With all the discussion of blogwars around the place recently, I thought it might be apposite to put a different perspective. I was inspired (as I often am) by a couple of comments by Pavlov’s Cat – on a thread here this morning and on one of the many recent threads elsewhere comparing journalism and blogging. Those thoughts meshed in with some work I’ve been doing recently for a couple of interlinked academic projects – one being my ongoing work on social media with Axel Bruns for the Smart Services CRC and the other being a paper for the upcoming ANZCA conference.
In the course of my research, I’ve been reading lots of net history. There are exceptions to the rule, but the same dichotomised themes tend to recur again and again without resolution, and as a number of authors, including the excellent Fred Turner, point out – too many concepts have been taken over from 90s style cyber-utopians and Californian boosters without much reflection on their adequacy. One of those is Howard Rheingold‘s “virtual community” (and to be fair to Rheingold, he’s much more nuanced than some of his academic epigones!)… We seem to be stuck in a hermeneutic circle – of the bad kind – suspended between online writing as media substitute and online communication as pure public sphere. If what occurs online falls short of either (heavily) ideal(ised) type, then it appears to fall into the worthless category by default.
Let’s have a look at some antidotes.
First a quote from communications scholar David D. Perlmutter:
…for most of the history of our species, we were creatures of small groups and personal ties: Bigness, as in cities, crowds, or news networks, has not changed our affinity for one-on-one love, friendship, and affinity.
There is, of course, much sociological scholarship bemoaning (or celebrating) “weak ties”, “the fall of the public man [sic]“, an “individualised society” and so on. Sometimes I think this is a matter of taste – a fair bit of social theory that floats free from empirical research can be very affect laden – not always a bad thing, but it needs to be a subject for authorial reflection. Call me a Weberian if you like! Nevertheless, it is fair to say that modernity brings about at least a sense of isolation for many.
A lot of the critique of things like blogs, social network sites, and the practices associated with them, goes to the alleged illusory quality of online interaction. “Facebook friends aren’t real friends and Facebook will destroy friendship!”… There’s also a privileging of presence over a putative absence because embodied communication is mediated rather than direct or face to face (a false dichotomy which ignores the mediation of all communication) which slips very easily into a claim that communicating online is selfish or solipsistic. “Folks just write about their cats”, “Blogging is just attention seeking!”…
These critiques seem to me to be based on completely flawed premises, and they’re reinscribed from all sorts of angles. It might be a conservative bemoaning “bowling alone” or a post-structuralist talking about online communication as a “technology of the self” (without really getting what Foucault was getting at, I hasten to add).
Aside from the presence/absence thing, I could also mention the fact that “strong ties” and “weak ties” is an inadequate taxonomy. Friendships, relationships, family ties, work relationships, relationships with pets, feelings about non-human objects or places – all are dynamic and variable rather than static and invariant – because they’re precisely constituted through relationship – even when the other is (apparently) absent. It just isn’t the case that there are two opposed poles of “real” and “virtual” friendships, never the twain to meet.
So how to think about online interaction? A bit of preliminary speculation…
I was also struck by Geert Lovink‘s observation in Zero Comments that the scholarship of blogging hasn’t been taken up by literary scholars expert in the arts of writing the self – keeping a diary or a log, that is to say. Whether or not he’s fairly characterising the absence of such comparisons or analyses, I’m not qualified to say. But it does seem intuitively right that blogging, twittering, status updating and all the other panoply of online writing techniques have something in common with diarising – even to the point that there’s a compulsion to do so, as Lovink suggests.
It also seems to me that there’s an extensability of trust involved in sharing a diary with others, which is analogous to the sort of dynamic privacy involved in writing the online self – it’s variegated according to who can and will read it, and it’s also much more other-oriented.
If it is true that modernity erodes connections, then perhaps postmodernity seeks to recreate that feeling of connectedness virtually?
I think trust, and the ability to put oneself out there, which is actually an act of trust, is possibly the key. I’m not saying, mind, that all such interactions will be characterised by trust, and as we’ve seen in spades over the last few days, some are otherwise motivated, to put it charitably. And I don’t want to go all cyber-utopian on you either…
But I do think when we’re taking the good with the bad, we should see trust as a sort of aspirational or motivational tendency – a horizon of the practice of online communication, if you like. I think it’s much neater and possibly more analytically useful to understand online behaviours and practices in these terms rather than through reductive comparisons to other sorts of practices, or testing them against impossible and never realised ideals.
Now that this extraordinary blog is widely seen as a direct rival to the sole national newspaper (!) I think this is a great time to reflect on trust. Marks credibility and reputation capital are in such high standing right throughout the wide-brown because we trust him overall, and most of the folks congregated here are seen to be acting in good faith. Basically we don’t bullshit each other too much. Some may worry that Mark could suffer from a fatal hubris aneurysm at any time – however I feel that so long as he has a couple of us love slaves in his chariot whispering to him that he is just a man then she’ll be jake.
If not then there’s always the ides of March
The Ides of Mark, surely, professor rat.
