Edward Googins
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

“The time has come where the distinction between online and offline is not one between ‘fantasy’ and ‘real’ lives.  Rather, one can have just as meaningful relationships through online communities as offline based communities.  Cyberspace can not only provide solid, trusting communities, but ones which are not constrained by geography.”

I will be arguing against this proposition.

Four arguments against the proposition:

1.) Cyber-communities are hard to trust, if trust can be placed in them at all.  People on the internet are not who they are in real life.  Some one who is typically shy could be DragonBlade875 on youtube who gets in a heated fight over who is at fault in the video “AC TRANSIT BUS FIGHT I AM A MOTHERFUCKER.”  The even worse scenario is that some one you meet online is some sort of predator.  The bottom line is that know matter what you think, you just don’t know who it is you’re talking to when your online unless you have met them in person.

2.)Cyber-communities lack regulation and in that way are also dangerous.  For example, Second Life is some peoples major source of income.  If one was so inclined it would be easy to break buildings, vandalize, etc.  Someone  that owns a virtual store in Second Life could lose a significant amount of their income if something happened to their store.  However, unlike the real world where someone would be subject to punishment due to the law, the lack of regulations could mean that such a crime could go unpunished.

3.)”One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues. Another study indicated that the impact of a performance was determined 7 percent by the words used, 38 percent by voice quality, and 55 percent by the nonverbal communication”(about.com).  The thought that when we communicate over the internet we are losing 93% of the message that would have been sent if we were talking is astonishing.  If online communities become more prevalent then we are actually accomplishing the opposite of our goal of “solid, trusting communities.”   In actuality, the community could be growing apart as this supposedly open community is actually suffering problems with communication.

4.)I do not mean to imply that online communities can not be rewarding.  As I said in an earlier blog posts, I feel that the more you put into a virtual community, the more you get out of it.  However, be fore fully immersing yourself in this virtual reality, it is important to note number one, what you are putting your time into, and number two, where this time is coming from.  As I have said above cyber-communities can be filled with dangers due to their lack of regulation and how difficult it is really know who you are talking too and what their motives are.  Also, it is important to remember the opportunity cost of virtual communities. The more time and effort you put into knowing people online, the less time you have to meet people in real life.

Potential Counter-Argument

Online people are not judged on their looks and are able to make meaningful connections without the risk of being judged based on their appearance.  I would respond that for people who are paranoid or extremely self conscious they may find this to be a better alternative than risk being judged, but it is important to remember the cost of such a choice.  Online relationships lack any kind of physical connection and it is this physical connection that cyber-communities greatly underestimate.  There is a reason that people shake hands when they meet each other and hug when they say goodbye.  That reason is the physical connection we all experience but underestimate.  Its like your health.  You truly don’t appreciate it until you are sick.  No matter what people say, we all want to hold hands, hug, or shake hands.  Physical contact is a way we remind ourselves that we are not alone.

For anyone who wants to see the full clip, welcome to the future…

I found the part of Birkerts article about Lambda MOO the most interesting part of the reading.  That section seemed a bit extreme to me for some reason.  I was taken aback by how different it was from social networking websites like facebook which are primarily used to maintain or strengthen preexisting relationships.  Rarely do people use facebook to meet more people online.  I have always been taught not to believe anything online unless you know its real.  It took me a very long time to trust websites like Amazon with my money, and even then I limit them considerably.  All purchases from amazon are made with gift cards I purchase in stores, same with iTunes.  No computer has ever received my debit card information with the exception of my actual bank, bank of america.  For me, there is such a jump with communities like Lambda MOO in that there is a lot more trust being given to computers.

