Deconstructing the interplay of technology and humanity throughout the ages

The recent total (or partial) solar eclipse, which moved across much of North America on April 8, 2024, afforded an excellent opportunity to reflect on many matters relevant to the Society for Media Psychology and Technology. A prevailing theme of the Society since its founding has been the debate over whether technology brings us together or divides us, whether technology is a positive force for social well-being or a negative force that corrupts and diminishes us, and whether technology helps humanity integrate with its environment or serves as a barrier to human connection with the natural world (Rich et al., 2024).

Over the past 20 years, scholars have discussed the fragmentation of modern society that has led to greater isolation and loneliness in youth and adults (e.g., Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Murthy, 2020). With increased media and entertainment options—first television, then VHS rentals, and ultimately at-will streaming—researchers and public policy analysts have found decreases in community participation, from bowling leagues to service organizations such as the Lion’s Club (Putnam, 2001). Even more rapid is the dramatic increase in youth anxiety and depression, as evidenced since the introduction of smartphones (Haidt, 2024). With a veritable plethora of niche special interest topics to explore at home via novel technologies, opportunities—and even interest—for group connection appear to have diminished. Notably, the rise in new technologies emerges parallel to a significant decline in participation in organized religion in the USA, with a recent study by the Public Religion Research Institute finding over one in four Americans identifies as atheist, agnostic, or religiously unaffiliated (Thompson, 2024). This decline implies that many Americans do not appear to have found alternative methods to build a sense of community.

It is in this context that the recent eclipse may be viewed as a perhaps uniquely positive opportunity for the coming together of a very divided world. People of all ages, genders, the rich and the poor, various social classes, persons from all educational levels and across the political and religious spectrum—for a few hours or a few moments at least—were able to share a communal experience of awe and wonder. The late anthropologists Victor and Edie Turner (2012) termed such group experiences “communitas”: a state often of collective joy or awe, sometimes also experienced by crowds at sporting events, music festivals, or significant religious celebrations. Many of those who experienced the eclipse described feeling a sense of oneness with each other, with the natural world, and indeed with the totality of the universe. How different this is from the business-as-usual lives many youth and adults experience on a typical day in 2024, where numerous scholars have described how technologies such as smartphones and portable wireless earbuds serve to disconnect us profoundly and routinely from the natural environment.

Thus, it is worth contemplating how technology itself made possible the enjoyment of the eclipse for many in 2024, and furthermore, how technology has long served to assist humanity in its appreciation of the natural world. As an example, the Antikythera mechanism from Ancient Greece (circa 100 B.C.) is often described as the world’s oldest analog computer and was designed to predict various cyclical events (such as the ancient Olympics) and astronomical phenomena including eclipses (Katzenstein et al., 2024) (Figure 1). Discovered in 1901, the Antikythera has captured scholars’ and the public’s imagination (think exeligmos!), even garnering a mention in the recent fantastical film Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (“Antikythera mechanism,” 2024).

Figure 1

The Antikythera mechanism from Ancient Greece (circa 100 B.C.),  from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

The camera obscura has also been utilized to assist in viewing and understanding eclipses, both as a protective device to allow safer viewing (by not looking directly at the sun) and as an aid to drawing, permitting tracing of the phenomenon. It consists of a darkened room/chamber with a small lens or hole through which an image is projected to a surface—such as a wall—opposite the hole (Figure 2). While the term “camera obscura” dates to about 1600, related technologies existed far earlier, and indeed some theories suggest camera obscura-type effects could have been utilized in creating paleolithic cave paintings (such as by using small holes in an animal hide). Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher (d. 322 BC), is said to have used the camera obscura to study solar eclipses, as did well-known Arab scientist Ibn al-Haytham (d. 1040) who wrote a treatise on the topic (“Camera Obscura,” 2024).

Figure 2

Example of the camera obscura (18^th century), from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

In 2024, more modern technology was used to view the eclipse. We used safety eclipse glasses, received real-time social media tips on where to get the clearest, best viewing spot and safely avoid traffic, and the NASA spacecraft Solar Dynamics Observatory viewed the eclipse from space. Modern technologies enhanced the experience for many. At 50,000 feet, pilots on NASA’s WB-57 jets were able to extend the time scientists could study the eclipse. Finally, higher still, 261 miles over the Earth, astronauts on the International Space Station had their unique view of the eclipse (Interrante & Ng, 2024; NASA, 2024) (Figure 3).

Figure 3

The moon’s umbra covering Maine; photo from International Space Station 261 miles above the earth during solar eclipse on April 8^th, 2024. NASA, from https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/skywatching/april-8-total-solar-eclipse-through-the-eyes-of-nasa/

Thus, as often is the case, it is not the technology itself that is good or bad: It is how it is used that matters. I find myself puzzled when a museum-goer or an art buff finds their experience diminished by learning of technology utilized in the creation of great art, as if that necessarily diminishes the artwork being viewed. To cite one example, the great 17th-century Dutch master Johannes Vermeer is known to have used the camera obscura in a number of his extant paintings (Snyder, 2015; Steadman, 2001). Scholars typically believe Vermeer utilized the device in creating perhaps his greatest work, the large View of Delft from circa 1660 (Hockney, 2001; Wheelock, 1995). We would not lessen our enjoyment of great architecture such as Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater by knowing a tool such as a hammer was used in its construction; why should we diminish our enjoyment of great works of art created with assistance and interpretation with the camera obscura?

