“Uncharted territory” isn’t a new phrase, but it seems to be popping up in the media (social and otherwise) lately. Its increased frequency is a signal of the current social sentiment and a marked change from much of the last two hundred years.
Of course, everything about the future is “uncharted territory.” That’s the nature of the future. So, pointing this out about, e.g., elections, technology, economics, or your next new restaurant, can’t be the point of the phrase. Rather, it seems to imply a certain uneasiness about the likely outcome of current trends or developments. After all, the nature of modernity is, if not to know, then at least to feel the answer is known (by someone) or at least knowable by the ‘normal’ course of science and progress. Fixating on what we don’t know and filling in the gaps with speculation and semi-plausible theories provides apparent comfort that the world is known (or at least knowable) and therefore, manageable.
This explains a fair amount of the rush to “conspiracy theories” which have been popular for a long time and have surged of late. However ridiculous or skimpily grounded in “fact,” the presence of some explanation makes folks feel more in control of their world. As I have noted previously, this explains (from both the supply and demand sides) a fair percentage of the attraction of HWSNBN and his gang.
Underlying this anxiety about the future is a disorientation about the present: the pace and scope of change and, especially for embedded elites and those of “privilege” (even poor/working class white males), the bleak outlook for continued comfort, power, and achievement of the “American Dream.” Another way of putting it is that those with power, privilege, and expectations of continuity/stability have developed a psychological “entitlement,” whose overturning is upsetting and, for some, terrifying.
From a historical perspective, there are many modes by which people have sought to cope with anxieties about the future and other aspects of what is unknown/not understood. Traditional epistemologies—stretching back thousands of years and continuing to the present—have embraced mythology, religion, witchcraft, magic, and myriad hybrids to preserve their peace of mind. Much of this has faded in the face of modern science and its accompanying sense of confidence of knowability; but there are numerous outliers, whether geographic groups, particular beliefs, or modern manias.
The construction of more-or-less coherent (if frenzied) worldviews in which tulips (18C Holland) or cryptocurrencies (21C global) are a reliable store of value provide merely classic examples.
“Othering”—the definition of a group with some degree of difference from a core group of people has long provided a vehicle for explaining disruption and uncertainty. “Others” are inherently unknown and, therefore, suspect. Witches in 16-18C Europe are the template. In the modern world, nationalism and racism have been the frames for othering in which Roma, Jews, Blacks, and various peoples of color have taken their turn. Immigrants are always popular in this regard and they are “enjoying” a resurgence of blame across the 21C rich world, with ample precedents ranging from modern genocides to Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938.
All of this “normal” rationalization” would be problematic enough if ideas spread by word-of-mouth and incrementally across local populations at a rate determined by walking and talking. We have left that world far behind and the instantaneity of modern media—especially “social” media—has both accelerated the pace of distribution and reduced the reaction time by which we process the buzz which we hear. Any number of sites will give the appearance of fact and the implicit assurance of knowability. Common sense is given no time to breathe and react to the rumors and half-baked ideas which incessantly float our way. The more outlandish the idea/theory/“fact”, the more it sticks with us and becomes common nonsense. Analysis and “fact-checking” have little chance of keeping up.
This is more than just the product of technological advance. Another aspect of modernity is the parallel accumulation/snowballing of both knowledge and techne. One outcome is the hyperspecialization of knowledge and the need to rely on “experts” in particular fields. This used to enable most folks to push the bulk of information and knowledge to the side; i.e., we accepted that there was lots of stuff we could never know personally, but felt comfortable in relying on experts.
Now, the internet allows (pushes at us) access to all sorts of data and ideas which is, itself bewildering and often overwhelming, contributing to the disorientation noted above. The disintermediation of commerce and ideas has brought about great efficiencies and benefits, but the cost has been a sense of “drinking from a firehose,” with unpleasant and disruptive implications for psychological coherence.
This is not a quixotic plea for a return to “simpler times.” We are where we are. But we can be a bit more cognizant of the costs of speed and quantity and their impact on our personal and social “processing capability.” When someone talks about “uncharted territory,” it’s good to ask whether they are 1) claiming expert status and asking for your reliance on their own speculations, 2) urging caution in assessing others’ predictions (a circumspect attitude likely pretty rare in our 21C media), or 3) just using the fear of the future to get your attention (but otherwise don’t have anything interesting to say).
