Essays from last semester
First Essay, worth 20%. The Internet is a product of the US Military. Discuss. Mark: 15.8/20 (79%, a Distinction ... which are received by about 25% of the class - but since Distinctions range from 70 - 79, I did better than most of them :p). Word limit: 1000, actual words: 1027 (+ or - 10% is acceptable)
ARPANET: THE FRAMEWORK THAT ALLOWED ITS USERS TO CREATE THE INTERNET
It is a commonly stated urban myth that the Internet was invented in the 1960s, deep in the Pentagon - or alternatively, that former United States Vice President Al Gore invented it (Peters, 2004). As with many widely stated assertions, there is a hint of truth to both these statements. It is true that much of what we currently know as the Internet began, or was created, as a part of ARPANET. This does not mean however, that the Internet is purely a product of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), or any other part of the United States military. Not only were there a number of other organisations working on parallel projects, but many of the developments that are considered integral parts of the Internet as it is today, were created by the users of these networks and were initially unsanctioned and unintended by the creators of the networks.
ARPA was founded as a part of the US military in 1958. It was founded in reaction to the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union with the purpose of preventing technological surprise (DARPA, 2005). ARPA created a network, called ARPANET, in the late 1960s. ARPANET began as a network connecting computers at four universities in order to allow computers to communicate with one another. As stated by Okin (2005, p. 207), “it was engineered to connect computers, not people”. It was envisioned that by networking computers together, and by having multiple access points for each computer, the computers would be put to best use. This was due to a system called time-sharing, allowing multiple people to be inputting data whilst the computer might be working on a completely different problem (Okin, 2005, p. 48-9; Peters, 2004, p. 4-5). The key principle behind the idea of the ARPANET was efficient usage of available computer time, considering the large costs involved in purchasing and maintaining the machines.
Communication between users was not considered to be something that would be necessary, for the most part. This is due to the financial limitations - at the time ARPANET was being developed, computers were not only extremely large, but they also cost many times the average yearly income. It was not believed that computers would ever be necessary within the home, or even within the average working environment (Okin, 2005, p. 47).
The user base of ARPANET, however, was given the unprecedented ability to use, change and design their own capabilities whilst using the network. Abbate (1995, p. 5) says “they deliberately created a system that allowed any user with the requisite skill and interest to propose a new feature. As access … spread … non-expert users also exerted influence, improvising new ways of using the network and deciding which applications would become standard features”. One of the results of this is email. Email was not envisioned by the creators of ARPANET, and was not added to the network as an official function for approximately two years after it had been created - but became popular with the users of ARPANET almost immediately (Okin, 2005, p. 209). Other developments created by the user base include Usenet and protocols such as Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and LISTSERV, with at least some effort to suppress creations such as this (Stephenson, 1994, p. 10-11)
ARPANET was not the only network that was developing during the 1960s and 1970s. Another network that came to prominence was developed at Xerox PARC, circa 1975 (Peters, 2004, p. 10). There were also developments outside the United States - Abbate asserts that these networks “made significant contributions to the system that are rarely recognised.” These networks were extremely important in the development of the Internet, not only for their contributions to the system, but due to the fact that while they are all networks in their own right, none of them can be truly classified as an Internet on their own. It was only once these networks began linking together that they became an Internet.
Internet has several definitions, dependent on what the aim of the user is. One definition is that it is a network of networks (Okin, 2005, p. 91) - that is, the Internet is made up of an infinite number of networks. Another is that it is a communication tool used by millions of people and computers every day(Kitchin, 1998, p 2-3). A more colloquial definition, perhaps, would include specific reference to the World Wide Web, Email, Chat protocols and other tools that are used while people are “online” (Lexico Publishing Group, 2007). It is important to note that none of these definitions are incorrect, but it is all of them together that make up what we reference when we use the word Internet. Thus, it must be seen that the ARPANET was not an Internet. It merely provided the necessary framework to allow the development of much of what we see as the Internet today.
There are a number of important parts of the Internet today that were not in existence until after ARPANET was closed down in 1989. One of these is the World Wide Web (WWW), which has made available information much more accessible to those using the Internet. Another important development was allowing commercial usage of the networks (Okin, 2005, p. 22-23). These two developments arguably influenced the Internet’s expansion hugely, attracting exponential growth by not only the business community, who saw it as a tool to promote products and ideas in new markets, but also to individuals and families’ who saw it as an ability to access a huge repository of information in an easy way, but also an ability to communicate more easily with friends and family across the globe.
