My emotional explanations about social networking were not only cynical but also superficial and unqualified since I don’t engage in Facebooking.
my assertions were not based on serious research but on a critical attitude towards social networking platforms in general. Most of my friends, however, are very active on these sites either on Facebook or on its German counterpart Studi-VZ. Not only are there different types of Massive Multiperson Online Environments there also are millions of different individuals enganging, with different intentions,expectations and habits, which clearly distinguishes them...
What remains the same is that interaction is taking place in a virtual reality.
The most difficult question, however is to find out the ultimate goal of these virtual communities, the greater sense behind it, the stimulation which attracts such a huge number of users to participate. The sense has to be questioned on a number of levels. As probably in real life, you create something, but you create it in a virutal sphere, it doesn’t really exist.
I don’t intend holding an - anti-attitude, justified pathetic statements without serious attempts of reasoning myself in an adequate way.
It is not that I don’t understand why people are using Facebook. For sure. It’s a great thing to find these people you lost touch with through networking sites, and probably catch up again.
I am not sure having your friends stored and listed on a remote server, should replace real life experience. And I just see that it certainly does to a great extent, and I don’t like what I see, and I want to be critical about this. It’s nice to share funny daily experiences with your friends, small stories from life, write little notes, which show you care. Living abroad myself, away from family and friends I certainly understand the benefits of these platforms as a convenient and cheap way to keep in touch, sensing belonging to the people one is close to…on the other hand it won’t replace the fact of not physically being close… and I think we are cheating ourselves in that sense that we are able to overcome geographical barriers.
I am not sure having your friends stored and listed on a remote server, should replace real life experience. And I just see that it certainly does to a great extent, and I don’t like what I see, and I want to be critical about this. It’s nice to share funny daily experiences with your friends, small stories from life, write little notes, which show you care. Living abroad myself, away from family and friends I certainly understand the benefits of these platforms as a convenient and cheap way to keep in touch, sensing belonging to the people one is close to…on the other hand it won’t replace the fact of not physically being close… and I think we are cheating ourselves in that sense that we are able to overcome geographical barriers.
Referring back to the Guardian article, I don’t think it can replace real-life friendships. Like a photograph of a tree can’t replace actually seeing it, touching it, smelling it, understanding the surrounding area, in which it exists. When Walter Benjamin talked about the loss of the ‘Aura’ in his book ‘The work of art in the Age of Mechanical reproduction’ it has never been so true in this case. The most substantial information gets lost in these cyber-interactions, namely the purely and authentic emotional involvement.
These sites offer great possibilities of certain interest groups gathering together, exchanging information about certain topics, regardless of time and space. This simply was impossible before.
My other arguement, which I failed to explain properly is the political economy behind these platforms as the integral structures, which enable the process of communication. We risk to forget posing the question of who we are sharing our thoughts with somehow...
So we have to give a second thought to the structures of social networking platforms, and we have to consider who finances them, and question the intentions of the financiers…
Yes, and back to my statement based on pure emotionalism- the idea that for the providers of this platform it is so easy to enter my closest interactions and emotions- the idea of constantly being watched (and I am aware that currently I am living in the city with the most CCTV cameras in the world) simply scares me. It reminds me on George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’, and his vision of total control which is also being reinforced by this transparent mode of interaction.
These sites offer great possibilities of certain interest groups gathering together, exchanging information about certain topics, regardless of time and space. This simply was impossible before.
My other arguement, which I failed to explain properly is the political economy behind these platforms as the integral structures, which enable the process of communication. We risk to forget posing the question of who we are sharing our thoughts with somehow...
So we have to give a second thought to the structures of social networking platforms, and we have to consider who finances them, and question the intentions of the financiers…
Yes, and back to my statement based on pure emotionalism- the idea that for the providers of this platform it is so easy to enter my closest interactions and emotions- the idea of constantly being watched (and I am aware that currently I am living in the city with the most CCTV cameras in the world) simply scares me. It reminds me on George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’, and his vision of total control which is also being reinforced by this transparent mode of interaction.
We should definitely be happy about the great aspects the Internet in general offers us, but we mustn’t forget the threats of it equally. I like technology. I couldn’t say anything else, because I am simultaneously using it, doing so is my choice in a sense. At the same time I am wondering of where we are going with our technological development. With the overall tendency of more and faster. I would prefer not to give up my physical existence, but I can’t help myself to realize there is the simple tendency of doing so. Another book, in that respect, which comes to my mind and is incredibly scary, is Michel Houellebeque’s world vision in ‘The possibility of an Island’. Namely, that we replace physical existence- by simply transforming into computerbased-artifical intelligence. I can see the fictional element within his ideas, but I can also se the general development of our society living life predominately in front of the computer.
‘Rejecting the incomplete paradigm of form, we aspire to rejoin the universe of countless potentialities. Closing the brackets on becoming, we are from now on in unlimited, indefinite stasis,’ as Houelleberque describes the new physiceness we gradually risk transforming into...
In that sense my self-reflective conclusion is that one should remain self-reflective, and critical, also of his or her own words as I just experienced myself...
In that sense my self-reflective conclusion is that one should remain self-reflective, and critical, also of his or her own words as I just experienced myself...
4 comments:
My heavens!
Happening upon your citation of my landmark piece and subsequent discussion has rendered my day worthwhile and my heart replete with joys!
Although, I pray, that The Internet has not rendered by persona invisible...
So please pay a visit to my internet dwelling at www.myspace.com/theghostofwalterbenjamin for up-to-date musings.
Regards, my friend,
W.B.
"As probably in real life, you create something, but you create it in a virutal sphere, it doesn’t really exist."
How is this so? Just because your body (the corporeal) doesn't enter cyberspace your interactions there are somehow rendered unreal? nonexistent? You're more imaginative than this Alice...
If the Guardian article you've cited doesn't mention the fact that interaction on social networking sites is predominantly used to supplement face-to-face- or 'real' interaction then it is lacking.
I doubt real life interaction is going to be usurped by these platforms nor has it been sociologically found to do so. That said, ownership of these platforms by people such as Murdoch is, as you have said, very questionable.
Mosey on over to Art in the Age for some internet goods in the age of mechanical reproduction.
love, robin.
I came across this and thought of your argument
"Yes, there are problems with technology and with technology in the classroom. Anyone critical of capitalism has a right to be critical of commercial social network sites and the economic processes that got us here. But don't blame the SNSs— they didn't create the obscenities of the market, but they are bound by them. Also, don't forget that the current educational system was structured to meet the needs of the market, to create good consumers and good laborers. It ain't pretty, and the privatization of education and educational testing is downright scary, but it's a systems problem, not a technology problems."
It's a comment from Danah Boyd during The Economist debate about social networking in education.
Post a Comment