I’ve had a number of experiences of developing friendships via electronic communication, especially discussion forums. Through circumstances too labyrinthine to go into here, my son and his wife first met via electronic communication when they were living in different countries from one another.
In the business context, I’ve found that an initial meeting in the flesh substantially speeds up development of an online working relationship, although it is not a necessity. Even videoconferencing (or at least videoconferencing as it was a decade ago) is not a substitute for physical meeting.
What skeptics seem to forget is that for centuries people have been developing relationships by writing letters to one another. The distinguishing feature of blogs and the like is that they are open letters, in effect, to the world. If you are interested in what someone writes, there’s a standing opportunity to respond.
I lent Ampersand Duck my house before we’d ‘met’ each other.
…and gave me your address Laura, when I *might* have been a boogy-man of some kind. The small projector screen has been invaluable by the way, since we bought a little apartment, and the tamarillo is still happily flourishing in the old Fowler’s Vacola boiler-pot.
Nabakov/Behemoth trusted me enough to give away the location of a favourite out-of-the-way cocktail bar, and to re-house his theremin in a cool old box with a mate.
I trusted Dave Rubie enough to buy a couple of bits of audio gear through him for a not inconsiderable sum.
I reckon if you’ve got your wits about you it’s not too hard to guage someone’s character given a little time. Meanwhile suckers have always been and will always be suckered in real life, over the phone, by mail…
Laura, I was just thinking about that myself. I could name half a dozen bloggers I’d lend the house to and trust to look after the cats and probably even to ring my dad occasionally and make sure he hadn’t buggered off to Oodnadatta or somewhere on a whim.
They’d all be women. I do wonder about the degree to which that kind of trust is gender-determined, in the sense that women are statistically more likely both to blog about their home lives and to reveal more of their personalities online. And what a splendid feminist fisking it would be possible to do of some of the prescriptions for ‘good online journalism’ that are turning up on that thread, with their unexamined assumptions about what is valuable.
FDB wrote:
Plus, people value their online reputations in places they like to frequent. Even though the net is now very big, people have a tendency to gravitate to the larger spots and won’t be heard or respected unless they tend their online contributions.
You can, quite literally, bank on somebody not willing to sacrifice their online reputation for some minor financial gain.
I’ll always buy or sell things via specialist forums first before having to resort to something like Ebay. On Ebay, most sellers have nothing to lose from misrepresenting something. On (say) a cycling or car forum, they’ve got maybe six months to a couple of years of online reputation and friendships at stake. Worse than that, you can easily check somebodies contributions in a matter of minutes on most online forums.
FDB, comments crossed — but your point about trust re money/ripoffs is well taken, and that form of trust is probably not gender-inflected at all.
The judge of character thing is important but one needs to have one’s wits about one in judging the authenticity of what is written, given that one has nothing else to go on. You can’t tell from their vocabulary whether their eyes are too close together.
“They’d all be women”
And fair enough I guess – but I hope this is more of a reflection on men per se than on men who do blog stuff particularly.
Actually it’s probably more of a positive reflection on women than a negative one on men, in or out of the blogosphere, and it’s partly to do with the point that women bloggers in general are more (intentionally) transparent about their personalities and more likely to include things about their home lives. Mind you, nobody would let me anywhere near their house if they could see the condition of this study.
Ah, I was trying to remember who we gave the projector screen to.
You are quite right about the worth of painstakingly acquired reputations David. It’s so laughable when some crosspatch turns up and starts carrying on about the kind of fly-by-night lowlife who’d hide behind a pseudonym.
I wonder whether Facebook shifts the gendered patterns of disclosure around public/private by encouraging boys to share more? Of course, what is shared would still be gendered, but maybe there’s something going on there…
I think one of the best things about blogs is learning about others’ interests and lives – over and above the whole knowing the personas aspect. That’s really where I think the comparisons with what are supposedly more properly “public” practices – like big J Journalism – are really missing it.
And I think I could write a book about co-operating and making friends and being prepared to enter into joint enterprises, work together, do personal stuff, etc. with people I’ve “only met online”.
I’m entering into leasing a racehorse with some people I’ve only met on-line and owned and bred by one of those people. I’ve only seen the horse on-line as well. But sufficient trust has been developed over the years and I know it’s a good deal.
Oh Fine. You have you have bucket loads of cash to throw down the drain? Co’s you’re going to need it. I am quite surrounded by thoroughbreds on a foal broodmare farm, many of whom are owned by people or in some cases several people, who have never clapped eyes on them in the flesh. As a consequence they wouldn’t know when the flies are driving them to utter distraction or when they are being routinely bullied by the other’s in the paddock. Here they get well looked after, but its the little things that count when looking after animals properly, things that only someone who really cares will notice and correct. A grumpy mare told me just the other day: “Nobody loves me. Nobody really cares.” And sadly, it was the truth.
Just sayin’.
I understand your concern Caroline. But, I’ve owned other horses over the years, both for riding and racing, so I’m aware of the pit-falls. It’s a leasing arrangement, because the owner wants the filly as a broodmare. She’s the last in a line he’s nurtured over generations. When she’s spelling, she’ll be going back to his farm as well. And the cost per month is capped, which means I have a fair idea of what the costs are.