Therefore, it must be concluded that the Internet is not the product of the US military. While the US military did have a significant role in the development of networking and tools, their intention was not to create a way to communicate between people, only between computers. It would be more correct to state that the Internet is the product of its users. This started with the user base of ARPANET and has continued to present with the user base of the Internet.
Reference List
Abbate, J. (1999). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). (2005). Bridging the Gap. Retrieved 25 March 2007, from http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/BridgingTheGap_Feb_05.pdf
Kitchin, R. (1998). Cyberspace: World in the Wires. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Lixicro Publishing Group, LLC. (2007). Internet - Definitions from Dictionary.com. Retrieved 30 March 2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Internet
Okin, J.R. (2005). The Internet Revolution. Maine: Ironbound Press.
Peters, I. (2004). So, who really did invent the Internet. Retrieved 30 March 2007, from http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html
Stephenson, J. (1995). (De)Constructing the Matrix: Towards a Social History of the Early Internet. Retrieved 30 March 2007, from http://www.tranquileye.com/netessays/de_constructing_the_matrix.html
Final Essay, worth 40%. Does the Internet constitute a new social space? Discuss (or something very similar to that, anyway :p) Mark: 32/40 (80%, a High Distinction ... which are received by maybe 5% of the class, if that.)Word limit: 2500, actual words: 1906 (+ or - 10% is acceptable)
THE INTERNET AS A SUPPLEMENTARY SOCIAL SPACE
With mechanisms such as email, bulletin boards, instant messaging and chat protocols available on the Internet, it is certainly a technology that has expanded available methods of social communication (Cummings, Butler and Kraut, 2000). This does not mean, however, that the Internet constitutes a new social space. Through the analysis of the tools listed above in the context of Internet dating, virtual communities and blogging, it will be demonstrated that rather than being a new and independent social space, the Internet is simply a supplementary social space to those available offline.
The Internet has been said to be eroding society, through weakening our links to those around us. Whether this is true or not, however, is debatable. One study, published by Zhao, analyses the difference in social ties between four different groups of people - those who do not use the Internet at all, those who use the Internet without any communication with other users, people who use the Internet for email, and those who, in addition to email, use methods of mass communication including chat and message boards. Using surveys that were not taken for the purposes of the study, it was determined that on average, people who use the Internet to communicate with large numbers of people at once have more social ties than those who do not use the Internet at all. However, those who are heavy users of the Internet, who do not communicate with other users by any means, have less social ties. The study does indicate that heavy users of mass communication tools have less purely offline social ties than people who do not use the Internet at all, however it is stated that statistical significance was not reached. So while this study is helpful in that it demonstrates that some of the social stereotypes of the Internet are false, it would be more valuable if more emphasis could be applied with regards to where social interactions take place. Other studies, such as that by Cummings, Butler and Kraut, have maintained that email, bulletin boards and chat are less valuable in developing and maintaining social relationships than offline interactions, as relationships developed and maintained through the use of the Internet tend to be less personal.
One method of social communication over the Internet, that envelopes both the online and the offline, is Internet dating. Internet dating has become extremely popular, with a large number of sites available, offering service to people in many hundreds of different categories - for example, location, religion, race, or interest. People have many different reasons for using an Internet dating service, whether they are looking for friendship, a romantic relationship, a sexual relationship or various other types of relationships. Hardey examines internet dating in the context of the ‘pure relationship’ - that is, the relationship is entered into ‘for it’s own sake’, and continued only for as long as both parties are deriving sufficient contentment to convince them to stay in the relationship. Ben-Ze’ev references a similar idea, by comparing intrinsically and extrinsically valuable relationships. Extrinsically valuable behaviour is goal-oriented behaviour, while intrinsically valuable behaviour is doing something for its own sake. Offline relationships consist of many things that are solely extrinsically valuable. On the other hand, online relationships often exist for the purposes of themselves - not because there is any other reason for them to exist. This is, of course, dependent on what the people involved are looking for when they start a relationship. If people are looking to meet for sexual purposes, or are actively looking to get married, that would constitute an extrinsic value. Alternatively, if they were interacting purely online without any intention of meeting offline, the relationship would be one of intrinsic value.
