p. 167 What do you think of postmodern views which stress the fluidity of online selves and their apparent disembodied status, which has been argued frees people from being represented through signs of their race, gender, class etc?
The lecture and readings have touched on the idea that virtual communities provide support for groups often feeling ‘othered’. Some positives and negatives of this have already been mentioned, I was interested in the implications of such online communities in real life. Groups marginalised IRL by disability, race, sexuality etc may enjoy the comfort of community online that their small numbers don’t allow them to find IRL.
However, as these groups move online, they become increasingly invisible IRL and understanding and acceptance may decrease as a result of this. This could be a hugely negative effect of online communities; while positive in the short term for the individual using online communities, this could be extremely detrimental for these groups in the long term and I think this is a particularly important point to consider.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi, any reason we should know for the Big Brother investigation into your blog? Creepy!
ReplyDeleteYour point about marginalised groups becoming more invisible IRL is interesting. I think I disagree. When online networks support people they are almost always used to help people get things going IRL (as well as supporting each other online). People tend to be more effective offline when they communicate effectively. The argument that Putnam makes in "Bowling Alone" is based largely on the notion that people give up their social time to lone computer use. Actually what happens with most people is that they fit it in to 'dead time' (when the TV might've been on, but not 'actively watched' -when they would have been 'relaxing' etc.) Now with mobile web access, people connect whilst travelling, waiting -"in between".
Many marginalised groups actually have a lot of this "in between time", because they are marginalised, so their connectivity doesn't cut into their availability for collective action IRL, indeed, it makes it easier to organise, and makes it more important because of its potential for being gossiped about after the fact (and gossip leads to heightened commitment and eventually empowerment).
I'm not sure why...I got an email saying they suspected it was spam and I filled in the form but I'm still getting the warning...
ReplyDeleteI wasn't really talking about it in terms of cutting into the groups time for other things. More in the fact that if the groups in question all gathered together online, in forums specifically for their group, they would have no need to make themselves visible outside of these goups. I was thinking in terms of 'invisible' groups....homosexuals, for example.
I suppose it isn't as true for more visible groups; disabilities, certain races etc. But still perhaps with support online from similar people they would have less need to socialise with people who do not share these factors.
Right, I see what you mean.
ReplyDeleteMost current research suggests that online 'consciousness-raising' (to use a sixties term) emboldens people -because they find that their experiences are shared and valued. Because the 'hard edge' of their oppression is generally in 'meatspace' (e.g. they might get flamed online, but firebombed IRL) this usually results in marginalised groups becoming more 'visible' and vociferous as a group, whilst individuals may remain as invisible as possible in their own location. Thus the negative aspects of being located in a hostile 'community' may get eroded from the outside by virtue of the online community's collective successes?
What do you think?
The first point about 'consciousness-raising' is interesting and i can definitely see the logic in that. Can you point me to some theories about that?
ReplyDeleteCould you re-word what you've written from 'this usually...', I'm not sure I really understand, sorry!