There is also the big difference with the amount of time that people in communities like Lambda MOO are giving to computers, as well as how they are using that time.  I am for all intents and purposes a geek, nerd, whatever you want to call me.  I love math, science, and computers.  I am on the robocup team, have been programming for over three years, and use my laptops virtual world to keep track of my real one.  My computer is out more than it is not in my waking hours.  Time wise, I would be suprised if F is on her computer more than me. The difference is that when her computer is on, she is ON the computer.  She is actively participating in Lambda MOO.  She is building relationships and has “saved” herself.  My computer is used to enhance my life.  It plays music while I’m with friends.  It gives me up to date information on my activities so I know what my schedule will be like for the day.  It helps me type my homework, it helps me find information, and it helps me learn how to play the guitar.  The difference between F and myself is that the computer IS F’s life whereas my computer enhances my life.

It is because of this that I do not consider F truly saved.  I understand that she is happier.  I understand that she is more active on a computer than she would be watching TV, but Carters claim that “You actually get to know someone inside, without being judged on appearance” I found hard to believe.  I may be the strange one here, and maybe I’ll jump on the bandwagon in the near future, but people are not who they are in person the people that they are online.  The internet takes away inhibitions in a way that I would compare to alcohol.  Some people would say that is a good thing, that as a community we need to be more open and inviting.  I would argue we have those inhibitions for a reason.  We need a way to filter the people we do and do not trust.  As much as it hurts to admit it, there are bad people out there.  The few bad people out there are responsible for our societies need to be careful, but it is a trait we must keep lest we risk exposing ourselves to the imminent dangers of the world.  Until F can use her computer to get back out in the real world and socialize with people rather than their virtual selves, I won’t consider her healed.  This brings us back to our class’s first reading, The Machine Stops.  Can technology allow us to form and maintain meaningful relationships?  For me the answer is, and will remain, no.

Interesting quotes-

“Its like the internet has become a brain.”

“The web allows anyone to publish or distribute… virtually for free.”  They said that the web supercharges information, just as steam supercharged industry.  Can we really say that.  How is the internet supercharging information?  I see the internet as relocating information, making what was already out there available to more people.  In that way the web is exposing everyone connected to more and more information.  And as more people go online, the faster the information spreads.  Another key point is that sites like wikipedia allow information to spread from the bottom up.  Information is no longer handed to us by scholarly research, instead the majority rules.

Bill Gates saw the internet as a business opportunity rather than an opportunity for global equality.  He seems kind of like a jerk compared to people like Tim Berners-Lee…  Internet is a place for information to be shared, hippy kind of deal according to many people in the 80′s and early 90′s while Bill Gates was concerned about how its developers make a profit.

Talking about wikipedia, Jimmy Whales seemed to be scared about the term ‘elite’ which I found entertaining.  He doesn’t want people to recognize the power he has.  He doesn’t want to be recognized as an elite.  In a way, he appeared scared.

This weeks reading by Witte discussed the ” Digital Divide” that Witte himself has been researching heavily for much of his career.  In the reading, Witte says,” it’s easy to see why the Internet might be celebrated for bringing about a social transformation in American.  But has the Internet really brought about such a profound transformation?  Even in the early days of the Internet, many suspected that information technology was mirroring rather than transforming social divides in the United States.”  Witte claims that just as there have been “racial divides,” there will by digital divides as technology such as the internet becomes more and more ingrained in our societies lifestyle.

Witte sites many examples and gives many believable scenarios to back his ideas up.  One main point of his that I found especially interesting was his discussion on how the “digital divide” could no longer be defined by access to the Internet.  Instead, the digital divide no refers to the quality of access that individuals have.  An example he gives is that anyone with Internet access can search for a how to video, but unless the connection is fast and reliable that person is not benefiting from the Internet as much as a typical user would.

Another point of Witte’s that I found interesting was that users determine what information is on the Internet.  If the typical Internet user is middle class, than going to a website such as WebMD to get medical information will be easier for you.  Featured articles will be common issues among the middle class.  Topics such as lead poisoning will have less information available for them since it is more of a concern for people with lower incomes, and therefore less trafficked on the Internet since the main group that is concerned is unable to use the Internet as often or as well.  It was fascinating to think that the reason google is able to guess my searches so well is only because there are hundreds of thousands of people out there searching the same things as me.  If I type in red, google can guess I’m searching red box.  If I type golden r, google finishes the word retriever.  Its remarkable to realize how normal I am.