The question is, however, whether relationships that begin as being purely online, stay that way. Both Ben-Ze’ev and Hardey indicate that they do not. Due to a relationship online being unable to achieve completion, passions are heightened. Heightened passions lead to wanting to meet the other person in order to ‘complete’ the relationship. If this is done, a number of different outcomes are possible. Often, a meeting leads to the failure of the relationship - perhaps due to the passion ‘dying’ since there was no longer a feeling of incompleteness. The relationship may also fail for other reasons, for example, not resembling the person that you made yourself out to be, or vice versa. On the other hand, the relationship might continue after it has been ‘completed’. However, if it continues, it is no longer a purely online relationship. It has become (at least partially) an offline relationship, with extrinsic value. It is ironic, as stated by Be-Ze’ev, that a successful online relationship is one that ends to become an offline relationship.
It must also be noted that Internet Dting, in itself, is not a new concept. While it offers this type of service in a new environment, it essentially replicates personals columns in newspapers, magazines and other similar concepts. It generally does allow a user to include more information about themselves than in newspaper columns than in newspaper columns that usually have a fairly short maximum character allowance. It also has a more personalised feel - users can alter what information they have provided at any time, which is impossible once a newspaper is in print. Additionally, people who choose to Internet date can take their time in choosing to give others more personal information, such as name, address or telephone number, which might be necessary when communicating through a newspaper personals column, as anonymous email addresses and usernames are relatively easy to come by. This demonstrates that while there are slight differences in the way Internet dating is gone about, it is not a new concept, neither does it operate independently of offline considerations.
There are however, some forms of social communication over the Internet that are, to a degree, new concepts. One of these is the online community, which allows people from largely different locations to be valued and contributing members of a community that is often based on a mutual interest. Membership of an online community can be spread across many nations, and multiple locations within those, giving them a truly international effect. This allows members of communities like this to get to know and appreciate people they would not have had the opportunity to meet had it not been for the effect of the Internet. However, many online communities have some form of offline facet as well. This may be because they originated with a group of friends who knew each other offline originally, or simply because the members feel such a sense of community with each other that they want to solidify it through additional offline meetings. Whether these meetings are on a large scale, or regular, is dependent on the individual and the community involved. But, that many choose to meet those they have formed communities with online indicates that rather than the mentality of the Internet being a separate social space to the offline world, it is seen as supplementary. People may not be seen as totally real, and not completely trusted, until they are met offline, or have met at least someone in your own social circle, and through this, become offline social ties rather than just people who know one another online (Zheng, Veinott, Bos, Olson and Olson 2001).
Online communities also reflect some of the negative behaviours of offline communities. One example of this is demonstrated in the study of hazing in an Internet community by Honeycutt. Longer term members of communities may feel threatened by the influx of new members - the example in this case being many new members from the same source in a short period of time. Additional negative social behaviour that is increasing on the Internet is the incidence of cyberstalking and cyberpredators - which, due to the information we make available about ourselves online, in addition to information we have no control over being similarly available, is in some ways much easier to go about than stalking in a purely offline sense. Cyberstalkers and cyberpredators tend to use the information available to them online to terrorise both online and offline, however (Phillips & Morrissey, 2004). This demonstrates again that the online ‘world’ is not a new and independent social space, but one that supplements behaviour offline - in this case, in a negative way.
Blogging is, in some ways, an example of this. Blogs may be personal, political, or community based, to name a few examples. However, especially with personal blogs, bloggers tend to disclose very personal information about themselves, their friends, their employers and generally whatever happens in their lives. For the most part, these bloggers do not take steps to restrict access to the posts they make online assuming that the people concerned will not find them, and that the people reading their blog are not predators. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Viegas notes that, while many bloggers feel close to their ‘core’ audience, this only constitutes a part of their actual readership - those who actually comment or participate in some way. The bloggers surveyed themselves agreed that they did not know who else might be reading their blog, and that there were certainly others that did. Like with life offline, therefore, it is obvious that a community is made up of not only those who are active within the community, but those who observe. Positive or negative actions can occur through this, with many ‘negative’ occurrences having been documented through news stories - employees fired due to comments made on their personal blogs, or possible ‘terrorist’ activities interrupted due to relevant authorities becoming aware of remarks made (Miller & Shepherd, 2004).
