Galston seems to have pinpointed the draw for Internet communities as opposed to geographical communities. We want to express our individual preferences while still quenching our thirst for human companionship. Part of the appeal for entering a online community is the level of commitment--which is minimal--to the other users. We can foster relationships and stay connected on our own time, in our own format, and by our own standards. Social networks like Facebook are appealing to me because I can see what is happening with distant friends without actually having to break the communication barrier of awkward silences and false promises of commitments (as horrible as that sounds). Out of this, we form a sense of community. We belong on our own terms.
Galston makes an important point that the Internet tends to foster a reduced sense of voice, lack of authority, and a fleeting obligation to community. However, an example given in the Weeks article refutes this argument. The mother who twittered about smothering her toddler did not go unnoticed. Readers engaged in concern over the morality of the threat with outspoken voices, signifying a overall non-complacency and development of appropriate conduct. Readers also appealed to authority, requesting intervention by police to ensure the child's safety. The mother even acknowledged the presence of a "big sister" who determined the content of the blogs. And finally, this overwhelmingly presents the obligation of Internet users to one another. Weeks counters Galston's argument by stating that "people will respond to people who sound like they're in trouble--online or off. That's just normal human behavior" (3). If Galston is correct in stating that communities are developed not out of common interest, but out of obligation to one another, then this response to the mother's blog is exemplary of community.
However, it does seem important to point out that the miscommunication between the blogging mother and her readership comes from a lack of nonverbal and situational cues. Galston suggests that we rely heavily on these cues to understand motivation and identity. Along those lines, one of the greatest attractions to Internet communities is the ability to fabricate false identities (8). Big suggests that identities are shaped and re-adjusted according to interaction and "personalities and trimmed and shaped like hedges..." (4). We don't ever have to reveal our shortcomings, our personality defects, our secrets. This even opens up the possibility of exposure of these issues without consequence due to the possible annonymous nature of social networks, in other words, "private misbehavior becomes public exhibitionism" (Rosen, 8). Is it possible to ever have a real community without knowing the true identity of common users? Also, does alternate identities support low boundaries to entry and exit from communities?
LaRose, Eastin, and Gregg suggest that the relationships we form on the Internet can be equally as rewarding as real world connections. Although I agree that Internet relationships "develop less interdependence, understanding, and commitment" than their offline counterparts, the dynamic of Internet relationships can be refreshing and supportive of fast paced lifestyles. For instance, I was out of contact with my 4 college roommates for about 2 years once I graduated college. I was newly married, moved across the ocean, and had a new job. There was no time, an more importantly, no energy to try and connect with my once best friends. However, once I joined Facebook, I could reestablish contact, let them know what's going on with me, and read about their life changes. A few words here and there keep our relationship going without the extra stress that can come from a forgotten phone call or missed opportunity. The feelings of guilt for not putting more effort into keeping a distant relationship and the longing to still engage in sharing our lives (signifying depression), dissipated when I found Internet connection with my roommates. Albrechtslund confirms this sentiment by acknowledging:
"Participatory surveillance is a way of maintaining friendships by checking up on information other people share. Such a friendship may seem shallow, but it is a convenient way of keeping in touch with a large circle of friends, which can be more difficult to handle offline without updated personal information--untold and unasked" (8).
Although I realize we probably won't be pouring out our hearts, social networking with my extended circle of friends keeps up the basics needs for connection. I'd even go so far to suggest that perhaps this distant social connection through an Internet medium keeps us from having to say goodbye.
It seems that the benefits to social networking also outweighs the negative impact of possible surveillance dangers. The convenience of having information about my friends and relatives and in turn being available to them via the Internet is more of a priority than privacy. Albrechtslund argues the significance of having more of a participatory surveillance, where the user is passive as well as active in contributing ideas and subjectivity (8). Empowering people to have social purpose is the draw and reward of social networking. The need to express views and have liberty to contribute creatively is telling of the changing technology and times. I suggest that the key is balance. In other words, putting your views and creativity to public use while also protecting the valuable private information for protection. Is this even possible? Can we participate effectively without compromising our identities?
One last thing before diving into an online community, I find it hard to believe that friendships on social networks are strictly superficial. Rosen argues, "because friendship depends on mutual revelations that are concealed from the rest of the world, it can only flourish within the boundaries of privacy; the idea of public friendship is an oxymoron" (9). Internet relationships can be formulated in the same way as real world friendships. We have the same opportunity for private conversation, participation in experiences, building trust and sharing in mutual interests. The difference is the format. The term "friend" is loosely used in social networks to link people together, but the boundaries and relational interactions are the same.
Online Community Participation
As the intensely goal-oriented person that I am, I was especially interested in joining 43things.com to analyze the online community aspects. This community, as stated in our readings "encourages people to share their personal goals" (Rosen, 3). Users are encouraged to develop lists of life goals--like "take piano lessons" and "visit Costa Rica"--which connects them to other users with the same goals. You can write blogs, "cheer" other users, and comment on posts. The draw to this community is gaining support for accomplishing your aspirations while also helping others to reach their own.In my participation, I attempted to answer my questions concerning the development of community. Can we keep identities hidden without compromising community? Are the boundaries lowered for entering and exiting? Also, does this community satisfy a need for social interaction?
Joining with a pseudonym was easy enough--no personal information is revealed in the profile. Because the community was goal oriented, I chose to write very general goals that I thought would identify with several users. These goals were applicable to me, but not as personal. I also posted blogs about the goals, cheered other users, and commented on other user's blogs. I immediately noticed that the interaction on the site was largely personal and self-motivated. Users were intensely positive and supportive in comments. Personal blogs explained frustration and issues reaching the goal, but also overwhelmingly positive. I noticed that my own comments started mirroring others.
Unfortunately, it seems that the entire site must be self motivated. You have the option to select the RSS feed for other users, but you don't actually select people to be your friend. Being up front with your identity is not important because people are not as concerned with who you are as what you are working toward. Because of this, motivation to stay within the online community is fairly low. If you neglect your goals, there is nothing to keep you coming back aside from comments on your own writings. Community is developed around mutual interests, but ties are minimal. This relates to Rosen's statement that individuals are able to compartmentalize and parcel out parts of their personalities (8). All of the 43things users are focused on one thing: goals. I should also note, that this online community also supports LaRose, Eastin, and Gregg's idea that there is a lack of interdependence, understanding and commitment, which can be preferable for accountability's sake. We don't have to answer to anyone if we fail our goals.
However, I found myself uniquely motivated to reach my own goals. It was particularly empowering to be able to take hold of my goals and give tips to others about how I accomplished their goals. I also found posts from other users particularly helpful. Comments on questions I posted in my blog were encouraging and exciting to read. For instance, I wrote a goal about losing weight and the frustrations that come from not receiving confirmation for goals reached by real community members. I posed this question particularly because of the contrast between real compliments and virtual compliments. Do they serve the same purpose? While is was not as satisfying as when someone in real life says "you look skinny," it was still helpful to have even a few words of encouragement from some distant user.
My comments and cheers on other user's posts have not been completely reciprocated. Over the course of the next few months, it will be interesting to see how the interaction changes. I'm curious to see who will respond to my posts and comments. Having only a couple days to participate is decidedly not long enough to know the intricacies of this environment.
Posts
