I’ll be honest I was having a lot of trouble figuring out what to write about this week. There has been a lot of good discussion surrounding the topics and the readings have been quite relevant to the conversations at hand. However, for some reason I was having difficulty relating it to an example or coming up with my own take on the situation. I feel that the debates surrounding the importance of a “real” vs. “imagined” online community have been going on and will continue for a very long time. This has been something I find myself thinking about as we discuss issues related to community, diaspora and culture in a society that is mediated by the Internet.
I recently participated in an interview for research surrounding the use of Facebook and how it is used, including for how it is used to create community, and build/maintain relationships. This was a very interesting experience as many of the questions forced me to be self-reflexive regarding my use of the online communities of Facebook. It’s something I think we often don’t do. We use these technologies without really thinking about the consequences or how they change our relationships.
There is definitely something to be said for the use of the web in building diasporic communities. We have had many good debates and discussions regarding this topic. I think it is particularly relevant this week in light of our readings by Barney regarding the space and time biases of societies, as well as the mediation of home and homeland argued by Mallapragada. On the one hand, the social networking possibilities of web 2.0 do allow people from around the world to connect with family and friends. Of course there will always be issues with this, including access, ability to use technology, etc. however more and more there is relevance in this global connectability. Not that long ago people who moved away would be completely isolated from their homeland communities. Now (for the most part) there exists an affordable and easy way to communicate with friends and family around the world.
On the other hand, one can argue that these communities are not as “real” or genuine as those fostered in person-to-person interactions. I think this is a difficult argument. While I can understand this from a more local perspective, for example students who all attend the same school only networking and building relationships online, I do not think this argument holds the same for people part of diasporas. Without the use of Internet technology, many people within diasporic groups would be unable to maintain any connection to family and friends in distant locations. Since we no longer live in societies that are strictly rooted in space, social networking has arisen as a good alternative to face-to-face interaction in a globalized world.
I agree that in a globalized world, social networking has provided a good alternative to face-to-face interactions. Globalization has allowed people to travel all over the world, go to school abroad and do business in multiple countries. I think all of us have been in situations where face-to-face interaction is not impossible. Take me for example, I have family in Italy, a friend studying in France and a father who travels almost every week for business. Regardless of whether or not face-to-face interactions are more “real” than online communities, when it is not possible to talk face-to-face I think social networking sites are a great way to satisfy our desire for communication.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what both Amanda and Sonia have argued about social networking sites. Although there will always be a debate about "real" vs. "imagined" and "genuine" vs. "falsity", there is no denying the Internet has helped make connections between people, places and things. I also have friends abroad and without the Internet, I don't think I would be in much contact with them even though other technologies exist. I think regardless of the type of connection, the Internet still helps us create a connection with those living abroad and diasporic audiences.
ReplyDelete