In his article ”Shifting Worlds of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in ‘Them’ versus ‘Us,’” Joshua Meyrowitz discusses ways in which the electronic age is seeing an eroding of traditional social boundaries. His thought is that in “postmodern electronic societies” there is a diminishing emphasis on groups and a shift towards “a new recognition of the special needs and idiosyncrasies of individuals” (1997, p.65). Meyrowitz also states that in his vision of society, the trend is away from any emphasis on differences among groups and towards relativistic, egalitarian inclusion.
I think Meyrowitz raises a compelling point. In a world where there is no “them” and no “us,” everyone is together in one group. Superficially, this scenario suggests a unified utopia. But I think it is possible that this level of inclusion ultimately makes people more isolated and alienated. What does it mean to belong to the Facebook community? What types of social reassurances does one have as a result of having an account on their favorite TV show’s website? Because anyone can gain these memberships, the emotional satisfaction of being included is almost nil. Furthermore, the all inclusiveness of electronic social groups can tend to make someone feel as if they don’t matter. If who a person is has absolutely no bearing on where they can go and what they can participate in, then what does their personality matter? It doesn’t, and people are being adversely effected by this.
In her latest book “Alone Together,” Sherry Turkle discusses some of the social implications of this new all-inclusive electronically connected world. In her opinion, this environment is allowing people to expect less from each other (2011, p.295). Turkle leads the reader to wonder what friendship within the bounds of a social networking website really means? When one is sick, there is a distinct difference between a person posting “Hope you feel better!” on your Facebook wall and a friend stopping by to see how you are doing. Turkle wants to alert people to the dangers of accepting the wall post type gestures as good enough.
Meyrowitz’s ideas about all-inclusive social structures and Turkle’s observations about the nature of relationships mediated by the online environment seem in complete agreement. The question remains, what to do? It seems that online communication will only become more and more the main mode of human interaction. Is there any way we can preserve the integrity of the meaning of friendship, support, and belonging? As I’ve written in this blog before, I believe part of the answer is in reducing the amount of information to which one chooses to be privy. Avoid looking at information that has no real bearing on your life. Keep your social networks at a level that allows you to actually interact with everyone on your lists. Always be conscious of your actions!
But I fear these types of solutions will not help much, or at least, not enough. More and more, the construction of the social pathways on the net seem to dictate the nature of the relationships therein. I don’t think it is practical to expect people to constantly fight against the designs of sites like Facebook. It is always a loosing battle. A human’s discipline and resolve has limits, a machine’s does not. It is up to leaders to come up with better systems that will displace the flawed ones. While I don’t have faith in people’s ability to fight the web, I do have faith that they will choose the system that allows them to feel most human, to choose the system that enables deeps seated human needs and instincts. So… to the drawing board!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment