Abstract
On the classic rock radio station in my US Midwestern small town, a commercial now runs whose pitch goes something like this: Negative things on the Internet ruining your life? Negative reviews…? Bad pictures…? We can legally change the search results for you. This ad and the several search optimizer services emerging show just how central search has become in our world, from Madison Avenue to shrinking rustbelt towns. It is not just the results of searching that are interesting but also the expectations, feelings, and cosmologies associated with it, which all define aspects of what Ken Hillis, Michael Petit and Kylie Jarrett explore in their new book as the ‘culture of search.’ This fascinating historical and philosophical look at the long development of this ‘culture’ begins well before the late 1990s when most of us first started searching the web with search engines like AltaVista or Dogpile. Long before the ascendance of Google − like, centuries before − people were thinking of transcendent expressions of a collective universe of shared knowledge. Hillis, Petit and Jarrett situate this conceptualization in the ‘Western Enlightenment’s’ search for a ‘Divine Mind’ − a ‘quest for transcendence and salvation.’ While much has been written in recent years on Google and ‘Googlization,’ the authors’ investigation of the deep historical and philosophical contexts of these phenomena, including the long legacy of ‘thinking machines’ and ‘informational metaphysics,’ is particularly useful and compelling. Their reinterpretation of ‘Google’s Rules’ through phenomenology is likewise inventive and fun. This (and more) is what makes the book so interesting but also may make it a bit difficult in settings with undergraduate students, though as a catalyst for denaturalizing ‘search’ it may in fact be just what the doctor ordered (assuming a lot of assistance). As an intervention into debates about technology and transcendent history, it is important and formidable.
While ‘the Culture of Search’ pulls together an impressive array of theoretical resources, it also continues the paradigmatic critique of ‘Western,’ ‘Enlightenment,’ and ‘American’ epistemologies, now in ‘built form’ within search technologies. Postcolonial theory has developed more nuanced views of such categories. Further, what does Americanization mean in the context of Americans as test cases for these technological-ideological projects? Sometimes The Culture of Search gives us a sense of homogeneity and consistency where we might look for contradictions and struggle in search ‘culture.’ This is perhaps a cheap critique these days. As is my complaint that Adorno − whose concern with the indexing and scientific control of audiences is certainly relevant here − is never mentioned in the work. But it is indeed a testament to the fertility of the authors’ evocative cultural history that there seem to be boundless connections and alternatives to explore on this subject.