This weeks reading’s were interesting and informative articles on our societies integration with networks.  This integration has been present for thousands of years, but the importance of networks continues to increase as technology continues to connect us all.  As Barabasi drew attention too, networks have been around us ever since civilizations were connected.  In the broadest sense, a network is any group of objects connected by another object.   A network thousands of years ago was simply people connected by friendships.  Now a social network is people connected by machines, and this connection is getting bigger and better all the time.  As computers become more prevalent, social networks are growing in size and making it easier for people worldwide to be connected.  However, despite all this new technology, the basic principles of networks remains the same.  It is these principles that made Paul and MafiaBoy successful.  Despite the huge time difference, Paul and MafiaBoy both drew from the fact that, “everything touches everything.”

Now, that doesn’t mean that everybody knows everyone else, it means that their exists a path along almost any network from one object to another.  How long is the average path?  With humans, it appears that only 6 people separate anyone from anyone else thanks to Milgrams study.  As was said in Guare’s play, “I am bound to everyone on this planet by a trail of six people.  Its a profound thought.”  It really is amazing to think about how connected we all are, how small a world it really is.

But now onto Chapter 10.  Castelles spends much time discussing the information economy.  He stresses the differences between an information economy and a service economy, claiming that a service economy can still include the typical, burger-flipping, pizza delivering jobs we are moving away from.  The distinction is that in the information society, knowledge is the important factor.  This is similar to Bells idea of the transition from the blue collar, labor intensive career paths to the white collar workers.  While people have been assisted by machines for labor intensive jobs, soon they will be replaced.  Furthermore, Castelles says that the information economy has more potential to be exclusionary than the industrial age that preceded it.  There is more of a gap between countries that produce and this new information economy than was present with industrial economies.  This leads me to another key point of his, the idea of a fourth world country.  These fourth world countries are areas separated from, what Castelle called, the global economy.

It is important to point out the distinction here between a global economy and a world economy.  Why is it so important?  Because Castelle thinks it is.  World economies exist with trade and communication.  Global economies exist with instantaneous communication, to the extent that individual jobs in America could be determined by individual jobs in other countries, rather than the gradual trends we are used to in a world economy.  Back to fourth world countries, what happens to the communities that are isolated and excluded from this new economy?  Besides the new category, these areas seem trapped and doomed to fall of our worlds radar.

The final point of Castelles that I would like to highlight is his notion of time.  He claims that time isn’t just being accelerated.  In our worlds continual search for efficiency time is being in a sense, eliminated.  There is no longer an order based on the time of day, there are simple instructions or protocols that are constantly followed.  There is now, “timeless time.”  Castelles claims that capitalism is eliminating the barriers of time  to create a more efficient work place which begs the question, how efficient is too efficient?

The Proposition is as follows…

“The central event of the 20th century is the overthrow of matter. In technology, economics, and the politics of nations, wealth–in the form of physical resources–has been losing value and significance. The powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over the brute force of things.”

—Dyson, Gilder, Keyworth, and Toeffler—

My Opinion:  I will debating that that proposition is FALSE… Here’s why

Number 1

That key phrase that sticks out to me in the above proposition is “technology… in the form of physical resources–has been losing value and significance.”  My response is that technology itself is a physical resource.  Sure, software is becoming better everyday, but software must run on hardware or it is useful to nobody, and hardware I would argue is a physical resource.  It doesn’t matter that you own Windows 7 if you have no computer to run it on.  A virtual world must be created by something.  Technology will always be dependent on physical resources

Number 2

Just as software is dependent on hardware, hardware is dependent on us.  Without people to fix machines, there are no machines

Number 3

The statement “The powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over the brute force of things” is also incorrect.  This statement implies that it is more important to know “things” than have “things.”  This is false.  If we are truly a post-industrial society, then we have become a society focused on service.  But we are only allowed that privilege because we can count on other countries to manufacture our goods.  If we were to no longer trade and continue as a service focused industry then we would all die.  No matter how sophisticated our society becomes, we will always be dependent on the three basic human needs.  Clothing, food, and shelter.

