Untitled - socium.ge
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Untitled - socium.ge

Untitled - socium.ge Untitled - socium.ge

socium.ge
10.07.2015 Views

Networked sociability online, off-line 219suggest that over the past thirty years there has been a significant decline ofcommunity in the form of what Robert Putnam (2000) calls “social capital.”In Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Putnamfinds that people are spending less time with friends, relatives, and neighbors;they are more cynical; and they are less likely to be involved in clubs and organizations.Putnam addresses numerous possible causes for this decline, includingsuburbanization, globalization, changing family structures, and financialand temporal pressures. Largely excluding these factors, Putnam focuses ontelevision as the largest factor that has contributed to a decline of social capital.Time devoted to watching television is said to come at the expense ofparticipation in other activities, primarily those that take place outside thehome (Putnam, 2000: 238). Indeed, there has been a decline in the number ofcommunity organizations and other “third places” that provide opportunitiesfor public interaction outside the domestic setting (Oldenburg, 1989). Peopleare increasingly likely to socialize in small groups in private homes rather thanwith large groups in public spaces (Wellman, 1992, 1999: 31–2).The decline is social capital observed by Putnam (2000) occurs too early tobe associated with home computing or Internet use. While the Internet sharesmany characteristics with television, it also shares characteristics with technologiesthat are less passive, like the telephone. However, even the telephonehas contributed to increased privatism. Claude Fischer (1975) argues that,although the telephone has allowed people to maintain a greater number ofsocial ties, it has also shifted communication out of public spaces and into thehome. The growth of mobile phones and wireless computing has broughtcomputer-mediated communication out of the home and onto the street, but itcan also be argued that, when engaging with mobile devices, people cut themselvesoff from public spaces by creating private spheres of mobile interaction.The fear of many pundits is that the Internet, mobile phones, and other formsof computer-mediated communication withdraw people from the public realm,exasperating the trend toward home centeredness and privatization observedby Putnam (2000).VIRTUAL COMMUNITY: HOPE FOR TOMORROW?The “virtual community” has done much to highlight the potential for communitiesto form beyond the confines of geographic space. Enthusiasts argue thatelectronic spaces, such as multi-user domains (i.e., MUDs, MOOs, andMUSHs) and graphical worlds (e.g., Sims Online and other MMORPGs),provide a new realm of public space (Mitchell, 1995), and there are seeminglyendless accounts of how cyberspace can facilitate the formation of newcommunities of interest (Calhoun, 1998). Some even suggest that there is an

220 Keith N. Hamptonerosion of the boundary between the “real and the virtual, the animate and theinanimate” (Turkle, 1997: 39).Yet, by most accounts, online communities have not become a dominantcomponent of most Internet users’ regular Internet experiences. Telephonesurveys of American Internet users, conducted by the Syntopia Project, foundthat in 1995, when 9 percent of the American population had access to theInternet (Taylor, 2000), only 25.5 percent of users reported being a member ofan online community. In 2000, when the proportion of Internet users hadgrown to 59 percent of the American population (Taylor, 2000), the proportionof users who were members of at least one online community had shrunk to10.4 percent. For the most part, it is only those who have used the Internet thelongest and those who are the most technologically savvy, who regularlyparticipate in online communities (Katz and Rice, 2002: 245–6). With such asmall proportion of Internet users participating in the virtual agora, what canwe say of the utopian promise that electronic spaces will substitute for the lossof public places in the Cartesian plain?As with earlier concerns about the urban environment and loss of community,looking for community in only one place at one time (be it in neighborhoodsor in cyberspace) is an inadequate means of revealing supportivecommunity relations. Defining “virtual communities” as environments withclearly defined and discrete boundaries ignores the potential for social relationsonline to be maintained off-line, and privileges the Internet as a separatesocial system. Social networks are cross-cutting and multi-stranded. Peopleuse multiple methods of communication in maintaining their communities:direct in-person contact, telephone, postal mail, e-mail, chats, and other onlineenvironments. Relationships that originate on the Internet can move off-line,and existing friendship and kinship relations can be supported online. Only bylooking at how the Internet is used in everyday life can we begin to understandhow it is used along with existing means of social contact in the maintenanceof community relations.COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION INEVERYDAY LIFEEarly EvidenceThe Homenet study by Kraut et al. (1998) was one of the first and remains oneof the most complete studies of Internet use in everyday life. Kraut and hiscollaborators interviewed participants from 93 households in eight neighborhoodsin Pittsburgh, USA. Participants were provided with a free computer,telephone line, and dial-up Internet access. Only those households where no

220 Keith N. Hamptonerosion of the boundary between the “real and the virtual, the animate and theinanimate” (Turkle, 1997: 39).Yet, by most accounts, online communities have not become a dominantcomponent of most Internet users’ regular Internet experiences. Telephonesurveys of American Internet users, conducted by the Syntopia Project, foundthat in 1995, when 9 percent of the American population had access to theInternet (Taylor, 2000), only 25.5 percent of users reported being a member ofan online community. In 2000, when the proportion of Internet users hadgrown to 59 percent of the American population (Taylor, 2000), the proportionof users who were members of at least one online community had shrunk to10.4 percent. For the most part, it is only those who have used the Internet thelon<strong>ge</strong>st and those who are the most technologically savvy, who regularlyparticipate in online communities (Katz and Rice, 2002: 245–6). With such asmall proportion of Internet users participating in the virtual agora, what canwe say of the utopian promise that electronic spaces will substitute for the lossof public places in the Cartesian plain?As with earlier concerns about the urban environment and loss of community,looking for community in only one place at one time (be it in neighborhoodsor in cyberspace) is an inadequate means of revealing supportivecommunity relations. Defining “virtual communities” as environments withclearly defined and discrete boundaries ignores the potential for social relationsonline to be maintained off-line, and privile<strong>ge</strong>s the Internet as a separatesocial system. Social networks are cross-cutting and multi-stranded. Peopleuse multiple methods of communication in maintaining their communities:direct in-person contact, telephone, postal mail, e-mail, chats, and other onlineenvironments. Relationships that originate on the Internet can move off-line,and existing friendship and kinship relations can be supported online. Only bylooking at how the Internet is used in everyday life can we begin to understandhow it is used along with existing means of social contact in the maintenanceof community relations.COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION INEVERYDAY LIFEEarly EvidenceThe Homenet study by Kraut et al. (1998) was one of the first and remains oneof the most complete studies of Internet use in everyday life. Kraut and hiscollaborators interviewed participants from 93 households in eight neighborhoodsin Pittsburgh, USA. Participants were provided with a free computer,telephone line, and dial-up Internet access. Only those households where no

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!