In 1957, the American psychologist Harry Harlow conducted an infamous experiment where baby rhesus monkeys were given the choice between two different “mothers”: one made of wire and one made of cloth.
The Winnicott angle is what makes Punch different. His stuffed monkey is a transitional object - a bridge, not a destination. Nobody engineered it to maximize time-on-toy.
That's the problem with the digital cloth mothers. They're not neutral comfort sources. They're optimized for retention. The monkey never has to choose between the stuffed animal and other monkeys because the stuffed animal wasn't designed to compete.
This is not the first time this author has claimed that being “online” (though what it seems he means by “online” is “on social media”) is or should be necessary for the modern age.
As far as I’m aware, he’s never provided hard evidence for this and his article that he sites here “stay on your phone” thinly disguises class issues as a reason to stay on social media (main argument being the only people he’s met who stay off their phones have the privilege to do so because they are rich and poor, single mothers are just so overworked and helpless that of course they succumb to TikTok slop).
I just want to bring up the point to readers that this author has gained attention and been able to build a public image/career tied to that image through social media. He gains following through social media apps like Instagram, TikTok, and Substack and while this by no means discredits his accomplishments, it should make readers wary when he argues that social media is something that we should engage with. To put it more clearly, of course social media is necessary to a person who relies on it for public attention and approval (especially when related to one’s career). Most of us, however, are not in this position. We do not gain nearly the amount of benefits this person does from these platforms, nor do our professional lives revolve around it. This author has a vested interest in keeping us online and that should be kept in mind when reading his pro-online content.
The benefit I get from individual people staying online is marginal; there will always be an audience.
I hope you can believe I'm trying to communicate in good faith, because I'm seeing a lot of warning signs about how the online world negatively bleeds into the offline if we don't do our part to cultivate positivity in both.
I genuinely do believe you’re communicating in good faith and I can definitely see how without tone it’s hard to get that across.
I also think that the lives we live shape our belief systems and that someone who has had a more mixed experience of the online sphere (that is gaining real benefits offline as well as experiencing some of the negative effects we get from being online) would be more apt to believe that we should embrace the online sphere.
But for many, the gains of the online sphere are minimal, for some the promise of some elusive future gain is all that keeps them, and for even more they continue to engage with social media because of addiction. I think it is easier to brush these factors aside if you stand to gain from the current system, even if it is not intentional.
As far as I can see, there is no real reason to stay on social media besides “everyone else is” which is not the best reasoning in my opinion.
I disagree with balancing the online and the offline. I will still keep trying to be offline most of the time and be a luddite. I think everyone will eventually except some tech bros. It just doesnt make sense to be exposed to so many stranger people everyday. Especially since there is no actual way of regulating it. Bring back searching for things.
It’s not impossible, just difficult. I was born just in the nick of time to be considered a 90s kid. My partner hasn’t been on social media for over 5 years. I cut out Instagram about 3 weeks ago and it has only had positive impacts.
Being offline completely is impossible for most since many job applications, news sites, etc have moved online; however, getting off social media is completely possible. It’s just extremely addictive so people like to act like it isn’t so they don’t have to face how emotionally reliant they are on it. Personally, I refuse to believe that social media is necessary. Anyone who tries to convince you it is is just trying to sell you something.
I’m invariably impressed by your commentary which feeds my curiosity about language whilst always reminding me that language is inextricably linked to society. You’re a very wise young man.
Although I just felt, after reading about the monkeys, it’s no surprise we ended up here. We had to take baby monkeys from their mothers and put them through that agony to “prove” that children need their mothers to be their best.
My anthropologist wife wants me to point out we're not literally monkeys. We're apes.
when I wrote that line I thought to myself "surely the comments won't be pedantic about this"
Sorry, I had to :P
It does reduce your credibility a bit when you don’t know high-school evolution that’s been in the popular press since Scopes.
lmfao it's called imagery obviously i know
My point stands. It stops the flow of the piece.
Loved this
off topic but the word ersatz brought me back to when I read A series of unfortunate events
The Winnicott angle is what makes Punch different. His stuffed monkey is a transitional object - a bridge, not a destination. Nobody engineered it to maximize time-on-toy.