Blogs are, to a degree, a new social phenomenon. While it may be said that they originated as diaries and journals in an offline context, this would be deceiving - diaries and journals are essentially private documents. Blogs, by contrast, are intended to be read (Miller & Shepherd, 2004). Blogs could also be said to be the new newspaper editorial, dependent on the subject matter contained within them. To a degree, this is more fitting, as most newspapers would print letters agreeing with, or disputing, the subject matter of their editorials. However, blogging allows an immediacy that is not available in a printed newspaper, enabling debate with other respondents, and a sense of community to develop with those who comment on a regular basis. This does not necessarily constitute a new social space, however, as interaction does not tend to occur as a social function. Reference may be made to personal social experiences and feelings in responding to issues, however most blogs that could be compared to editorials expect (and allow) only comments that make reference to the issues in question.
Therefore, it must be stated that while the Internet is definitely a new means of social communication, it does not constitute an independent new social space. It relates to, and interrelates with, more traditional social spaces offline too often for this to be the case. This is not to say that interaction over the Internet is valueless - it allows people to contact and communicate others with similar interests, and allows non-traditional communities to form, spread over many countries, among other things. As such, it does constitute a social space, using a new method of communication, but is not an independent social space, in and of itself.
List of References
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2004). Flirting On and Offline. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 10(1), 24-42.
Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., and Kraut, R. (2000). The quality of online social relationships. Retrieved on 1 June, 2007, from http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/progress/acm-trust-submitted.pdf
Hardey, M. (2002). Life Beyond the Screen: embodiment and identity through the Internet. The Sociological Review, 50(4), 570-585.
Honeycutt, C. (2005). Hazing as a Process of Boundary Maintenance in an Online Community. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved 3 May, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/honeycutt.html
Miller, C., & Shepherd, D. (2004). Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog. Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. Retrieved 1 June, 2007, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogging_as_social_action_a_genre_analysis_of_the_weblog.html
Phillips, F. & Morrissey, G. (2004). Cyberstalking and Cyberpredators: A Threat to Safe Sexuality on the Internet. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 10(1), 66-79.
Viegas, F.B, (2005). Bloggers' Expectations of Privacy and Accountability: An Initial Survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved 3 May, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/viegas.html
Zhao, S. (2006). Do Internet Users Have More Social Ties? A Call for Differentiated Analyses of Internet Use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved 3 May, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/zhao.html
Zheng, J., Veinott, E., Bos, N., Olson, J., & Olson, G. (2001). Trust without touch: jump-start trust with social chat. Retrieved 1 June, 2007, from http://www.crew.umich.edu/Technical%20reports/Zheng_Veinott_Bos_OlsonJ_OlsonG_Trust_without_touch_12_10_01.pdf
ARPANET: THE FRAMEWORK THAT ALLOWED ITS USERS TO CREATE THE INTERNET
It is a commonly stated urban myth that the Internet was invented in the 1960s, deep in the Pentagon - or alternatively, that former United States Vice President Al Gore invented it (Peters, 2004). As with many widely stated assertions, there is a hint of truth to both these statements. It is true that much of what we currently know as the Internet began, or was created, as a part of ARPANET. This does not mean however, that the Internet is purely a product of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), or any other part of the United States military. Not only were there a number of other organisations working on parallel projects, but many of the developments that are considered integral parts of the Internet as it is today, were created by the users of these networks and were initially unsanctioned and unintended by the creators of the networks.
ARPA was founded as a part of the US military in 1958. It was founded in reaction to the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union with the purpose of preventing technological surprise (DARPA, 2005). ARPA created a network, called ARPANET, in the late 1960s. ARPANET began as a network connecting computers at four universities in order to allow computers to communicate with one another. As stated by Okin (2005, p. 207), “it was engineered to connect computers, not people”. It was envisioned that by networking computers together, and by having multiple access points for each computer, the computers would be put to best use. This was due to a system called time-sharing, allowing multiple people to be inputting data whilst the computer might be working on a completely different problem (Okin, 2005, p. 48-9; Peters, 2004, p. 4-5). The key principle behind the idea of the ARPANET was efficient usage of available computer time, considering the large costs involved in purchasing and maintaining the machines.
Communication between users was not considered to be something that would be necessary, for the most part. This is due to the financial limitations - at the time ARPANET was being developed, computers were not only extremely large, but they also cost many times the average yearly income. It was not believed that computers would ever be necessary within the home, or even within the average working environment (Okin, 2005, p. 47).
