Destroying Hierarchy?

Tags can be seen as a democratizing aspect of the web, because, as Mathes reveals, they require no training in the way that professionally-generated metadata does. Nor do they follow logic in the way that a semantic web built on syllogisms would effect (as described by Shirky.) Tags are clearly more simplified methods of categorizing, utilizing keywords to sort by association, not hierarchy. But the question must be asked: What are we losing in this simplification?

Ong discusses a related comparison between two versions of the Genesis story. One version is from 1610, when there was oral culture still lingered; it had nine introductory “ands” (37). The second version from 1970 has two introductory “ands,” as well as other words, like “when,” “then,” “thus,” and “while.” Ong says that this shows the additive nature of oral culture, as opposed to the subordinative (or hierarchical) structure of chirographic culture. Because chirographic culture seems to be progress, it seems that hierarchical thinking should also be considered progress. Yet, tags seem to be destroying that type of thinking by emphasizing keywords. Are we reverting back to a simpler thought process? Are we making ourselves stupid?

The answer is not so simple. It must be mentioned that there is order in tags. For example, the PageRank algorithm employed by Google follows an intellectually sophisticated mathematical formula. The user enters a keyword (the tag), and results pop up. However, it is not the user who does the tagging; it is the algorithm. This form of tagging requires the increased intelligence of a few programmers, for the increased ease (i.e., allowed/encouraged laziness) of many. Additionally, the elaborate associative webs and visualizations created by Manovich and certain websites to display associate relationships show the detail behind associative thinking; yet, like with Google’s algorithm, just because there is detail in association, it does not mean that users of associative searching have to do that thinking; the machine, the machine’s programmers, and the inquisitive media theorists who create visualizations do it for them. Tagging (such as that employed by Google) does allow for less thought-intensive information searches, which some may argue breeds laziness, while others may argue that it gives more time for people to pursue new thoughts.

That last point is consistent with the idea that technological determinism is not true. However, technology does influence. McLuhan’s famous adage—“the medium is the message”—eludes to this. The medium of search engines like Google that tag information, as well as tags that users explicitly create, do deter one from hierarchical, or structured thinking. This must be acknowledged to guard against it.

(For more thoughts on associative thinking, refer to my 10/9/05 post entitled “Hypertext: Digression or Progession?”. Hypertext is what enables tags.)