Number 4

As my teammate David so elegantly said, knowing how to play baseball is one thing.  You still need a glove, ball, and bat to play.

Potential Counter-Argument

The age of technology is taking over the world.  Notes can be written, books can be read, and television can be watched all on our computer.  What would have previously taken three or four “things” now only takes “one.”  It is not that the technology age is independent of objects, its that the technology age is more efficient, and in that way more powerful.

Response

I agree. Knowledge makes objects more powerful.  But that is not the question.  The proposition says that “the powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over… things.”  False.  The powers of mind can do no more than enhance.

As our society changes from the industrial society of the past, the question is brought up about when we will truly be in the information society.  What defines an information society, and at what point will we belong.  To answer, we must first think about where we are.  We live in a day and age where any information we could possibly want is a click, tap, or phone call away.  Information is handed to us by websites such as google rather than found and earned by the people who truly want it.  Our society revolves around quickly and efficiently learning what we want to learn, but is that truly an information society?  I think that we are there.  When we reach a point in society where information is mass produced and has become the trade of the era we have achieved  the information society.  You don’t have to interact with technology to become a part of our society.  You are forced into it.

In chapter 7 of Webster’s The Information Society Reader, Webster goes into great detail describing the difference between an Industrial Society and a Post Industrial Society.  Webster claims that in an industrial society, the society is focused on producing goods.  These goods are created by a combination of machinery and semi-skilled workers who assemble different products.  Webster believes that these systems, which are designed by engineers will become more and more streamlined until eventually goods will be assembled and produced exclusively by the machine and semi skilled workers will be rendered obsolete.  Webster says “Skills are broken down into simpler components, and the artisan of the past is replaced by two new figures-the engineer, who is responsible for the layout and flow of work, and the semi-skilled worker, the human cog between machines – until the technical ingenuity of the engineer creates a new machine which replaces him as well.”  In this way the machine will come to dominate Industrial Societies.

Webster describes a Post-Industrial Society as being fundamentally different in that they are based on service rather than product.  He describes it as follows.  “If an industrial society is defined by the quantity of goods as marking a standard of living, the post-industrial society is defined by the quality of life as measured by the services  and amenities – health, education, recreation, and the arts – which are now deemed desirable and possible for everyone.”  Upon reading this, my immediate question was what are the services that a post-industrial society would provide.  Luckily, Webster clarifies.  He categorizes services as auxiliary services which involves transportation, and the movement of products, mass consumption, which is the distribution, finance, real estate, insurance, etc., and personal services such as restaurants, hotels, etc.  Chapter 7 was dedicated to Webster’s vision of the next big economic shift and how that would change societies.

One of the bigger things Webster said would change with a Post-Industrial Society is a shift from blue collar workers to white collar workers.  I feel that this is an interesting and well supported point that is not well publicized.  One quote I found especially interesting was “Since 1920, the white-collar group has been the fastest-growing occupational group in the society, and this will continue.  In 1956, for the first time, this group surpassed the employment of blue-collar workers.  By 1980 the ratio will be about 5:3 in favor of the white-collar workers.”  I had never realized how prevalent white collar jobs had become in the US,  and it was interesting to get some data that showed the definite shift that the United States was experiencing.  I would like to point out one of Webster’s later points about how the principles of Marxism are changing as the proletariat and bourgeoisie change.  As blue collar workers disappear form America’s social system, the working class begins to approach equality.  The barrier between the exploited and the exploiting is fading as a countries entire social system begins to focus on optimizing and managing resources such as time and labor.