The user base of ARPANET, however, was given the unprecedented ability to use, change and design their own capabilities whilst using the network. Abbate (1995, p. 5) says “they deliberately created a system that allowed any user with the requisite skill and interest to propose a new feature. As access … spread … non-expert users also exerted influence, improvising new ways of using the network and deciding which applications would become standard features”. One of the results of this is email. Email was not envisioned by the creators of ARPANET, and was not added to the network as an official function for approximately two years after it had been created - but became popular with the users of ARPANET almost immediately (Okin, 2005, p. 209). Other developments created by the user base include Usenet and protocols such as Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and LISTSERV, with at least some effort to suppress creations such as this (Stephenson, 1994, p. 10-11)
ARPANET was not the only network that was developing during the 1960s and 1970s. Another network that came to prominence was developed at Xerox PARC, circa 1975 (Peters, 2004, p. 10). There were also developments outside the United States - Abbate asserts that these networks “made significant contributions to the system that are rarely recognised.” These networks were extremely important in the development of the Internet, not only for their contributions to the system, but due to the fact that while they are all networks in their own right, none of them can be truly classified as an Internet on their own. It was only once these networks began linking together that they became an Internet.
Internet has several definitions, dependent on what the aim of the user is. One definition is that it is a network of networks (Okin, 2005, p. 91) - that is, the Internet is made up of an infinite number of networks. Another is that it is a communication tool used by millions of people and computers every day(Kitchin, 1998, p 2-3). A more colloquial definition, perhaps, would include specific reference to the World Wide Web, Email, Chat protocols and other tools that are used while people are “online” (Lexico Publishing Group, 2007). It is important to note that none of these definitions are incorrect, but it is all of them together that make up what we reference when we use the word Internet. Thus, it must be seen that the ARPANET was not an Internet. It merely provided the necessary framework to allow the development of much of what we see as the Internet today.
There are a number of important parts of the Internet today that were not in existence until after ARPANET was closed down in 1989. One of these is the World Wide Web (WWW), which has made available information much more accessible to those using the Internet. Another important development was allowing commercial usage of the networks (Okin, 2005, p. 22-23). These two developments arguably influenced the Internet’s expansion hugely, attracting exponential growth by not only the business community, who saw it as a tool to promote products and ideas in new markets, but also to individuals and families’ who saw it as an ability to access a huge repository of information in an easy way, but also an ability to communicate more easily with friends and family across the globe.
Therefore, it must be concluded that the Internet is not the product of the US military. While the US military did have a significant role in the development of networking and tools, their intention was not to create a way to communicate between people, only between computers. It would be more correct to state that the Internet is the product of its users. This started with the user base of ARPANET and has continued to present with the user base of the Internet.
Reference List
Abbate, J. (1999). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). (2005). Bridging the Gap. Retrieved 25 March 2007, from http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/BridgingTheGap_Feb_05.pdf
Kitchin, R. (1998). Cyberspace: World in the Wires. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Lixicro Publishing Group, LLC. (2007). Internet - Definitions from Dictionary.com. Retrieved 30 March 2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Internet
Okin, J.R. (2005). The Internet Revolution. Maine: Ironbound Press.
Peters, I. (2004). So, who really did invent the Internet. Retrieved 30 March 2007, from http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html
Stephenson, J. (1995). (De)Constructing the Matrix: Towards a Social History of the Early Internet. Retrieved 30 March 2007, from http://www.tranquileye.com/netessays/de_constructing_the_matrix.html
Final Essay, worth 40%. Does the Internet constitute a new social space? Discuss (or something very similar to that, anyway :p) Mark: 32/40 (80%, a High Distinction ... which are received by maybe 5% of the class, if that.)Word limit: 2500, actual words: 1906 (+ or - 10% is acceptable)
THE INTERNET AS A SUPPLEMENTARY SOCIAL SPACE
With mechanisms such as email, bulletin boards, instant messaging and chat protocols available on the Internet, it is certainly a technology that has expanded available methods of social communication (Cummings, Butler and Kraut, 2000). This does not mean, however, that the Internet constitutes a new social space. Through the analysis of the tools listed above in the context of Internet dating, virtual communities and blogging, it will be demonstrated that rather than being a new and independent social space, the Internet is simply a supplementary social space to those available offline.