But, it does go to the question of trust, that we’ve been discussing. Do I trust the leasor to look after the filly properly and not rip me off? I’ve spent enough time around racing to know how often that happens as well. One of the things I like about leasing is that you know where the horse will end up at the end of her career. It won’t be the doggers.
PC: “some of the prescriptions for ‘good online journalism’ that are turning up on that thread, with their unexamined assumptions about what is valuable.”
??? folk were asked what their criteria would be….. how can you possibly know their “assumptions” are “unexamined”??? They listed aspects they think are valuable. You have a different list? Golly!
Chacun a son gout.
BTW, many agree with your list, PC.
laura wrote:
That’s a reason why I really like the little Gravatar pickies – back in the old days when Usenet was all we had, you used to see some incredibly elaborate signature blocks at the bottom of the posts – you could really tell who was invested in the community (such as they were) and who wasn’t.
What I really miss are the old geek code blocks, little strings of text where you could summarise your (technical) interests which could be parsed quickly. I’m not sure how useful it would be for political leanings though – you’d get a lot of knee-jerk “I knew you’d say that” type responses based on left/right/conservative/liberal icons I suppose.
Having said that, I think technical and special interest forums may always be better communities than political ones for the ancient reason that it’s impolite to discuss religion and politics in company
There’s some interesting questions there too, David. Some of the stuff written about blogs circa 2004 and 2005 suggests they didn’t facilitate community like the old usenet lists, BBS, etc. There was often a suggestion that the core tech geeks who’d been the mainstays of a much smaller internet were the only ones who knew how to do “virtual community”. Without wishing to erase the differences between usenet and the like and blogs, I think the evolution of blogging and other social media shows that those practices which work in both might be more broadly based social and cultural phenomena capable of producing themselves in new media rather than just “the traditions of the internet”.
Ok Fine. Sorry for the knee jerk. I’m not all that familiar with the industry, having only worked this season mostly as teh ‘secretary’. (although I have owned the pleasure variety for thirty (egads) years or so). I do know what we charge (like wounded bulls basically). $800 for foaling down, $750 for weaning and ‘handling’ and $33 a day for dry mares. $70 for sale prep etcetera. mega bucks for the slim hope that you’re horse will even make it to the track. Still, I find it sad to see a mare standing by herself, shaking her head all day, ‘cos she can’t stand the flies and were I her owner I’d get her a veil and if her owner knew, he’/she’d probably do the same, but they don’t know so it doesn’t happen.
Trust your gut, when it comes to other’s looking after your horses, if it doesn’t feel quite right, it probably isn’t. I’d still suggest you try and visit and see for yourself. Standing all day in the sun with no shade available is another issue that horses have to suffer, even on some of the most exclusive studs. You’ll only know if you go. Good luck.
I agree totally with you, Caroline, so need for ‘sorry’. Most of those foals will sell at a loss. I don’t know how mare owners can keep going. And it’s true that paying top dollar, doesn’t guarantee top care.
Mark wrote:
I used to think this myself, until I was gently reminded what a poo fight the aus.politics newsgroup was, even when it was just inhabited by nerds and academics. It’s the subject matter that makes the difference (i.e. the less opinion matters in any particular subject, the better the quality of discussion). I think a lot of the cyber-utopian dreams of peaceful idea sharing were unfortunately based on observing nerds in the wild “marking their territory” by sharing technical knowledge – something that works superbly in any area of expertise where facts are the primary goal and is continued in many non-nerd areas (like the other places I go for cycling or cars for example). Marking your territory in a political discussion doesn’t work like that and the model breaks down. It seems better to have the semi-directed format like LP where a select number of people choose topics and carefully intervene. Unfortunately, it requires dedication and expertise to make it work (something available in spades at LP).
I think that’s basically spot on, David. After all terms such as “flamewars” and “trolls” date back to the very early days – long before blogs!
So many commentors here seem to have been around since the pre Mosaic days.
As early adopters , probably all having an eye out for the next ‘killer app’ I would give some credit to the idea that these people do net community better than others. As for why – I’d suggest that attrition accounts for most of the rough edges being worn off.
Still, I find it sad to see a mare standing by herself, shaking her head all day, ‘cos she can’t stand the flies and were I her owner I’d get her a veil and if her owner knew, he’/she’d probably do the same, but they don’t know so it doesn’t happen.
Well! And to bring this a little bit back on topic – not meaning to be narky about it, you know this is a topic dear to my heart as well – why shouldn’t a stud use the selfsame technology we’re discussing to track peoples’ horses? Who’s being bothered by flies, who’s being bullied in the paddock and what do do about it, who’s got a bit too much heat in one leg or urgently needs a hoof trim… the list goes on…
murph the surf:
I think it’s equally plausible that old-timers simply have more time tied to a computer and are used to using discussion technology to let off a little steam.
Thankfully, in my little office, I don’t need a fly veil although if I walk 20 metres outside toward the pig
torturingresearch shed it would be handy