Peter Yen
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

Arguing for the affirmative.

1) Social, geographical, and other factors are negated because of the anonymous nature of the internet. These can be excluding factors for relationships created in the supposed “real world.” The internet, as a medium, equalizes people in this sense and allows for freer communication.

2) People tend to portray themselves relatively accurately via the internet. For this reason, people who are compatible for friendship/relationships/communities can be joined either in person or on the internet.

3) Due to the nature of trust, it is not necessary that both parties be fully honest. Trust in this sense is experienced only by the individual who senses that he can disclose freely and that others are disclosing freely as well. However, in many cases, mutual trust exists through mutual honest disclosure.

4) We could ask is meeting in person the only means by which a trusting relationship can be created? Why should telephone communication, skyping, or letter writing be considered valid for creating relationships while chat messaging isn’t?

Counterargument 1) The opposition could potentially argue that the anonymity enjoyed by internet users could potentially be used for all sorts of trouble ranging from mischief to serious crimes. However, these arguments are simply matters of regulation and do not pertain to the internet’s ability to host communities.

Both Birkerts and Carter evaluate the quality of friendships online, especially in online communities, in order to understand the the way the internet is fundamentally changing our social schema. The two have different conclusions about the quality of friendship and whether  the change is necessarily a bad one. Birkerts is more inclined to believe that the space-less nature of the internet will lead to increased social isolation. As long as these friendships are considered legitimate and satisfactory, Birkerts predicts a morbid future where our basic inclinations towards face-to-face contact the “real thing,” will dissipate or even disappear. Carter is more optimistic about online relationships. His evidence shows relationships are frequently as meaningful or sometimes more meaningful to the individuals than are ones in real life. The reason is the equalizing power of the internet which allows for like-minded individuals to connect without social, economic, or geographical barriers.

The conflicting conclusions about online relationships highlight the controversial nature of the internet. This is especially important to our class because it pertains to the essential qualities which make the internet so interesting: pluralism, equality, and freedom. These qualities can facilitate friendship and human connection as Carter suggests, while it could also have very negative, even frightening, consequences such as disconnection from human life or absorption in the internet. The implications of online friendship, especially as an acceptable ‘second best’ are huge when predicting the direction of social encounters. Should these relationships be accepted as legitimate and as fulfilling as those in real life, our social structure could very rapidly morph as geographic barriers are entirely removed. This process may be accelerated by new technologies which are designed to further replicate human experience on the internet. Perhaps technology should not be seen as pointing towards “true north” as Birkerts might suggest.

“Defining technological revolution of our lifetime”

“Opened up new realms of knowledge”

“…generation of internet addicts”

Cool music when they show the internet connection map

Internet as rebellion:

-social misfits

-leveled playing field for access to information and ability to communicate

-libertarians

Web as creation device:

Wikipedia- Global device for information

Comes from the people

Emerges from the middle classes not the elite

This idea plays into our desire as internet users to be powerful and to make a difference or contribute our opinions. It is the same reason people blog/video blog

Countercultural dream:

Started in 60’s-

Cheaper computers began being produced which allowed individuals to share opinion and link themselves in

The Well used internet as a forum for “intelligent misfits”

Internet was seen as a way to have limitless self-expression and to rebel against authority and government in a place where all were equal. Able to hear all voices.

Internet is different than Web. Web links computers, data, and websites within the context of the internet. Web provided a method of connecting computers to all sort of information without a social hierarchy.  The fact that he gave it out for free was not only noble, but essential to the function and purpose.

Microsoft as monopoly:

Improved efficiency

Unified web users

Laid foundation for all other online business.

Napster demonstrates the first instances of internet crimes. Anonymous nature of internet make people think that internet crimes are less serious.

Youtube tries to provide opportunity for normal users to add content so that government is not regulating content or access.

