In reading “The Exploit” by Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker this week, I was prompted to look at the way the current state of the internet allows one to communicate their true selves. The book is a study of the effect of networks on communication and the internet is the network that takes a leading role in a lot of the arguments in the book. I would like to examine the effect of the internet on interpersonal relations as t relates to our interpersonal network.
“The exception is that one is either online or not. There is little room for “kind of” or “sort of” online. Network status doesn’t allow for technical ambiguity, only a selection box of discrete states” (126).
The social nuance we all take into account when meeting a new person and giving the presentation we deem appropriate cannot be provided for in online communication.
According to Carole Wade and Carol Tavris’ textbook “Psychology,” body language is an integral part of communication between persons. We use body language (different in most every culture) to judge is people are being sincere. According to “Psychology”, “When people are talking to each other, a mismatch of body languages will make a conversation fell ‘out of sync’; they may feel as confused and emotionally upset as if they had had a verbal misunderstanding. In contrast, when people’s gestures and body language are in synchrony, they feel greater rapport and emotional harmony” (415). We cannot account for the vital part of communication in an online forum, unless we are communicating via live. Streaming video, and even then, insincerity plays a major role.
“It is frustrating, ambiguity is, especially from a technical point of view. It works or it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t, it should be debugged or replaced. To be online in a chronically ambiguous state is maddening, both for those communicating and for the service provider. The advent of broadband connectivity only exacerbates the problem, as expectations for uninterrupted uptime become more and more inflexible. One way to fix the ambiguity is to be “always on.” Even when asleep, in the bathroom, or unconscious, all official discourses of the Web demand that one is either online and accounted for, or offline and still accounted for” (126).
Of course, the rigor necessary for an accurate display of persona online in entirely unrealistic. I would be surprised if I was able to update the different venues of personal advertisement I ascribe to (such as my blog, Facebook or Twitter) more than once a week. Unless you have spent a moderate amount of time with the in-person Rebecca Case, you are unlikely to grasp any real idea of who I am. The interesting thing is, however, who’s to say the representation of myself any one person has seen is anything close to accurate?
In terms of web demand, “The Exploit,” describe it this way:
“Search engines are the best indicator of this demand. Bots run day and night, a swarm of surveillance drones, calling role in every hidden corner of the web. All are accounted for, even those who record few user hits. Even as the Web disappears, the networks still multiply (text messaging, multiplayer online games, and so on). The body becomes a medium of perpetual locatability, a roving panoply of tissues, organs, and cells orbited by personal network devices” (127).
We are to conclude that even if we are not reached through the Internet directly, there are many networks that still link us to the world. I would argue, however, that no matter the venue, there is no means of communication, even direct eye-to-eye communication that can truly relate who we really are to the other individual. One can argue that, the best way of expanding our personal network in a genuine way is through direct physical interaction.
Their discussion about not being “sort of” online or offline reminded me of what my mother used to say to my brother and me when we would play inside and outside the house. She’d say, “Play either inside or outside: pick one.” Being offline was related to their discussion about hiding or non-existing, which is hard to do, both offline and online.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that Galloway and Thacker commented on the Web disappearing (127). I feel like, if anything, it is getting bigger! With all of the different ways that we an now get on: smart phones, netbooks, wifi, etc. isn't the web growing, not shrinking? Unless you are talking about the small world effect.
ReplyDeleteI think that this discussion of physical versus online communication seems to come up often - like we discussed in weeks past; people seem to try separate the two when they really could be seen as two things that can work together to strengthen someone's network. Like we found with Boyd's dissertation, teens use these networks to accentuate their personal lives - not replace them.
ReplyDelete