I agree with Dean in that Benkler said it best in one small sentence: “We are a networked society now.” The Internet has permeated our lives in such a way that it has become one of our primary sources of communication. Each and every one of us – with our Facebook profiles and email addresses – is active proof of that. But not everyone is quite as supportive of these new developments, and Benkler doesn’t hesitate to acknowledge that. Yet, while he recognizes others’ fears of increasing Internet communication equaling a decrease in community and quality of relationships, Benkler is quick to counter them with research that proves otherwise. In fact, as Jenn said, Benkler also points out that social networking has actually increased the number of relationships made and further solidified pre-existing ones. Now, not to trivialize these points Benkler makes, but I feel that any one of us could probably have drawn the same conclusions that yes, we connect with more people because of Facebook and yes, our pre-existing relationships are still very much in tact. What he did say that struck me was his explanation of how the Internet allows for people to actually break out of certain social constraints. I had learned of the whole Timothy McVeigh ordeal before, but it never crossed my mind to see his use of email as a social outlet. And the example of Japanese teenagers really made me think of how different the reasons behind their use of social networking can be from ours. Also, this doesn’t really fit in with everything I’ve just said, but I thought it was worth mentioning – in the few years since this was published, video chatting has become much more accessible and popular, and I would say this mode of Internet communication, more-so than any of the others, directly challenges any lingering concerns about the fading of face-to-face and quality of relationships.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Counter to what Benkler states, I believe that some forms of Internet communication have disrupted deep primary ( family and friends )relationships.
ReplyDeleteHe states that research over time has shown that the largest impact to time spent on Internet communications has been a trade-off with TV watching. ( with 27% of respondents reporting less TV watching ) and few ( 9% )reporting less time spent with family and friends. However, the use of a communication tool such as IM has the effect of interupting whatever activities a person is involved in. So, like multi-tasking - it diminishes the value and richness of the experience a person is in when they are distracted with responding to and writing IMs as well as emails via blackberry , etc. So, even though people may report not spending less time with friends and family, the impact of electronic communication still has an effect. There seems to be a cultural norm of needing to respond immediately (or near immediately) to such communiations. There is danger of offending or appearing unresponsive if IM and email are left unresponded to for a period of time. This situation exists with telephone messages too of course, but becasue of the ease with which people can email or IM - the number of responses 'required' can be overwhelming and detrimental to the current experience.
The TV watching example is described as a ' no loss' trade off , however watching TV is often social. Regardless of the banality or greatness of the program being watched, it is often viewed along with family and friends who are experiencing this together, discussing, debating and enjoying the experience as a group or discussing it afterward at work or school.
That said, I do see the great value in email and IM and I highly value of creating new social networks - to allow new ways to meet up with and form groups that would have been difficult to find previously. This is a huge new communication boon that was not readily available before. Particularly networks that allow for finding people of like interests.
I expect that social norms for handling many forms of immediate communications will evolve. Ie: Who can you IM vs. write an email to ( allowing longer for response delay) What are appropriate hours to expect a response to business emails. Etc.
Benkler has proposed that the networking of society has affected social ties in two ways: there is a thickening of preexisting relations with friends, and the emergence of limited purpose, loose relationships. He states that both of these effects are in addition to physical relations, and that more time online does not necessarily mean less time in the real world with friends and family. I agree that the networking of society has opened numerous doors for an increase in distant relations such as video chatting with my mother, or staying in contact with my brother via Blackberry Messenger. However, I wonder to what extent increased networking can strengthen weaker, Internet based relations, or if they are to remain unchanged in their current state. Weaker, Internet relationships are normally founded around common interests or activities, and are seen to be weak or low-risk because if it does not work out you can simply log off. Yet, Benkler mentioned that people who were avid Internet users recognized three times as many of their neighbors by name and talked with twice as many of them as non-internet users. Although this just means that more people say hello to each other, I am wondering if the internet can be used to go beyond these initial relations and strengthen the physical community. I think this is what we are trying to accomplish with the Boston Area Social Network, to build an Internet community that provides the information and motivation to go out and actually do something. It seems that on a local level if we could figure out how to go beyond loose, limited purpose relations, and urge users towards physical interaction then this could bring a change in how networking is perceived to affect relations.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Cathy's comment about the growth of video chatting as a means of communication, I definitely agree that this example most directly contradicts theories about the internet's role in relationships. So much of the added value of face-to-face interaction comes from facial expression and vocal inflection, two things that video chatting is able to provide. This technology poses a threat to the belief that face-to-face interaction is still the most valuable form of communication.
ReplyDeleteWhile the element of touch (in the form of a handshake or a hug) is still lost when video chatting is used, video communication is already being widely used by businesses and individuals across the country. This poses the question of how the conglomeration of people will change as a result of technology. If proximity to family or coworkers becomes less important, will cities with high volumes of people still be necessary? The ever-evolving state of technology to become more human-like is constantly changing how our world behaves.
I found Benkler's example of Netville in Canada to be very interesting and very applicable in the current world of social networking. He discusses how it was found that the internet increased the number of loose ties that the residents made but did not help in building stronger bonds that prompted residents to stop by and visit one another.
For college students that use Facebook or other social networking sites this is quite similar to what they experience. People who have many many friends on Facebook are not always the ones who have the most people to hang out with. Facebook enables us to make connections without necessarily giving users the drive to foster friendships. There is no longer a need to make phone calls or go visit someone, and as a result students may not be making as many friendships.
I agree with Benkler that the Internet plays a valuable role in ones social network, but I do not see the equivalency in an Internet connection and a personal connection. The Internet allows for social connection with a broader group of people but often at the cost of quality. Facebook has made it so I can keep in touch with many friends from high school superficially. I know they are going to this school, they are dating this person, but do I really know how they are doing or how they are feeling? If I add up the sum of these friendships I do not believe they are equivalent to a “traditional” friendship. If I was locked in a room with no human interaction a computer would not suffice, we are biologically programmed to crave physical interaction. Although a computer would be much better than no communication device, I guess it is a question of the extent to which it can fill a physical void.
ReplyDeleteBenkler also argues the Internet is an advantage in keeping in touch with friends because the inconvenience of planning for a time to talk is removed. Sometimes the investment in communication can be a good thing, a first step that psychologically binds me with the thought that their friendship must be worth something if I am taking the time and energy to keep it. I may not feel as invested in or connected with someone without this effort. I find it surprising these distant social relationships do not create alienation as reported in the article. While they may add no harm, there are far better ways to leverage the power of superficial Internet relationships which is why I am excited to learn more about the program.