di Cosimo Stifani, Recensioni, Rivista di Studi Italiani, anno XXXV, n. 1, Aprile 2017, pp. 346-348, http://www.rivistadistudiitaliani.it/articolo.php?id=2196

We must speak by the card or equivocation will undo us.
(Hamlet 5.1.133-134)

Although it may be presumptuous to cite a name like Shakespeare and his universally acclaimed Hamlet in conjunction with John Picchione’s La scrittura, il cervello e l’era digitale, the reader should at least keep an open mind about the possible connections between the two texts. Just as the Bard left no one in doubt when he rested his case with the lapidary remark “That something is rotten in the state of Denmark”, likewise Picchione is no less certain that something has seriously gone awry in the world of tecnology, globalization and late capitalism today. Shakespeare intuited that changes were in the making. Picchione intuitively grasps the consequences of technology and globalization, but he is also quick to point out that it’s not a case of falling “victim of a technological anguish or a melancholic feeling for a disappearing world”, rather, it is a case of understanding “the reasons why technology invades all life’s manifestations” (pp. 69-70).
Picchione’s position is very clear: if we do not become aware and try to understand that the halls of learning are rapidly turning into the maidservants of the digital revolution and globalization, will it ever be possible to avoid a shock for the way of life the West is accustomed to? A culture “driven by a quantitative and utilitarian objective”, he argues, “ doesn’t bother to create the humus in which to foster the ideals of democracy” (p. 39). Indeed, if the ideals of democracy were to fail even within the halls of learning ‒ the author continues ‒, and learning becomes subservient to global capitalism, then the whole system is sure to collapse. What scenario might we then expect to see next? Only more Trumpmania?
This stimulating work may well appear to be a collage of disconnected papers, which, they are, in a sense, since they can all be read separately, although a closer scrutiny of the text reveals that in fact they do converge on a host of major issues the author skillfully perorates. Picchione’s avoidance of protracted arguments and endless footnotes, allows for a clear appreciation of the digital world and late capitalism’s interaction with the same. Furthermore, the way in which the author chronicles the so-called liquid society we live in is as dispassionate as it is earnest. Yet the vision that emerges from this booklet is by no means an optimistic one. Indeed, for some, Picchione’s Weltanschauung may even be too one-sided for insisting as much as he does on the seven deadly sins of technology, globalization and latter-day capitalism. Nonetheless, what we read is written in a fine academic style, lean and to the point, a style which little, if anything, could be removed from or added to.
La scrittura, il cervello e l’era digitale may also be described as an irresistible stream of consciousness work, an intimate dialogue effortlessly transcribed on paper in much the same way as a painter transfers his or her feelings on canvas. Not only does Picchione shed light on years of close personal interaction with students and colleagues, his book is also a document about the relentless attack on academic freedom and cultural institutions on the part of unchecked capital and globalization. If the halls of learning are no longer places where debates, dissent, and critical thinking take place, what purpose ‒ the author asks ‒ can a university education possibly serve? Who needs a university where courses are tailor-made in order to accommodate only the immediate needs of students so that they might “fit” in better with today’s technological society? What Picchione sees in all this is the inevitable destruction of our social fabric as well as our capacity to think creatively.
We may not agree with all of Picchione’s arguments, and there are points that are definitely in favour of the digital technologies which dominate so many aspects of our culture. It is not entirely unrealistic to think, for instance, that even the digital world could become part and parcel of our rational make-up and of the way we go about creating social values. Is this not what largely took place with the affirmation of the written word and the near disappearance of the oral tradition as the basis for our modern culture?
Picchione is well aware that the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism polarized labour and capital, where their interdependence eventually led to mutual concessions and possible realization of utopian ideals. And where intellectual criticism was at the core of possible alternatives to an uncontrollable form of capitalism generated by the Industrial Revolution, this, too, gave rise to many different forms of democratic life. What is disconcerting from Professor Picchione’s academic vantage point is the wholesale abandonment of the humanistic narrative in today’s culture, which he believes to be both biologically and socially dangerous. His criticism of the digital age, which apparently emphasizes ephemeral and immediate appeasement of the senses on a global level, is necessarily devoid of any form of critical thinking, producing a numbing effect on the whole educational system and on those who will ultimately be called upon to replenish the ranks of society.
Americans, in accordance with their democratic system, have elected a president who twitted his way to the White House, believing that he is a representative of their aspirations. Verily, this is an old wives’ tale, and, as Picchione wrily puts it, “If Humanism didn’t save us from barbarism, is digital culture immune to barbarism?” (p. 76);