I agree with Stanek's argument, that technology has the potential to create the semblance of free discourse. I believe, however,the issue with technology today for me is not necessarily that it creates apathy in and of itself. I would argue that meaningful (for varying values of "meaningful") associations are alive and well on the internet. There are hundreds of message boards and online forums and communites for every sort of interest. Tocqueville's quote is even more apt nowadays; I myself accidentally stumbled upon a forum of sneeze fetishists the other day. Without the internet, probably none of these people would have ever met, chiefly because no one on earth would ever admit to having a sneeze fetish.
The problem with the internet is also one of its main attractions-- it does not require you, as a person, to adapt if you don't want to. This is not to say that those who participate in online communities are all antisocial nerds too awkward to carry on a basic conversation in real life; that is just patently untrue. Granted, if someone happened to be such a person, they could get away with it if they wanted to. However, people who are already quite garrulous in real life will not turn into loners because they find people they like talking to online. There are plenty of sports nerds in bars, plenty of music nerds who hang out together, plenty of film nerds that form clubs at school. I think that the internet is generally useful for someone who develops a very keen interest in a specific or unusual thing-- 18th century firearms, kiteboarding, writing stories about Kirk and Spock doin' it, whatever. One of the good things about the internet is the sheer amount of people on it; statistically you're bound to find a group of people that share your interest, however bizarre. On the other hand, the fact that it's so easy to find a group online means you don't have to bite the bullet and strike up a conversation with someone at school (i.e. participate in real life), which you will have to do sooner or later. There is a good case to be made for saying it's healthier to to bowl in a league than by yourself, but on the other hand, just because a group of people like bowling doesn't necessarily mean they'll like each other.
Facebook is an interesting example. It's generally agreed to be crap now, although the date of its change is disputed (when the network opened to non-Harvard students? To high school students? To everyone? When it got ads? When it was bought out? When they started making all those stupid apps?). Why is it crap, though? Because most can tell that the point of it is no longer, despite what Zuckerberg insists, to create a social network online. It's simply an advertising tool for corporations; if people do meet, it's in spite of the changes, or reacting to them. Even when it only allowed college students, it was very difficult to create genuine friendships on Facebook, because it difficult to gauge how into (band) or (film) another person was. Facebook seemed, essentially, an attempt to transfer real-world networking online without taking into account how real-world networking works (i.e., conversation). It was the equivalent of introducing two people at a party. I'm sure people have become good friends using Facebook, and I suppose it's useful to immediately know if someone in your class likes the same band as you, but this sort of knowledge is useless if that band is, say, the Beatles.
I think it comes down to whether or not you believe it's possible to genuinely be friends with someone you have never met in real life. Many online communities operate upon the assumption that this is true, and have had meetups, conventions, and so on, so I don't hold with the idea that it usually creates a false sense of community. (Would you really want to hang out with that guy down the street for any other reason than you both have Xboxes?) In its best form, it fulfils all those cliches about bringing people together from all over the world in a sort of glorified pen-pal network. In its worst, it can exacerbate the worst or most harmful of intrinsic tendencies in people. I personally think its pros outweigh its cons-- I have spoken to a lot of interesting people online, almost all* of whom were/are normal people-- but only just. The internet, like I've said, isn't really good or bad-- it will just let people do interesting or harmful things a bit more easily.
*As in real life, sometimes you just meet mad people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Facebook is indeed a telling example. I don't believe the website's purpose was ever to create an exclusively online social network. Instead, much like actual print facebooks (they still hand those out to freshman, don't they?), its purpose is to facilitate real-world interactions. You generally friend people that you've recently met in the real world, someone that you haven't seen in a while but want to catch up with, etc. I suspect that only a tiny fraction of facebook friendships do not have some degree of real-world manifestation (though I'm wrong all the time so who knows?).
In fact, the structure of Facebook reinforces this. The only profiles you have access to are the ones in your network--your university, place of business, or whatever (ignoring for now the fact that even some people in your own network will block profile access to non-friends). Generally that means people who have a certain real-world proximity to you. While I can blindly request a Facebook friendship with someone from another network, I have little reason to try and do so (since I can know nothing about them in advance other than their name). In addition, of course, the person also needs to confirm your friendship, another barrier to entry for a budding friendship.
Now, where this points I'm not sure. As I mentioned in the comments on my post, online social links that are merely extensions of existing real-world networks don't seem to me to be especially alarming. Instead of undermining the social fabric, it seems clear that they can strengthen (or at least sustain) it: witness the current spate of summertime "keeping in touch" Facebook wall posts between temporarily separated friends. Indeed, our own bloggy collaboration owes a certain debt to our Facebook walls.
But I'm getting increasingly frustrated with some sort of "thinker's block" that seems have set in on me. This whole topic requires examining the essence of social relationships: what is it that makes a friendship or association "real" or otherwise meaningful or fruitful? I've written a paper or two in the last year that examined isolation from society (though in the context of poverty), borrowing a great deal from Pierre Bourdieu's conceptions of "social and cultural capital." However, I'm no sociologist so I'm unaware of whether or not these concepts have recently been adapted in any meaningful way to model the sorts of things we're talking about here (i.e. the technological transformation of social relationships or at least the potential for it). At the very least, I think skimming any work that's been done in that area might help me to figure out whether technology is really a threat to the social fabric that sustains democracy or I'm just a (Robot?) Chicken Little.
I do not think that technology is truly a threat to society as a whole, but it may be a serious hindrance to forming genuine relationships (as has well been established here). In particular, I feel that the technology plays a certain intermediary role between two (or more) individuals having a conversation. In an RL heated argument, emotion is a huge player, inspiring raised voices, emphatic hand gestures, and luckily a huge increase in blood-pressure. An internet conversation, however, removes all of these for emoticons >:-o, exclamation points, and a serious lack of "lol" .
However, a RL discussion in which emotions run high is a true test of the relationship between the individuals. Because one-on-one conversations inspire such emotion, it is necessary for the participants to reach some sort of compromise, or at least agree to disagree. Online, it is possible to merely log off, block the other person, and be annoyed for a few minutes. Ultimately, two individuals deepen their relationship through whatever disagreements they may have, and it aides in social skills overall, an aspect that is utterly lost in an online situation.
Plus, shouting in ur friend's face is a great stress reliever!
I mean come on, is it really that satisfying to slam on shift+1 and type in all caps?
I didn't think so
Post a Comment