Yesterday I posted an article discussing the potential of social networking media and the collaborative systems that Web 2.0 brings to the our lives to create social isolation as much as it can create a new form of dialogue by breaking down legacy barriers.
Today I want to offer a perspective that may seem a total antithesis to the comments yesterday. This either tells you that I’m a bloke who cannot make up his mind or that the myriads of what the Internet and Web 2.0 can offer to us is to wide and deep that we still haven’t fully figured it out yet.
It’s the latter thought, I assure you…
I recall something I was writing about ‘third places’ in my class on networked societies that seem to fit into the content of the current discussion on the cultural and anthropological impact of social media, and the following is a gist of it…
In the book The Great Good Place, urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg argues that informal and neutral public gathering places are important pillars in building democracy, social equality and community vitality. Calling such venues the third places – contrasting first places (home), and second places (work) – Oldenburg argues that third places allow people to unwind by setting aside their concerns for a pause to enjoy the company and dialogues around them.
Third places serve to level the status of all guests, create habits of public association, and offer psychological support to individuals and communities by meeting people’s innate need for affiliation, a separate gratification that he says the intimacy of the family unit cannot replace.
Traditionally, third places – aptly romanticized through famous scenes in Friends, The Simpsons, or Cheers – have been served by beer gardens, pubs, barbers, or basically places that can, in Oldenburg’s words, “host regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work.”
But because of the present attrition of public spaces due to suburban sprawl, and the fact that urban planning doesn’t take third places into consideration, the viability of physical gathering points seems to be replaced by the Virtual Great Good Place instead.
I find plenty of resonance with Gooltz’s depiction of the current situation.
“In this day of the $20 haircut and $3 cup of coffee, who can really afford to linger and socialize in such environments?”
Gooltz goes on to state his belief that online social networks such as MySpace, Facebook and Second Life are fast becoming the hangouts of young Americans nowadays. I’m inclined to agree with Gooltz’ assessment, and would like to add blogs to the list as well.
In this respect, Soukup says that areas where such computer mediated communication (CMC) resemble third places must consider factors like interactivity and the medium’s ability to solicit playful conversations via informal talk, the neutrality of social media platforms where people from all walks of life can participate in, and the ability to replicate settings for traditional third places like bars and pubs (e.g. consider the virtual Starbucks on Facebook and Second Life, etc).
Of course, differences arise when it comes to deficiencies in areas like localized focus, universal accessibility, and social leveling where the Internet is concerned.
My opinion is that there's a need to reconsider the premises of the third place construct vis-à-vis the largely web-connected world we live in today. Decades ago, before globalization became a buzzword, the lack of technology and mobility meant people were less traveled. Hence, physical third places where fitting for a more insular community where the town or the city they stayed in was their oyster.
With people today fast becoming global citizens, the notion of a localized community should take on a whole new meaning on the Internet – from one originally determined along geographical lines, to include one that is based on topic, subject or interests as well.
Going back to Oldenburg’s original parameters for the third place, CMC is equally if not better able to host regular, voluntary, inclusive, informal, and anticipated gatherings of individuals. And once a state of flow is achieved through the online dialogues, one surely has grounds to argue that it’s taken the user “beyond the realms of home and work.”
In addition, communal vitality is also not worse off if one considers how blogs help to foster a sense of community via interactions with like-minded people as a part of, say, ‘blogosphere,’ or even ‘Twittersphere,’ and in some cases, empower them to make changes in the wider social and political realm.
But here’s the thing though…
Where physical third places are concerned, I think it’s sensible to argue that socialization takes place far more easily than through online communities because of the face-to-face element, which allows individual to gauge for themselves nuances like eye contact and other non verbal behaviors of others, before determining if they want to be part of an association or conversation.
The physical presence is like a kind of indelible personal signature that helps to foster trust, which leads on to associations.
The case on the Internet is a totally different thing.
As Deirdre Breakenridge says on her blog post ‘PR 2.0 Culture – The Sociology and Anthropology of PR,’ unlike being to see a person for what he or she is, the ‘contextualizing’ forces in a CMC environment involve socialization factors such as culture, rules and norms that aren’t as easy to detect, and take a far longer time to understand and pick up. It’s far more challenging to gain entry into such communities and get into a state of ‘flow’ unless it’s a generally disarmed environment.
“Communication professionals must realize that participation in a tight knit community or social network depends upon listening, monitoring, learning and understanding how other people interact to be able to engage in any kind of dialogue,” Deirdre says.
“PR has always been about communication, but because, in the past, we were focused on mass broadcast messaging, we never really took enough time to carefully study the behaviors of the people we wanted to reach.”
In any socialization situation, it takes understanding that culture, and gaining some degree of investment and trust, before one can step in and participate as someone part of the in-group. This is onerous as it is in the physical realm. The online environment only serves to magnify the challenge.
But the key is still the attitude.
If we’re looking for an online community to belong to, it’s not just the passwords or membership applets that we must negotiate to go in.
Behind every URL or domain names we encounter in the space thereafter is still a human being who’s communicating on the basis of trust, and earning trust in an online community calls for a price to be paid through the cost of our time.
There is no free lunch. we've to earn it.
But in the meantime, anyone on Facebook who wants to send me a bottle of Sam Adams or hurl a slice of pizza at me?