The Internet has been said to be eroding society, through weakening our links to those around us. Whether this is true or not, however, is debatable. One study, published by Zhao, analyses the difference in social ties between four different groups of people - those who do not use the Internet at all, those who use the Internet without any communication with other users, people who use the Internet for email, and those who, in addition to email, use methods of mass communication including chat and message boards. Using surveys that were not taken for the purposes of the study, it was determined that on average, people who use the Internet to communicate with large numbers of people at once have more social ties than those who do not use the Internet at all. However, those who are heavy users of the Internet, who do not communicate with other users by any means, have less social ties. The study does indicate that heavy users of mass communication tools have less purely offline social ties than people who do not use the Internet at all, however it is stated that statistical significance was not reached. So while this study is helpful in that it demonstrates that some of the social stereotypes of the Internet are false, it would be more valuable if more emphasis could be applied with regards to where social interactions take place. Other studies, such as that by Cummings, Butler and Kraut, have maintained that email, bulletin boards and chat are less valuable in developing and maintaining social relationships than offline interactions, as relationships developed and maintained through the use of the Internet tend to be less personal.
One method of social communication over the Internet, that envelopes both the online and the offline, is Internet dating. Internet dating has become extremely popular, with a large number of sites available, offering service to people in many hundreds of different categories - for example, location, religion, race, or interest. People have many different reasons for using an Internet dating service, whether they are looking for friendship, a romantic relationship, a sexual relationship or various other types of relationships. Hardey examines internet dating in the context of the ‘pure relationship’ - that is, the relationship is entered into ‘for it’s own sake’, and continued only for as long as both parties are deriving sufficient contentment to convince them to stay in the relationship. Ben-Ze’ev references a similar idea, by comparing intrinsically and extrinsically valuable relationships. Extrinsically valuable behaviour is goal-oriented behaviour, while intrinsically valuable behaviour is doing something for its own sake. Offline relationships consist of many things that are solely extrinsically valuable. On the other hand, online relationships often exist for the purposes of themselves - not because there is any other reason for them to exist. This is, of course, dependent on what the people involved are looking for when they start a relationship. If people are looking to meet for sexual purposes, or are actively looking to get married, that would constitute an extrinsic value. Alternatively, if they were interacting purely online without any intention of meeting offline, the relationship would be one of intrinsic value.
The question is, however, whether relationships that begin as being purely online, stay that way. Both Ben-Ze’ev and Hardey indicate that they do not. Due to a relationship online being unable to achieve completion, passions are heightened. Heightened passions lead to wanting to meet the other person in order to ‘complete’ the relationship. If this is done, a number of different outcomes are possible. Often, a meeting leads to the failure of the relationship - perhaps due to the passion ‘dying’ since there was no longer a feeling of incompleteness. The relationship may also fail for other reasons, for example, not resembling the person that you made yourself out to be, or vice versa. On the other hand, the relationship might continue after it has been ‘completed’. However, if it continues, it is no longer a purely online relationship. It has become (at least partially) an offline relationship, with extrinsic value. It is ironic, as stated by Be-Ze’ev, that a successful online relationship is one that ends to become an offline relationship.
It must also be noted that Internet Dting, in itself, is not a new concept. While it offers this type of service in a new environment, it essentially replicates personals columns in newspapers, magazines and other similar concepts. It generally does allow a user to include more information about themselves than in newspaper columns than in newspaper columns that usually have a fairly short maximum character allowance. It also has a more personalised feel - users can alter what information they have provided at any time, which is impossible once a newspaper is in print. Additionally, people who choose to Internet date can take their time in choosing to give others more personal information, such as name, address or telephone number, which might be necessary when communicating through a newspaper personals column, as anonymous email addresses and usernames are relatively easy to come by. This demonstrates that while there are slight differences in the way Internet dating is gone about, it is not a new concept, neither does it operate independently of offline considerations.
There are however, some forms of social communication over the Internet that are, to a degree, new concepts. One of these is the online community, which allows people from largely different locations to be valued and contributing members of a community that is often based on a mutual interest. Membership of an online community can be spread across many nations, and multiple locations within those, giving them a truly international effect. This allows members of communities like this to get to know and appreciate people they would not have had the opportunity to meet had it not been for the effect of the Internet. However, many online communities have some form of offline facet as well. This may be because they originated with a group of friends who knew each other offline originally, or simply because the members feel such a sense of community with each other that they want to solidify it through additional offline meetings. Whether these meetings are on a large scale, or regular, is dependent on the individual and the community involved. But, that many choose to meet those they have formed communities with online indicates that rather than the mentality of the Internet being a separate social space to the offline world, it is seen as supplementary. People may not be seen as totally real, and not completely trusted, until they are met offline, or have met at least someone in your own social circle, and through this, become offline social ties rather than just people who know one another online (Zheng, Veinott, Bos, Olson and Olson 2001).
