BACK NEXT ARTICLE
Communicating Life in a Community
The human race is designed to seek communality, fellowship and interaction
with fellow humans. The need for fellowship seems to be a basic need we
strive to fulfill in various ways. In agreement with the Jewish philosopher
Martin Buber, one can say that «real life begins in meeting another
person in relationship.»3 An invitation to human community needs to
permit and encourage the emergence of human uniqueness, in a true I-Thou
dialogue that invites a community of relation. A true dialogue, and not
an I-It monologue, is needed to work out problems in a relationship. Such
dialogue is marked by a shift away from control, from image to authenticity,
from independence to interdependence, from prescription to collaboration.
Yet in a computer-mediated environment where humans relate through machines, a true dialogue may become even more difficult because the dialogue is missing all the other tools of communication, facial expressions, touch, voice, etc. 1
On the other hand, simple channels for communication may give mind and imagination more space, giving the affective issue in a communication process greater importance. In the same way that reading a good book always creates pictures and arouses affection in one's mind, the text-based computer-mediated communication may leave more to human imagination. In a sense, the «narrowness» of the medium may serve as an emotional amplifier, strengthening rather than weakening the interaction.
Communication theory also gives important aspects to dialogue processes.
As Charles Kraft writes from a Christian context, «The person who
communicates the Christian message is not only the vehicle of the message
but the major component of the message as well.»2 In essence, the Christian message is a life message, not only
a word message. And life is constantly shaping new communities through communication
in whatever form imaginable.
The Bible also emphasizes community. First, that God seeks relationship with his creation. Our designer wants all of his creations to live in an intimate fellowship with him and ultimately experience the heavenly joy he has prepared through his Son Jesus' atonement for all our sins. Secondly, God designed us to live in a true, open fellowship with our neighbors. The fall of mankind and the existing reality of sin has not only damaged our relations with God but also perpetrates our everyday life in society.
As Christians, we are called to live as a forgiven, justified people fighting
against the consequenses of sin on a personal level as well as a structural
level in our society. Our common task is to manifest Christ in all the realities
of life. Or to use the words of Stanley Hauerwas, «For Jesus' universality
is manifested only by a people who are willing to take his cross as their
story, as the necessary condition for living thruthfully in this life.»
3 This universality also includes the cyberspace
or virtual reality of the Internet, including the growing experience of
commonality across barriers of time and space.
A Community in the Image of Technology?
New technologies have created new channels and tools for interaction between
people and new ways of forming personal relationships. However, can one
really say that the computer has given birth to new kinds of communities,
and even ultimately a new «virtual society?» If so, what are
the basic rules and qualities of these communities? How are we as Christians
to interact in and with the virtual world? What ethical implications are
there to be addressed?
First, to the concept of new «virtual communities.»
There is little disagreement over the fact that «computer-mediated
communication» (CMC) has created new communities of people interacting
with each other in a new way, across the boundaries of distance and time.
A rather positivistic and optimistic view is expressed in the paper «The
Net and the Netizens» by Michael and Ronda Hauben,
"We are seeing a revitalization of society. The frameworks are being
redesigned from the bottom up. A new more democratic world is becoming possible.
... The Net seems to open a new lease on life for people. Social connections
which were never before possible, or which were relatively hard to achieve,
are now facilitated by the Net. Geography and time are no longer boundaries.
Social limitations and conventions no longer prevent potential friendships
or partnerships. In this manner netizens are meeting other netizens from
far-away and close by that they might never have met without the Net."
4
Nevertheless, the Netizen society Hauben is talking about is a partial society. It is limited to those in the world who has the intellectual interest, economic capability and political freedom to participate. It may not become equally accessible for everyone. Expanding the necessary networks of fiber optic cables etc. will take time and generally be made available in urban areas containing consumers of value to the market, while poor areas are likely to be left behind.5
In this sense one can say that the Net is likely to increse the gap between rich and poor at least within the next ten years or so. Because it is a new tool, many adult people do not feel comfortable with the new medium, and others might consider it technically frightening. Nevertheless, computer literacy is becoming a «must» to function adequately in many workplaces. Ever more people realize that computers have become a natural part of everyday life. We soon will wonder, «How did we ever manage everything before ..?»--like people did after some years with the refrigerator, TV, microwave and countless other new inventions of this past century.
The world of the Netizen was envisioned almost 30 years ago by J. C. R.
