The overly personal mode of storytelling or analysis leaves us bereft of deeper comprehension of events and history. Understanding Hitlerβs personality alone will not tell us much about rise of fascism, for example. Not that it didnβt matter, but a different demagogue would probably have appeared to take his place in Germany in between the two bloody world wars in the 20th century. Hence, the answer to βwould you kill baby Hitler?,β sometimes presented as an ethical time-travel challenge, should be βno,β because it would very likely not matter much. It is not a true dilemma.
Tufekci explains that this is the same reason we have problems talking about historic technological transition.
In my own area of research and writing, the impact of digital technology and machine intelligence on society, I encounter this obstacle all the time. There are a significant number of stories, books, narratives and journalistic accounts that focus on the personalities of key players such as Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos. Of course, their personalities matter, but only in the context of business models, technological advances, the political environment, (lack of) meaningful regulation, the existing economic and political forces that fuel wealth inequality and lack of accountability for powerful actors, geopolitical dynamics, societal characteristics and more.
Maybe this is a part of what Douglas Rushkoff touches on in his criticism of storytelling.
Mentions