor then promise the opposite to another neighbor.
Selective history morphing hit another roadblock with the digital age. Some compare the power of the digital revolution to bring information to the masses to that of the printing press. Both helped inform the masses and are amazing advances in information sharing. Although vastly different in expression and era, both applied the emergency brake to story-creep (conscious or otherwise) in a specular way. Once again, transparency and accountability must be unwelcome guests for those who have made of habit of carving the paths of history in the directions that serve them best.
We are now experiencing another transformation in the recording and dissemination of historical storytelling:
crowdsourcing – the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially from the online community rather than from traditional employees or suppliers
Thanks to crowdsourcing, a slice of history can now be recorded with text, photos and video; cross examined by masses and communicated to the world quicker than a caveman could choose his chisel. While I think it’s exciting to be a part of this transformation, not everyone is thrilled with the pace of technology.
What my kid can accomplish by tapping a tweet would seem like witchcraftery to my grandparents. And I know at least a few folks who think that emails are nothing but invitations to espionage. If you think technophobic tendencies like opposition to crowdsourcing is new, consider the Catholic Church’s response to the Gutenberg Bible.
(http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/educator/modules/gutenberg/books/legacy/)
As individuals and institutions increasingly utilize crowdsourcing techniques, I expect a healthy rise in accuracy, accountability and productivity. But based on history (or at least the version I’ve told myself) I wouldn’t be surprised by attempts to discredit or slow this transition by those who don’t understand it or fear its results.
I expect a natural divide on the issue based on familiarity and comfort with social media, as without its power, crowdsourcing could be a laborious process to an inferior result.
For those who put their faith in topic specialists and the glacially paced theories of academia, the notion of a peppy, crowdsourced decision by a large group of average people, must seem at least troubling and possibly anarchic.
To those who trust technology, enlisting specialists and consulting the educated elite seems unnecessary or may not be an option considering aggressive timetables and immediate expectations.
Ironically, the battlecry from both sides sounds the same: By giving everyone a voice in the matter, everyone will expect their voice to matter. Indeed.