Of course, everything about the future is “uncharted territory.” That’s the nature of the future. So, pointing this out about, e.g., elections, technology, economics, or your next new restaurant, can’t be the point of the phrase. Rather, it seems to imply a certain uneasiness about the likely outcome of current trends or developments. After all, the nature of modernity is, if not to know, then at least to feel the answer is known (by someone) or at least knowable by the ‘normal’ course of science and progress. Fixating on what we don’t know and filling in the gaps with speculation and semi-plausible theories provides apparent comfort that the world is known (or at least knowable) and therefore, manageable.
This explains a fair amount of the rush to “conspiracy theories” which have been popular for a long time and have surged of late. However ridiculous or skimpily grounded in “fact,” the presence of some explanation makes folks feel more in control of their world. As I have noted previously, this explains (from both the supply and demand sides) a fair percentage of the attraction of HWSNBN and his gang.
Underlying this anxiety about the future is a disorientation about the present: the pace and scope of change and, especially for embedded elites and those of “privilege” (even poor/working class white males), the bleak outlook for continued comfort, power, and achievement of the “American Dream.” Another way of putting it is that those with power, privilege, and expectations of continuity/stability have developed a psychological “entitlement,” whose overturning is upsetting and, for some, terrifying.
From a historical perspective, there are many modes by which people have sought to cope with anxieties about the future and other aspects of what is unknown/not understood. Traditional epistemologies—stretching back thousands of years and continuing to the present—have embraced mythology, religion, witchcraft, magic, and myriad hybrids to preserve their peace of mind. Much of this has faded in the face of modern science and its accompanying sense of confidence of knowability; but there are numerous outliers, whether geographic groups, particular beliefs, or modern manias.
The construction of more-or-less coherent (if frenzied) worldviews in which tulips (18C Holland) or cryptocurrencies (21C global) are a reliable store of value provide merely classic examples.
“Othering”—the definition of a group with some degree of difference from a core group of people has long provided a vehicle for explaining disruption and uncertainty. “Others” are inherently unknown and, therefore, suspect. Witches in 16-18C Europe are the template. In the modern world, nationalism and racism have been the frames for othering in which Roma, Jews, Blacks, and various peoples of color have taken their turn. Immigrants are always popular in this regard and they are “enjoying” a resurgence of blame across the 21C rich world, with ample precedents ranging from modern genocides to Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938.
All of this “normal” rationalization” would be problematic enough if ideas spread by word-of-mouth and incrementally across local populations at a rate determined by walking and talking. We have left that world far behind and the instantaneity of modern media—especially “social” media—has both accelerated the pace of distribution and reduced the reaction time by which we process the buzz which we hear. Any number of sites will give the appearance of fact and the implicit assurance of knowability. Common sense is given no time to breathe and react to the rumors and half-baked ideas which incessantly float our way. The more outlandish the idea/theory/“fact”, the more it sticks with us and becomes common nonsense. Analysis and “fact-checking” have little chance of keeping up.
This is more than just the product of technological advance. Another aspect of modernity is the parallel accumulation/snowballing of both knowledge and techne. One outcome is the hyperspecialization of knowledge and the need to rely on “experts” in particular fields. This used to enable most folks to push the bulk of information and knowledge to the side; i.e., we accepted that there was lots of stuff we could never know personally, but felt comfortable in relying on experts.
Now, the internet allows (pushes at us) access to all sorts of data and ideas which is, itself bewildering and often overwhelming, contributing to the disorientation noted above. The disintermediation of commerce and ideas has brought about great efficiencies and benefits, but the cost has been a sense of “drinking from a firehose,” with unpleasant and disruptive implications for psychological coherence.
This is not a quixotic plea for a return to “simpler times.” We are where we are. But we can be a bit more cognizant of the costs of speed and quantity and their impact on our personal and social “processing capability.” When someone talks about “uncharted territory,” it’s good to ask whether they are 1) claiming expert status and asking for your reliance on their own speculations, 2) urging caution in assessing others’ predictions (a circumspect attitude likely pretty rare in our 21C media), or 3) just using the fear of the future to get your attention (but otherwise don’t have anything interesting to say).
RSS Feed