INTERNET MEDIATED RELATIONSHIPS

I am writing this response to a conference paper that argues that the internet can alieviate alienation. I couldn’t be more sympathetic, but her paper doesn’t really address the concerns of the opposing camp, which says that the internet could never substitute for real relationships. Dreyfus has his catchphrase: “Whatever hugs do for people, telehugs wont do it”. The opposing view is something like “You’re never alone when you have the internet”.

But the more I think about it, the more obvious it is that this is a false dichotomy. There was a post on Boing Boing a while ago about Lover’s Cups.

The Lover’s Cups can enhance the traditional communications. Julie and her best friend Ann live in different states. When Julie got tired or stressed, she had a conversation with Ann through the internet messenger program. However, the text-only communication limited their sympathy and emotional interactions. Today, Julie and Ann use their Lover’s Cups. Julie suggests to Ann to have a coffee break by shaking her cup. While talking through the messenger, they have a feeling of that they are drinking coffee together, and it makes them feel more relaxed and connected.

It strikes me that this feeling of ‘connection’ through the cups will only cause the appropriate affective state in a person in very special circumstances, and only with a very willing participant- putting the status of successful affective interaction on par with, say, hypnotism or tarot card reading. Someone who doesn’t buy into the conceit of these cups just won’t get anything out of it.

But this analysis goes a long way to explaining the hard-nosed stance of the two opposing camps. Dreyfus and the skeptics see this as at most a degenerate form of interaction, at worst that the players are just fooling themselves and are too eager to buy into the technological hype. But the other side, the true believers, just don’t see the problem with these interactions, especially if and when people do find something meaningful about engaging in them. Every online confessional about how much this new technology helps people who really need it reinforces their view, and they just can’t see how Dreyfus’ intellectualist arguments do any work of deflating the genuine fulfillment people can get out of their technology. The problem is of course exacerbated by the fact that children are being raised in an environment where these kinds of interactions are the norm, and technology permeates nearly every aspect of their lives and personal interactions (see the booming popularity of myspace among the 12-16 year olds, for instance). Dreyfus realizes of course that no argument he could give would dissuade people from engaging in their technological fantasies, and he is left lamenting the modern age along with every reactionary before him.

But we don’t want to be reactionary. We want a theoretical understanding of technology and technologically mediated interactions that account for Dreyfus’ worries, and yet are sensitive to the fact that some people can and do use these technologies with great success and satisfaction.