Building on our discussion of online communities, the readings for Wednesday focused specifically on the way in which online and offline communities affect one another. Three basic theories were addressed: that computer mediated communication destroys traditional outlets of community; that CMC enables entirely new and unique communities to form; and that CMC supplements traditional forms of community, adding to it new dynamics that change it all together.
In the TLT reading we established that community can no longer be thought of in terms of location. That instead community is characterized by shared interests, activities, and feelings of sociability, which are now possible independent of geographical location. TLT focused on the idea that “Online groups are woven into the fabric of offline life rather than set in opposition to it.” (TLT, 113)
The Wellman, Quan-Haase, & Boase article explored more closely the ways in which online activity can affect social interaction. The findings of the experiments were very positive, demonstrating that in each case an increase in online social action actually increases social interaction offline as well. In one experiment they studied a new housing development, half of which had been equipped with broadband internet access. The other half of the development did not have broadband access, and houses either used a dial-up connection or had no internet at all. Not only did the people in the ‘wired’ houses have more frequent contact with more local community members than ‘non-wired’ people, but they also “maintained more long-distance contact with friends and relatives than non-wired residents did.” People in the wired houses even organized online to form a protest against new houses being built in the development.
The other experiments followed in similar suit, but one important idea was established: networked individualism. Because of advances in mobile communication technology “connections are [being made] to people and not to places.” For example, instead of being restricted to calling someone’s office or home, cell phones now enable us to contact someone directly and personally, wherever they may be located. The idea is that “this shift facilitates personal communities that supply the essentials of community separately to each individual: support, sociability, information, social identities, and a sense of belonging.” And that this can all occur independently, or in conjunction with a geographically immediate community.
- In what ways has communication technology encouraged or detracted from your social interaction offline?
- Do you believe that our increasing ability to communicate independent of location is changing the way we perceive community?
3 comments:
For me, communication technology both encourages and detracts me from offline social interaction.
It encourages me because it can serve to arrange offline meetings through messaging and email. It also gives me the ability to easily socialize with a wider group of people, such as with friends who are out of state. However, communication technology also detracts me from socializing offline. I sometimes allow myself to be satisfied with talking to friends through instant messaging instead of taking the greater initiative to hang out with them. Because online communication is so accessible and easy, it sometimes takes over face to face communication.
I think communication technology has mostly encouraged my social interaction than detracted it. This is because I have never really preferred instant messaging over a phone call, so when I do use instant messaging, it doesn't exactly satisfy my socialization need with someone to where I'm no longer anticipating FtF COMM. It is definitely convenient, if I need to ask someone a question or something.
I'd say 90% of the time I am on AIM it is someone else who has initiated the chat, so again here it encourages my social interaction.
I think the second question raises a good point and is something that I have been thinking about lately. I think that our ability to communicate independently of location (through internet) does change the way we perceive community, but only among certain people- demographically and socio-economically. I think this is important because when I am at USC I feel like our class discussions are interesting and relevant. However when I come back home to my neighborhood I feel/know that no one really cares. I live in Carson, where most people here are immigrants, first generation Americans, and/or of lower socioeconomic status to the point where they are not computer savy and still perceive community as people they know locally.
Even in Torrance, where I work with people who are students at community colleges and Cal State Long Beach, had never even heard of second life.
Among all the real life social networks I'm part of, I feel like because USC is such a higher-education institution that promotes and has so much computer techonology available- we are so apt to think technology based communities when we think of a "community." I just think it is just one of those things that we take for granted.
In response to the second question, I definitely feel that communication, not restricted by location,can definitely redefine our existing conceptions of community.
For example, I find that online boards are not primarily organized by location but rather by interest. A roommate of mine was really into collecting shoes. And so he would be on his sneaker forums for hours at a time and he made many friends that way. After a couple months of membership, he didn't just use the forum as a means to stay connected to his hobby as he went on that forum just to chat with people who shared his interest. He would go on the off topic section and share funny links or stories as much as he would browse the Nike section.
What's interesting is that one guy from NYU who was on this forum actually stopped by our house when he was in LA and it really seemed as if this New Yorker and my roommate had known each other as well as some mutual friends for a substantial amount of time. I really feel like message boards can establish communities that are just as legitimate as any community that is tied to a physical location.
Post a Comment