Class Acts

Let us explore one of the political implications of all this, namely, community groups. The internet is not the first institution to be accused of bringing out and reinforcing dreadfully individualistic tendencies. American democracy itself has always been seen as a rather unfortunate feeder of over-individualism, as well as tyranny of the majority (although checks and balances have served us fairly well on that front). Does the internet only ingrain these problems, or can it offer a way to solve or at least bypass them? According to the almighty Wikipedia, Tocqueville thought that association, the coming together of people for common purpose, would bind Americans to an idea of nation larger than selfish desires, thus making a civil society which wasn’t exclusively dependent on the state.

Wellman points out ways in which networked individualism can help at least some sociopolitical problems: “At times, the Internet’s lack of communicative richness can foster contact with more diverse others. The lack of social and physical cues on-line makes it difficult to find out if another online community member has similar social characteristics or attractive physical characteristics. Asynchronous communication gives participants more control over the timing and content of their self-disclosures. This allows specialized relationships to develop from shared interests rather than be stunted at the onset by differences in social status. This focus on shared interests rather than on similar characteristics can be especially empowering for members of lower-status and disenfranchised groups.” For my part, I see the internet as being more shaped by our “selfish desires” than ameliorating them. However, it is one of the most important institutions that is both unusually free from the controls of the government and is a thriving civil society thriving because of it.

While Wellman argues that the current Glocalization is giving way to a global, information-based Networked Individualism, I am not convinced that “meatspace” is becoming obsolete. Instead, I see that while mobile technology is indeed allowing for a nonspatial social scene, people are quickly finding new ways to link previously detatched information to locations. These locations are not always local, so it is still a sign of increased globalization; but I think that the still-recent lack of adequate mapping technology gave a false sense, for a while, that people no longer cared about place.

One fascinating local tool is a Google Maps application called the Gmaps Pedometer. You can trace a jogging or biking route on the map, and it will calculate cumulative mileage, calories burned, and even when to take rests. This popular new application is intensely local and spatial, when used for the intended purpose, and requires more physical activity than most of us are comfortable with. A shocking departure from pure bytes, indeed. Sites like Freecycle and Craigslist rely on location to organize transactions, though it’s true that such deals are more interest-related and less face-to-face activities than walking into a store or going jogging. Google Maps mashups are existent or certainly forthcoming for Freecycle, Craigslist, Ebay, etc, further allowing for a more visual and spatial organization of location data.

On the global side, map mashups are quicky proliferating as a tool for awareness, journalism, and political lobbying. The Tunisian Prison Map was somewhat of a landmark in political mashup history (as recent as it has been!). Another interesting case is Greenpeace France’s Genetically Engineered Corn Google Maps mashup. After the French Government banned the mashup, Greenpeace France created crop circle symbols to mark the sites in real life. The interplay between online and offline information is becoming more graceful, more common, more suited to the needs of the people, and more easily authored by laymen. Map mashups are, after all, a Web 2.0 phenomenon.

One final example is Facebook. Facebook is often touted as a superior social networking application to Myspace and others because it has different kinds and levels of networks within it, and privacy controls for each. A user can belong to up to five networks, though most only belong to one or two. Networks are available for colleges, high schools, companies, and regions. Events, groups, and other tools can be specified as pertaining to specific networks. People are eagerly rushing to define themselves not just by their interests, but by their geographical communities and the things they see every day in the real world. This is another sign that while people are becoming less dependent on location in order to communicate, one important aspect of themselves as a person that they want to communicate is location. This seemingly enduring importance of physical and spatial identity in the human psyche should be reassuring to those who, like me, need to be reminded that they are not defined solely by their online presence.

Next (or soon thereafter): what is an “online presence” anyway?

This post will describe some themes brought up by Barry Wellman, a professor at the University of Toronto, in his essay “Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism.” Following posts will examine some issues raised by the article.

Wellman presents three models of social and work community interaction. Little boxes is a model that describes traditional, face-to-face, spatially-dependent modes of communication and interaction. Examples include office meetings, block parties, and neighborhood homeowners’ associations.

Glocalization is what Wellman terms the contemporary hybridization and intersection of spatial and nonspatial networks. Even use of the internet has a spatial component to it, since most people use the internet from a computer they keep at home, school, or the office. When you instant message someone, you can expect them to be at one of these places; even their away message might specify where they are. Wired phones are another example of place-to-place communication.

Networked Individualism is, as Wellman describes it, the resultant and emerging nonspatial extreme. This is true person-to-person contact according to Wellman, which brings up the question of what a person really is. Certainly this kind of ‘person’al interaction is free of many potential biases and distractions, such as appearance, accent, or social standing, that are to some degree peripheral to what a person really feels represents himself. Mobile technology as well as increasing personal travel and mobility is stripping our identities of their roots in places, and emphasizing our identities as we choose to express them through an increasingly widening range of mobile media, though text content is still the predominant way of expressing oneself on the internet.

These three modes of communication are all relevant for the three kinds of online community that I talked about in my last post. Wellman’s are categories of those to whom we network, and the means of communication by which we do it; mine are categories of purposes for which we network, and the motivations and goals thereof.