Licklider and Robert Taylor in «The Computer as a Communication Device»
(Science and Tehnology, April 1968). Licklider emphasized communication
as a creative process. He focused on "the increasing significance of
the jointly constructive, the mutually reinforcing aspect of communication--the
part that transcends, "now we both know a fact that only one of us
knew before."When minds interact, new ideas emerge. We want to talk
about the creative aspect of communication." 6
Licklider defines four principles required for computers to make a contribution
toward human communication:
1. Communication is defined as an interactive
creative process.
2. Response times needs to be short to make the «conversation»
free and easy.
3. The larger network would form out of smaller regional networks.
4. Communities would form out of affinities and common interests.
These principles have become reality in the modern society
of the Internet. And it will be even more so, when advanced technologies
supporting animation, three dimensional graphics, etc. meld with audio,
video, chat-channels and telephone to give immediate opportunities for interaction
no matter where one is living.
Ordinary People in a Different World
One must keep in mind that the Internet is alive because of its use by ordinary
people. As Hauben points out, "pioneering research is happening, but
the meat of the Net experience is the normal everyday use of the Net."
7 Quoting Steve Cavrak who wrote on the COMMUNET
mailing list, "The Internet is NOT a place of «innovative stories.»
Rather it is a place of impressingly common, every day electronic activity.
It is not a hot bed of dangerous, high-tech, experimentation, it is a place
where pretty much ordinary people do their day to day work."8
The Net society differs in many ways from the «off-line society»
by welcoming intellectual activities. People are encouraged to express themselves,
present new ideas, be open to other's opinions, share technical and other
problems in a continuous process to find new solutions, and so on. Nevertheless,
as in the real world, the human nature often contradicts the idealistic
goals so that the real interaction may sometimes (some would say rather
too often) become nasty, judging, and not at all cooperative.
Elizabeth M. Reid describes "the formation of a new society out of Internet Relay Chat (IRC). The users of IRC choose to join a channel and select a «nickname» under which to interact. You may also change your nickname as often as you wish. The users have created a whole set of written symbols that enable them to express feelings in a written form.» 9 The widespread use of «Emoticons» is a strong indication of the important role affections have on the Internet. Users of IRC often develop strong friendships with a sense of responsibility to their fellows, and regard their electronic world with a great deal of seriousness.
This form of interaction has a number of distinctive implications. Reid
states that the lack of social context in computer-mediated communication
obscures the boundaries which would generally separate acceptable and unacceptable
forms of behavior. The safety of anonymity can reduce self-consciousness
and promote intimacy, but may also encourage «flaming,» defined
as the gratuitous and uninhibited making of "remarks containing swearing,
insults, name calling, and hostile comments." 10
Users of IRC treat the medium as a frontier world, a virtual reality of virtual freedom in which participants feel free to act out their fantasies, to challenge social norms and exercise aspects of their personality that would under normal interactive circumstances be inhibited. In this chance for deconstruction of social boundaries, we can clearly see the postmodern nature of IRC. Reid points out that IRC "provides a medium in which behavior that is both outside of and in opposition to accepted social norms is accepted and even encouraged."11
Positively there is friendship, tolerance, humor, love, but there are also hatred, violence, shame and guilt. The «freedom» of the computer is expressed in a lack of conventional, social controls, not in any utopian implication.
Intimate and Affective Fellowships
Participating in a virtual community may provide lifelong learning experiences.
A major virtual community over the past decade has been the WELL (Whole
Earth 'Lectronic Link). Quite a number of people have researched this «computer
conferencing system» that enabled people around the world to carry
on public conversations and exchange e-mail. Yet, a virtual community cannot
be understood in such technical terms. On the contrary, a virtual community
gives unique opportunities to interact with people one normally would never
have met during one's lifetime, and get to know them in a very different
way.
Howard Rheingold's book «Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier» gives an exciting insight into human interaction in a computer-mediated
world and how it has influenced the real, everyday life of many people.
His description of the first time he actually met some of his invisible
friends IRL (an expression often used in the virtual world meaning «in
real life») may give an idea of how the real world becomes real in
another way because of the virtual experiences:
"I remember the first time I walked into a room full of people IRL
who knew many intimate details of my history and whose own stories I knew
very well. Three months after I joined, I went to my first WELL party at
the home of one of the WELL's online moderators. I looked around at the
room full of strangers when I walked in. It was one of the oddest sensations
of my life. I had contended with these people, shot the invisible breeze
around the electronic watercooler, shared alliances and formed bonds, fallen
off my chair laughing with them, become livid with anger at some of them.