That's the problem with the digital cloth mothers. They're not neutral comfort sources. They're optimized for retention. The monkey never has to choose between the stuffed animal and other monkeys because the stuffed animal wasn't designed to compete.
This is not the first time this author has claimed that being “online” (though what it seems he means by “online” is “on social media”) is or should be necessary for the modern age.
As far as I’m aware, he’s never provided hard evidence for this and his article that he sites here “stay on your phone” thinly disguises class issues as a reason to stay on social media (main argument being the only people he’s met who stay off their phones have the privilege to do so because they are rich and poor, single mothers are just so overworked and helpless that of course they succumb to TikTok slop).
I just want to bring up the point to readers that this author has gained attention and been able to build a public image/career tied to that image through social media. He gains following through social media apps like Instagram, TikTok, and Substack and while this by no means discredits his accomplishments, it should make readers wary when he argues that social media is something that we should engage with. To put it more clearly, of course social media is necessary to a person who relies on it for public attention and approval (especially when related to one’s career). Most of us, however, are not in this position. We do not gain nearly the amount of benefits this person does from these platforms, nor do our professional lives revolve around it. This author has a vested interest in keeping us online and that should be kept in mind when reading his pro-online content.
The benefit I get from individual people staying online is marginal; there will always be an audience.
I hope you can believe I'm trying to communicate in good faith, because I'm seeing a lot of warning signs about how the online world negatively bleeds into the offline if we don't do our part to cultivate positivity in both.
I genuinely do believe you’re communicating in good faith and I can definitely see how without tone it’s hard to get that across.
I also think that the lives we live shape our belief systems and that someone who has had a more mixed experience of the online sphere (that is gaining real benefits offline as well as experiencing some of the negative effects we get from being online) would be more apt to believe that we should embrace the online sphere.
But for many, the gains of the online sphere are minimal, for some the promise of some elusive future gain is all that keeps them, and for even more they continue to engage with social media because of addiction. I think it is easier to brush these factors aside if you stand to gain from the current system, even if it is not intentional.
As far as I can see, there is no real reason to stay on social media besides “everyone else is” which is not the best reasoning in my opinion.
I disagree with balancing the online and the offline. I will still keep trying to be offline most of the time and be a luddite. I think everyone will eventually except some tech bros. It just doesnt make sense to be exposed to so many stranger people everyday. Especially since there is no actual way of regulating it. Bring back searching for things.
It’s virtually impossible, for most of the young generation it’s their current “norm”
It’s not impossible, just difficult. I was born just in the nick of time to be considered a 90s kid. My partner hasn’t been on social media for over 5 years. I cut out Instagram about 3 weeks ago and it has only had positive impacts.
Being offline completely is impossible for most since many job applications, news sites, etc have moved online; however, getting off social media is completely possible. It’s just extremely addictive so people like to act like it isn’t so they don’t have to face how emotionally reliant they are on it. Personally, I refuse to believe that social media is necessary. Anyone who tries to convince you it is is just trying to sell you something.
I've had 'Chickenwire Mother' on my list of "should be a band name" for years.
I'm worried about the increasing number of children who have Chat GPT as their best friend and confidant.
While everything else withers to wire ✍🏻 🔥
I’m invariably impressed by your commentary which feeds my curiosity about language whilst always reminding me that language is inextricably linked to society. You’re a very wise young man.
Your analysis is spot on.
Although I just felt, after reading about the monkeys, it’s no surprise we ended up here. We had to take baby monkeys from their mothers and put them through that agony to “prove” that children need their mothers to be their best.
What hope is there for us?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but instead of "children need their mothers to be their best," can we please say "a loving human caretaker"?
When we spend too much time with the stuffed monkey, it ends up on our backs.
Perspective
I live in Austin and man I just so wish SXSW tickets were cheaper than $1k lol, would love to hear you speak in March
love this, thank you for sharing 🥹🩵
A poem for him, and for us.
https://substack.com/@betsyjohnsonautismwriting/note/c-219036457?r=avvav&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action