Finding an article to write a letter to the editor for was difficult for me—and then it dawned on me that the reason I was so baffled is because my daily life has been drastically altered over the last decade by having constant, relatively fast internet available. Writing a letter to an editor (any editor) has not occurred to me because when someone upsets me I am able to simply respond to the blog and then I’m done with it. Then I got to thinking about how this kind of media consumption is democratic in many ways (because anyone can respond) and how this kind of leveling of the playing field makes responses to blogs functionally useless because if a blog attracts the slightest amount of controversy, everyone will have something to say about it.
With that said, I found an interesting article after my friend directed me to the website for Women’s Health magazine-The article is called ‘The Truth Behind Computer Vision’ and discusses what seems to me to be a new disorder. Several things about the article caught my attention – the first of which is the semi-sensationalistic tone of the article, with the author warning that 90% of people who stare at a computer / electronic screen for two hours or more a day may be afflicted. Then I was interested in the way the possible symptoms are presented – “blurry vision, headaches, dry eyes, or even long-term nearsightedness.”
The article proceeds to hint at what Latour called “science in the making” in that it explicitly cites disagreement between two organizations of eye specialists—one believes that the potential for damage may not be reversible, while the other believes that CVS (computer vision syndrome) is just an annoyance. To further this point a little more, the article urges prevention and proceeds to attempt to sell the disease in an example that isn’t unlike the ones Carl Elliott cited in better than well. Even if you don’t need corrective lenses, the article states, you might want to get a pair of glasses to avoid glare. In this regard, it also highlights what Latour says about how science (and I would argue especially in cases of physical disorders although Latour probably wouldn’t) is about winning arguments. The author rounds up ‘experts’ and makes recommendations.
I was additionally struck by the undertone of the article, which brought to mind the concept of ‘neoliberal medicine’ that we read about in ‘Emily’s Scars.’ I say this because the article is written on the basis of the forgone conclusion that people won’t just stop. For example, the author never tells anyone to just hit CTRL+F4 if their eyes get wonky when they are surfing the internet. This is a particularly prominent example of the ways in which medicine can be culturally and consumer-driven—the fact that people are going to continue to be on their smart phones, using their computers, and all the other electronic devices that everyone is always using on the bus (and everywhere else) has become medically treatable and enabled through medical/technological ‘fixes.’
This is still a little disjointed and I think I'll write a letter to someone (even if it's not this particular author--although I might write the website generally for their supposed focus on Women's Health and the fact that they have an entire web section about how to look better naked) about 'CVS.'
Ooooh. I like this one. First off, the 'data' are indeterminate. Staring at ANYTHING for 8 hours will mess up your eyes that way--just ask a 19th-century scribe. So is it the 'puter or the job? And there are massive economic interests lined up on both sides. AND there's always the issue of how and where it's REPORTED and why.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was pretty interesting because I spend multiple hours a day on the computer. Not only do I work for Geek Squad but I come home and enjoy the web on my own computer. That being said, my eyesight has always been poor but it is only getting worse as the years go by.
ReplyDeleteI understand the reasoning behind your argument, but I'd like to add in that people will not stop using devices such as computers, phones and the like. It has become the way of life for many people--to a point that they would not operate properly without that technology. Because of that, I think it is reasonable to call for other answers to this problem besides 'alt+f4'. Other than that, I think your points are good and have a solid footing.
I've spent multiple hours staring at a screen every day for most of my life, and, though I wear glasses, my prescription has stayed fairly consistent for the past seven years.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the article's science is off, I'm an exception to the rule(or simply among the 10%), or there's something specific about my manner of staring at a screen that saves me from these symptoms.