But there wasn't a recognizable face in the house. I had never seen them
before." 12
This statement points toward the strong emotional ties that often evolve within virtual communities. People interacting in virtual environment do almost everything people do in real life, but leave their bodies behind. Rheingold elegantly describes how the words on the screen are used to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk. In a very basic sense, it is how everyday real life is like--with the exception that the people interacting maybe very far apart geographically. There are many heart-touching stories to be told, like how couples have met each other, and how lives have been saved because of interaction on the Net. 13
Yet virtual interaction also creates new possibilities for «addiction»
and invasion of a private sphere. Rheingold admits it when he states,
"Not only do I inhibit my virtual communities; to the degree that
I carry around their conversations in my head and I begin to mix up with
them in real life, my virtual communities also inhabit my life. I've been
colonized, my sense of family at the most fundamental level has been virtualized."
14
It is important to acknowledge the strong influence hours
of «virtual life» can have in real life. Participating in virtual
communities is truly described in very affective terms. This does also represent
a challenge to identify the core values of one's lives. The question may
ultimately be how one can «embody Christ» in the daily life
of the virtual world.
Computer mediated communication has the potential to change lives on three different, but strongly inter-influential levels, according to Rheingold,
First, as individual human beings we have perceptions, thoughts, and personalities (already shaped by other communication technologies) affected by the ways we use the medium and the ways it uses us. The second level of possible CMC-triggered change is the level of person-to-person interaction where relationships, friendships, and communities happen. CMC offers a new capability of «many to many» communication. The third level of possible change in our lives, the political, derives from the middle, social level, for politics is always a combination of communications and physical power, and the role of communications media among the citizenry is particularly important in the politics of democratic societies.
In the first category, Rheingold himself has given a good example on how
the mind can become occupied (and confused) with virtual world interaction.
The «many to many» communications on the second level facilitates
a much faster and manifold interaction which previously would have demanded
a large gathering with a lot of formal arrangements, but is now done in
the informal, spontaneous setting of IRC or e-mail lists.
On the third level, new information technology has made the resource of
information publicly accessible and given new ways of sharing knowledge
to encounter governments and companies with alternative expertise. The use
of the Internet by the major candidates during the 1996 Presidential Campaign
in the United States may also serve as an illustration of the growing importance
of the Internet in a political society, as well as the opportunities the
common citizen has to interact with many government bodies in a number of
countries simply by sending an e-mail from their computer. 15
Critical Voices
In the midst of all the new possibilities and abilities the computers provide,
it is increasingly important to perform a conscious critique on their influence
on our everyday life. Or more precisely, the way we let the computer dominate
or limit work and relationships. Our life with computers also creates myths
in a modern society. The popular stories in media and elsewhere tells us
that the computer networks are powerful, global, fast, inexpensive. Yes,
it is true that our modern society would not function without data processing
power. However, as Clifford Stoll writes,
"Our networks can be frustrating, expensive, unreliable connections
that get in the way of useful work. It is an overpromoted, hollow world,
devoid of warmth and human kindness.
The heavily promoted information infrastructure addresses few social needs
or business concerns. At the same time, it directly threatens precious parts
of our society, including schools, libraries and social institutions.
No birds sing.
For all the promises of virtual communities, it's more important to live
a real life in a real neighborhood." 16
Stoll emphasizes that in the midst of all new abilities the computer have given to society, it might also isolate us from one another rather than bring us together.
We need only deal with one side of the individual over the net. And if we don't like what we see, we just pull the plug. Or flame them. There's no need to tolerate the imperfections of real people. It's the same intolerance found on the highway, where motorists direct intense anger at one another. 17
The key issue is what kind of role we allow the computer to play in our lives. As with almost any kind of «thing» in the world it may become destructive if it gains power over us or lead is into any form of addictive behavior. As Jesus said, «For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.» (Matt 6:21, NIV) Human-computer relations will inevitibly challenge the core values of our life and influence our behavior. Maybe the best medicine is to constantly remind oneself (and others) of what the computer still cannot do, provide human touch, comfort, interaction on a deep personal level. 18
In daily life with a computer, it is extremely vital always to remember that computer-mediated communication is an intimate, strongly emotional tool that can affect people's feelings in a profound way. Words on a screen can really hurt people. They may be uttered as «words on the fly» like an oral telephone conversation but have indeed the permanence of a publication, searchable years afterwards for anyone on the Internet if it were written to a Usenet forum. Also events of «virtual rape» have taken place and deeply affected both individuals exposed to it and the virtual community where it happened. 19
The rules--and especially lack of rules that in and of itself becomes a
norm within some channels--represent a major challenge to Christian ethics.
