Web 2.0 and the Rise of Passive Relationships
While the Web may have started its life as a collection of largely isolated repositories of knowledge, it has evolved into something entirely more human as the Web 2.0 revolution has taken off. Whereas once the masses were largely relegated to being mere consumers of online content, we are now invited to contribute, categorize, critique, share, and support it. The response to this democratizing power has been overwhelming. More and more, we are witnessing the vast subculture of the Web permeate popular culture. More and more, we are trusting the expertise of the many when seeking knowledge or entertainment. More and more, we are becoming comfortable living transparently as we broadcast our lives and our thoughts to the world.
It's well known that identity is a complicated issue in the online world. Long before the introduction of the World Wide Web, way back when Usenet was shiny and new, science fiction authors and scholars alike were already probing into the implications anonymity could have on our perception of others online. In his seminal 1985 novel Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card included a major subplot in which mere children manipulate the entire geopolitical dialogue by contributing to what is essentially a global bulletin board system. The only things they needed to earn legitimacy in this impersonal, asynchronous environment were their own brilliance and the assumed names of Locke and Demosthenes. As it so often does, what began as conjecture has become commonplace in reality. For reasons both noble and vile, many people take advantage of the potential for anonymity online in order to create identities for themselves that wouldn’t be possible in the real world. Over the years, as the Internet has grown in significance and as people increasingly turn towards it for communication, we have not only adapted to this conundrum, but we have learned from it. Interactions with our peers online can teach us much about the nature of our neighbor. They can help us realize that wisdom is wisdom regardless of its source. They can help us accept that bad behavior isn’t necessarily perpetrated by bad people.
An issue that I haven't seen being discussed nearly so thoroughly is the impact of the Internet on our relationships. At its core, the Internet is a platform for the development of new communication technologies; and while, historically, advances in telecommunications have aimed to make it easier for us to reach out to specific individuals or groups at increasing distances, the ever growing suite of Web 2.0 technologies is different in nature. When we engage in the culture of Web 2.0, whether it's through blogging, social networking, participating in an online community, or whatever else, our communication is no longer targeted. We no longer control with whom we are communicating or who is viewing our communications. Instead of being members of an intentional dialog, we become part of some sort of incomprehensible, existential play. The basic structure of this production involves millions of individuals acting as both audience and cast. We jump between hundreds of thousands of stages, concurrently participating in numerous smaller dramas; observing as many more as we are willing or able to; and directing one another's attention to particularly riveting performances along the way.
The voluntary, asynchronous, and broadcast natures of social interaction on the Web allow for us to develop attachments radically different from those that regular, personal encounters nurture. Of chief interest to me is the increasing prevalence of what I have begun to refer to as passive relationships. By this, I mean relationships that are sustained without direct contact between the parties involved. These sorts of relationships have a number of interesting characteristics. They are low maintenance, they are directional, and they have limited impact on our daily lives. These are the sorts of relationships that we used to develop with celebrities or even fictional characters, but as ordinary people continue to increase their online presence, it is becoming more and more common for our ordinary relationships to become passive.
As I see it, this is cause for concern, as passive relationships like these encourage us to substitute information in place of intimacy. Moreover, from this information, we can't help but make judgments and assumptions. We take the information available to us and then continue to fill in the blanks of the other person's character on our own without the clarifying context that personal experience brings. The result is that, ironically enough, this overload of personal information has the potential to obscure our understanding of our neighbors' identities more than anonymity ever could. The real danger in online interaction no longer lies in failing to properly recognize Locke and Demosthenes for who they are. Instead, it lies in determining which of our classmates are worth getting to know by a simple “about me” section on Facebook. It lies in keeping track of our friends by following their Twitter feeds or Flickr accounts instead of keeping in touch with them through email and phone calls and going out for coffee. It lies in inundating ourselves with weak ties to the point that we are no longer able to strengthen any of them. It lies in re-imagining our neighbor in our image and faltering in our ability to grow in love for them.
I have no doubt that we will learn important lessons from this dilemma just as we learned from dealing with the complexities of anonymity, but we need to begin talking about it first. Web 2.0 services have proven time and time again that they have great power. From reconnecting childhood friends to helping creative individuals get the chance they so richly deserve to make a career from their talents; from exposing corruption to galvanizing the grass roots, the seemingly personal nature of these systems makes them valuable beyond measure. Yet, if we fail to recognize and begin serious discussion of the dangers and shortcomings inherent to these technologies, then this value is worthless. Let's get the conversation started.
-Jonathan Walz
No comments:
Post a Comment