When considering electronically mediated relationships, it is essential to realize that not all relationships can be considered on the same terms. Whether a communication is conducted FtF or via media is probably considerably less important to the quality of that interaction than what the conversation partners' relationship is: whether it is close or distant, professional or friendly, or romantic. What's more, although 'online' and 'offline' remain mutually exclusive categories when considering a given interaction, Baym suggests that in ongoing relationships, as technology use saturates our culture, it is increasingly rare that every interaction will fit into only one of these categories. Whether a relationship is begun online or offline, if it becomes close, communication channels between partners will likely expand to include a wider variety of mediated channels and sometimes face-to-face interactions as well. It is no longer unusual among certain populations to interact with people who you may see every day via EMC in the hours when you don't see them. I for one do a lot of emailing back-and-forth with my group mates and fellow members of student groups and clubs even when I know their dorm and room number and could easily talk to them in person if I wanted. Moreso, the relationships I maintain primarily through EMC started out as primarily FtF relationships for which that kind of interaction is no longer viable on a regular basis. This seems to me to be a natural state of being for most college students, and one I think most of my peers recognize. It surprised me however to see in both Baym and Walther a mention of phone conversations as a common activity amongst college students in maintaining their relationships. This data seems to fly in the face of Turkle's suggestion that young people don't know how to talk on the phone any more, and interact with each other largely through texting. It also doesn't match up that neatly with my personal experience. For me, which media I privilege for interaction with someone is very individual to who that someone is. I'm comfortable having long phone conversations with my girlfriend, but with many of my close high school friends I prefer Skype (as close an experience to FtF that I can get while they're still several miles away from me) or email (although I don't worry in the least about presenting the right version of myself to these friends, the lower time commitment comes in incredibly handy when a group of 8 college students in multiple time zones try to update one another on life events). Comfort level of the individuals involved with technology and each other remains an important issue to consider when choosing what channel(s) of communication to use, in addition to the reasons listed by Walther (asynchrony, idealized perception & idealized presentation, etc). EMC is widespread, but as Baym points out, it is still not domesticated, and how successfully we use it depends on how accepted our norms for use become, as described by Baym in her final section.
One point which Baym touched on briefly, but I would have liked to see more information on, is the idea of using the computer together, as a form of social interaction/the creation of social capital. Baym writes, "Though I must admit that in my own home there are times when family computer use has detracted from family together time, I also value the hours of brotherly bonding my sons have spent side by side... in front of the screen playing a game or showing one another their newest cool find." What intrigued me here was that Baym made a distinction between 'family together time' and 'family computer use': isn't using the computer together as family a form of the former as well as the latter? When I first bought a game system, I never played it or turned it on at all without either my father or my sister present. Some of my fondest memories of childhood with my sister involve the both of us plain PC games like Freddie the Fish side by side, working together. Even today, I prefer to play games with a partner: even if I'm the only one controlling the gameplay, having my sister or a friend sit on the couch with me and watch (and occasionally holler suggestions) is more comfortable and fun. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'togetherness' time, but I certainly value the hours I spend cuddled up with a friend watching Supernatural on my computer as much as I would the hours I might spend watching it on a television. It's different, and certainly less powerful, than having a meaningful conversation with her, but it is still quality time spent together which to me constitutes relationship bonding: even if very little interaction between the two of us is actually taking place.
No comments:
Post a Comment