Internet regulations have began to emerge and regulate user content. This goes against the original spirit of the internet to have “no limits”

I knew I recognized the documentary narrator from somewhere…

d

Witte and Mannon see the way in which the internet was developed as holding the key to understanding the social inequalities made clear by its use or lack thereof. The internet can trace its beginning back 40 years to college students and scientists trying to build a decentralized network that would not be powered off in the event of war. After that it developed as a means of storing and accessing information for scientists mainly. It was not until the user-friendly web browsers emerged that personal computers began using the internet. Since then, the so called “Web2.0″ exists which makes the web-browsing experience highly accessible to the public. Until then, only skilled programmers or scientists lacked the requisite abilities to navigate the not-so-intuitive internet. This new platform for web-browsing made way for eCommerce and a whole new way to look at the economy.

During this time, the concept of the digital divide was brought to the fore. The initial divide was created between people with access to the internet and people who without access. Henceforth, this divide has become less simple, especially on the side of people with access. After all, there are varying degrees of connectivity and access. Witte and Mannon believe that the internet is not responsible for creating these divides. Instead, they say, this new platform has made pre-existing socio-economic inequalities more apparent. The economic shortcomings are now reflected through the inability of this class of people to keep up with technological advances.

This view of the internet is especially important for our class for a number of reasons. First and foremost, these digital divides do exist today despite the increased availability of computers and thus the increased availability to access the internet. This can be attributed to the fact that more and more of daily life and the operations carried out within it are relegated to the internet. Thus, non-users or those with limited access are continually falling farther and farther behind the general mass of middle-class users. This is a clear form of social exclusion as Witte and Mannon state. From there, we may ask: Who is included in the network society?

Within the group of users with access to the internet, there is a massive variety of ability level and comprehension of the internet. The enormous volume of information available on the internet is especially difficult to navigate for a particular group of people, which can form another social barrier. What good is a tool to you, if you do not know how to use it properly? This idea provokes people to try and follow new updates and new technologies as closely as possible so as not to fall behind the “curve.” This self-enforced policy of dependence on and veneration of the internet and related technology relates to many other overarching themes in the class such as dependence on the internet, changing social interaction, and social polarization/exclusion.

Castells’ point in writing this piece was to describe the nature and structure of the “network society,” in which we he believes we live. He focuses on 3 key events which he believes birthed this change: the Information Technology Revolution, restructuring of capitalism, and cultural social movements including feminism and ecologism. To prove his points he provides 9 theses for which he offers evidence in support:

1. Informational Economy
He asserts that the nature of our economy has shifted even from a service based economy to a predominately informational one where knowledge is both the driving factor and the greatest tool for business.
2. Global Economy
He distinguishes this from the “world economy,” by pointing out that the speed and capacity for nearly instant information transfer has allowed the globe to become interconnected and thus operating as one growing evolving consciousness operating in real time.
3. Network Enterprise
Here, reductions in transportation costs and internal decentralization permit the grinding work in business to be performed outside the context of the “office” paradigm.
4. Concept of Flexi-Workers
The changes described in the undertaking of capitalism require a specialized, individualized, in a sense, workforce. This workforce works to complete a project rather than build a business.
5. Social polarization
The focus on technology and its ability to connect parts of the world and diffuse information is taken with a grain of salt by Castells; he believes that this new focus has forced those unable to keep up into a type of economic “black hole,” from which there is little to no escape.
6. Culture of Real Virtuality
To Castells, the same patterns in networking pervading the economic sphere spills over quite seamlessly into the cultural one. Human interaction is perpetually defined and redefined by the waves of new technology improving (or degrading) the nature of such interaction.
7. Politics
Castells has astutely perceived the tendency of politics towards mass-media deformation of other candidates. The media becomes, then, a powerful tool which is frequently used to attain power or to keep it.
8. Timeless Time
His main point here is to demonstrate how the sequencing of events in chronology has been influenced and obscured by the ability to control the biological forces of time.
9. Space of Flows
He concludes with this idea where importance of space is superseded by flows which are derived. Castells believes this is a major source of social domination because less technological advances area are by and large ignored due to their lack of flows.