The ancients used technology to great effect in observing and appreciating natural phenomena. For instance, on a recent sojourn to Ireland, I visited the neolithic site Newgrange. Constructed around 3,000 BC, its passage tomb was built to align with the winter solstice, such that once a year on the winter solstice, the rising sun shines perfectly along a long inner passage, lighting the chamber, and revealing the carved art inside (O’Kelly, 2024). Truly extraordinary! And made possible with ancient technology: stone, not metal! (Figure 4)

Figure 4

Newgrange Passage Tomb on Winter Solstice, from https://www.newgrange.com/description.htm

It is with this context and spirit that I approached Vermeer’s View of Delft on a recent visit to the Mauritshuis museum in the Hague, Netherlands. I spent time first with another Vermeer treasure at the Mauritshuis, Girl with a Pearl Earring, but turning 180 degrees, along the opposing wall, I was able to spend over an hour alone with what many consider Vermeer’s masterpiece. The great French novelist Marcel Proust considered View of Delft the “most beautiful painting in the world” and paid tribute to the artist and painting by mentioning it in his masterpiece À la recherche du temps perdu (Proust, 1923; Townsend, 2008). While some debate remains over whether Vermeer utilized the camera obscura or similar technology, it has been demonstrated that the Delft of his day was imbued with a scientific and artistic spirit of exploration and innovation. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, the pathfinder for the microscope, worked in town nearby, and indeed was close enough to Vermeer to serve as the executor of his estate, and likely as a model for two of Vermeer’s paintings (Snyder, 2015), The Geographer and The Astronomer (Figure 5). Here, in The Astronomer, we see the intersection of science and religion in many ways, for the Astronomer gazes at a celestial globe reflecting his scientific profession, while also having a book on the table recommending the Astronomer seek “inspiration from God.” Furthermore, there is a painting of the Biblical Moses on the background wall. Elsewhere in Vermeer too, there are both explicit and indirect allusions to spiritual life; recent work suggests that given Vermeer’s Catholic wife, the artist may have incorporated coded Catholic motifs in several of his works, including View of Delft (Weber, 2023).

Figure 5

Vermeer’s the Astronomer, circa 1668, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astronomer_(Vermeer)

Today’s eclipse chasers may experience a similar emotion of union of science and the beyond: a union made possible in part through the sensible use of technology in the service of the public and individual good. Psychologists have described the experience of awe as a positive character strength, related to what Maslow termed “peak experiences” and what creativity researchers often find scientists and artists experience in an “aha” moment breakthrough (Keltner, 2023; Simonton, 1994). To the extent awe is a positive emotion, it expands our enjoyment and happiness, and cultivates a mindset of openness to experience, qualities that relate to individual and collective well-being and positive social change. Research supports the finding that awe causes “shifts in neurophysiology, a diminished focus on the self, increased prosocial relationality, greater social integration, and a heightened sense of meaning” (Monroy & Keltner, 2023, p. 315).

It is in this spirit that I believe our Society for Media Psychology and Technology can serve as advocates, and liaisons, to both society’s powerbrokers and the general public for optimal uses of technology to enhance human and natural wellness. Technology can alienate us from each other, the natural world, and ourselves. However, with the right approach and right support, technology can also bring us together with each other and with nature and beauty—and ultimately with ourselves—in ways perhaps only imagined by our ancestors.

References

Antikythera mechanism. (2024). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Cacioppo, J., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness. W. W. Norton.

Camera Obscura. (2024). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

Haidt, J.  (2024). The anxious generation. Penguin.

Hockney, D. (2001). Secret knowledge: Rediscovering the lost techniques of the old masters. Viking Studio.

Interrante, A. & Ng, J. (2024, April 12). The April 8 total solar eclipse: Through the eyes of NASA. https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/skywatching/april-8-total-solar-eclipse-through-the-eyes-of-nasa/

Katzenstein, A., Glickman, W., Drake, D., & Jakub, L. (2024, April 12). In the path of totality. New York Review.

Keltner, D. (2023). Awe: the new science of everyday wonder and how it can transform your life. Penguin.

Monroy, M., & Keltner, D. (2023). Awe as a pathway to mental and physical health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(2), 309-320.

Murthy, V. (2020). Together: The healing power of human connection in a sometimes lonely world. Harper.

NASA. (2024). 2024 Total Solar Eclipse. https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/

O’Kelly, C. (2024). Description of Newgrange. https://www.newgrange.com/description.htm

Proust, M. (1923). À la recherche du temps perdu: La Prisonnière. Grassier.

Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster.

Rich, G., Kumar, V. K., & Farley, F.  (Eds.). (2024). Handbook of media psychology: The science        and the practice. Springer.

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness. Guilford.

Snyder, L. J. (2015). Eye of the Beholder:  Johannes Vermeer, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, and the reinvention of seeing. W. W. Norton.

Steadman, P. (2001). Vermeer’s camera. Oxford.

Thompson, D. (2024, April 3). The true cost of the churchgoing bust. Atlantic.

Townsend, G. (2008). Proust’s imaginary museum. Peter Lang. 

Turner, E. (2012). Communitas: The anthropology of collective joy. Palgrave Macmillan.

Weber, G. J. M. (2023). Johannes Vermeer: Faith, light, and reflection. Rijksmuseum.

Wheelock, A. K. (1995). Vermeer and the art of painting. Yale University Press.