This will be discussed in the next sub-chapter. Nevertheless, let it already
be clear that we as Christians need to clarify the terms in which we are
joining these communities. Keeping in mind and constantly challenging the
purposes and ideas we represent as Christians, no matter what kind of «world»
we are in, may be helpful to stay properly «armed» in the virtual
world.
However, saying that the Internet is completely without rules is not correct.
It has, of course, its own «Declaration of Independence.» 20
There are rules of good conduct. Yet the «laws» of the Net are all local and «tribal». The only behavior one can control on the Internet is your own. You own your own words, and they may sooner or later return in a way where one has to account for them.
Given the new possibilities for interaction, for change of identity and
sex, still human beings are relating to each other through new means of
communication. When we recognize the ability for these tools to influence
and ultimately change our own behavior and attitude toward life, we need
to ask, «What will then be the effect on the soul and dignity of the
God-designed being?»
Endnotes:
1 A good introduction to the various tools for human interaction, see Donald K. Smith, Creating Understanding, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1992), and Viggo Søgaard, Media in Church and Mission, (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1993).
2 Charles H. Kraft, Communication Theory for Christian Witness, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 43.
3 Stanely Hauerwas, A Community of Character, (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1981), 44.
4 Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, "The Net and Netizens. The Impact the Net has on People's Lives." 1993? Available as chapter 7 from http://wuarchive.wustl.edu:80 /doc/misc/acn/ netbook; Internet.
5 Nicholas Baran, Inside the Information Superhighway, (Scottsdale, AZ: The Coriolis Group, Inc., 1995), 133.
6 J. C. R. Licklider and Robert Taylor, "The Computer as a Communication Device," in Science and Tehnology, April 1968.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Reid, Electropolis: Communication and Community on the Internet Relay Chat, 1991. For more valuable reading on cultural issues in cyberspace, see Elizabeth M. Reid, Cultural Formations in Text-Based Virtual Realities, M.A. Thesis at University of Melbourne, Australia, Department of History, 1994. Available from http://www.ee.mu.oz.au/papers/emr/cv.html
10 Sara Kiesler, Jane Siegel and Timothy W. McGuire, "Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-mediated Communication." in American Psychologist, Vol. 39, Number 10, October 1984, 1126.
11 Ibid., Reid 1991.
12 Rheingold, The Virtual Community: homesteading on the electronic frontier, 2.
13 See also Kellner, God on the Internet, 7f.
14 Ibid., 10.
15 During the election night in November 1996, the CNN Internet site got 5 million hits per hour, according to statistics from CNN Interactive. (cnn.com/TECH/9611/06/ Internet.jam/)
16 Clifford Stoll, Silicon Snake Oil, (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 232. Stoll himself has very much been a part of the Internet growth. As a computer specialist he also has written the book "The Cuckoo"s Egg" about how he caught German spies prowling through computers.
17 Ibid., 58.
18 There are a lot of other intellectual things the computers cannot do in terms of artificial intelligence, as Dr. Hubert L. Dreyfus has examined very thoroughly from a philosophical angle in his book What Computers Still Can't Do, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993)
19 Julian Dibbell, "A Rape in Cyberspace; or How an Evil Clown, a haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database into a Society." in High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace, Peter Ludlow, ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), 380.
20 tjefferson@founders.org has formulated the fundamental
purpose of the Net. It is well worth reading to better understand the fundamental
mentallity of the system:
"On the Net, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
users are created equal, that they are endowed by their Network with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness. That to secure these rights, networks are connected with networks
of networks forming the Internet, deriving their connections from the consent
of the individual computers. That whenever any Form of regulation or network
node becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the User to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new connections, laying their foundation
on such principles, and organizing
their powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Networks long
established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly
all experience hath shown, that Users are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the default Network states to which they are accustomed."
Quoted from Van der Leun, "Rules of the Net" New York 1996,
page xiii. The book gives a popularized introduction to behavior on the
Internet.