I believe the shift to an Information Age requires a top-down change. Technology, namely that for purposes of information, is the essential thing required for such a shift. Developments in this new brand of technology are supported and eagerly awaited in the corporate world because of its ability to organize and relay information in a strictly inhuman capacity. For this very reason, computers were extraordinarily expensive and precious before they were publically and widely disseminated. This top-down shift towards a reliance on technology is very clear given patterns in commercial purposes. Today, as compared with 15 years, sees a greater availability of previously exclusive technology. For example, cell use has massively increased, GPS devices which used to cost upwards of $2,000 near their beginnings are now sold at Walmart and the likes for 1/20 of that price.
The nature of this top-down revolution, initially at least, excludes those operating towards the “down” part of the spectrum. However, I believe that the “stepped-up inequality, polarization, and social exclusion,” produced by this reality are becoming less significant as technology becomes cheaper, more advanced, and more greatly distributed.

Side A opening: “These modern countries control the world…” How? Through economic means? Political?

Side B opening: Conspicuous consumption,

Some things still cannot be replaced by tech.

What about the overarching inequalities of power between highly technological advanced nations and those which have less technology. Are the physical resource endowments less and less significant as technology progresses?

Side A Argument: Very good example of the stock market. However, the example given of the recession did not mention the fact that the crisis was rooted in the housing market. The housing market is an extremely lucrative and influencing factor in our economy which is invariably a physical good.

Everquest example: The money which is circulated in the game comes, generally, from nations whose standards of living permit its citizens to participate in these technologically driven forms of recreation. As such, it is indicative of the empirically observable correlation between technological progress and economic progress.

Side B Argument:
Counter to stock market example: Did not mention that GDP is the total amount of goods AND SERVICES produced by a nation in a given year. This point bolsters the other side in that the service component of GDP has been rising proportional to goods produced.

Examples given such as live performances: These are luxury good which maybe increase “cultural capital” but have little to no bearing on economic and political power as is addressed in the quote.

I believe that we are very much so an “information society.” However, there is a notable portion of the population which I would consider as not taking part in this social movement. Among these people are the elderly and the impoverished.

As is empirically shown through history, economic forces compel social action. By extension, fundamental changes in the economic structure are not only a precursor but also a driving factor in the realm of social change. Our economy has fully switched to a service based economy which holds the same values of old like efficiency and maximization, yet does so using a new forum: the internet. The advent of the internet is pivotal in the economic changes in our society and therefore the more recent signs of social change.

At this point, one must consider how we define the information society. Must everyone in the US be in this new society? The answer is quite clearly no. There are also exceptions because no social movement has unanimous support or participation. The industrial revolution did not require that everybody in the country be employed, namely in a manufacturing industry; such changes merely require structural changes and popular acceptance of those changes. In this case, both the impoverished and the elderly operate their lives, for the most part, outside the context of this new information society. It is the younger generation and the working generation(s) which are in its midst. These groups are the greatest indicators of the new social schema. Their reliance on technology, the fundamental economic changes, and the changing nature of social interactions are all very clear indicators of this societal change.

In Webster 7-8 Bell and Kumar discuss the development of the United States from the years of its fledgling economy until its full birth into a post-industrial society which provides services at the heart of its economy.

Bell gives much anthropological evidence and statistics related to the growth of the development of our society. The most informative of which were the numbers related to the internal structure of the workforce. He showed that as industrialization and post industrialization occurred, the ratio of service providing workers to manufacturers was skewed, balanced, and finally skewed again in favor the service providers. This is largely due to advances in technology which at first demanded a great deal of expertise to develop and to use. However, technology, and especially computers, have been demystified to the common man and are accessible to everyone albeit at different levels of understanding. This has opened the door to entry level, unskilled service positions to be created. This is a departure from Kumar’s predictions about the advances in technology requiring the average individual to gain the substantial knowledge required to understand technology in of itself. Quite obviously advances in technology and higher education go hand in hand, but perhaps these opportunities are not afforded to every individual. In this sense, there may be a stratification in the work force caused by new technology: those who build, create, and design versus those who simply carry out operations made simple by the designers. Furthermore, these “semi-skilled workers,” described by Kumar are often not even domestic. The price of labor is much lower in less developed nations, and therefore much of this work is outsourced to keep cost down. This causes even more woes in the domestic labor market of a post-industrial society in terms of availability of blue-collar workers. Regrettably, those who laid the foundation for a post-industrial society through hard labor are unable to reap its benefits.