Online communities also reflect some of the negative behaviours of offline communities. One example of this is demonstrated in the study of hazing in an Internet community by Honeycutt. Longer term members of communities may feel threatened by the influx of new members - the example in this case being many new members from the same source in a short period of time. Additional negative social behaviour that is increasing on the Internet is the incidence of cyberstalking and cyberpredators - which, due to the information we make available about ourselves online, in addition to information we have no control over being similarly available, is in some ways much easier to go about than stalking in a purely offline sense. Cyberstalkers and cyberpredators tend to use the information available to them online to terrorise both online and offline, however (Phillips & Morrissey, 2004). This demonstrates again that the online ‘world’ is not a new and independent social space, but one that supplements behaviour offline - in this case, in a negative way.
Blogging is, in some ways, an example of this. Blogs may be personal, political, or community based, to name a few examples. However, especially with personal blogs, bloggers tend to disclose very personal information about themselves, their friends, their employers and generally whatever happens in their lives. For the most part, these bloggers do not take steps to restrict access to the posts they make online assuming that the people concerned will not find them, and that the people reading their blog are not predators. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Viegas notes that, while many bloggers feel close to their ‘core’ audience, this only constitutes a part of their actual readership - those who actually comment or participate in some way. The bloggers surveyed themselves agreed that they did not know who else might be reading their blog, and that there were certainly others that did. Like with life offline, therefore, it is obvious that a community is made up of not only those who are active within the community, but those who observe. Positive or negative actions can occur through this, with many ‘negative’ occurrences having been documented through news stories - employees fired due to comments made on their personal blogs, or possible ‘terrorist’ activities interrupted due to relevant authorities becoming aware of remarks made (Miller & Shepherd, 2004).
Blogs are, to a degree, a new social phenomenon. While it may be said that they originated as diaries and journals in an offline context, this would be deceiving - diaries and journals are essentially private documents. Blogs, by contrast, are intended to be read (Miller & Shepherd, 2004). Blogs could also be said to be the new newspaper editorial, dependent on the subject matter contained within them. To a degree, this is more fitting, as most newspapers would print letters agreeing with, or disputing, the subject matter of their editorials. However, blogging allows an immediacy that is not available in a printed newspaper, enabling debate with other respondents, and a sense of community to develop with those who comment on a regular basis. This does not necessarily constitute a new social space, however, as interaction does not tend to occur as a social function. Reference may be made to personal social experiences and feelings in responding to issues, however most blogs that could be compared to editorials expect (and allow) only comments that make reference to the issues in question.
Therefore, it must be stated that while the Internet is definitely a new means of social communication, it does not constitute an independent new social space. It relates to, and interrelates with, more traditional social spaces offline too often for this to be the case. This is not to say that interaction over the Internet is valueless - it allows people to contact and communicate others with similar interests, and allows non-traditional communities to form, spread over many countries, among other things. As such, it does constitute a social space, using a new method of communication, but is not an independent social space, in and of itself.
List of References
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2004). Flirting On and Offline. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 10(1), 24-42.
Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., and Kraut, R. (2000). The quality of online social relationships. Retrieved on 1 June, 2007, from http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/progress/acm-trust-submitted.pdf
Hardey, M. (2002). Life Beyond the Screen: embodiment and identity through the Internet. The Sociological Review, 50(4), 570-585.
Honeycutt, C. (2005). Hazing as a Process of Boundary Maintenance in an Online Community. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved 3 May, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/honeycutt.html
Miller, C., & Shepherd, D. (2004). Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog. Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. Retrieved 1 June, 2007, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogging_as_social_action_a_genre_analysis_of_the_weblog.html
Phillips, F. & Morrissey, G. (2004). Cyberstalking and Cyberpredators: A Threat to Safe Sexuality on the Internet. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 10(1), 66-79.
Viegas, F.B, (2005). Bloggers' Expectations of Privacy and Accountability: An Initial Survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved 3 May, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/viegas.html
Zhao, S. (2006). Do Internet Users Have More Social Ties? A Call for Differentiated Analyses of Internet Use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved 3 May, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/zhao.html
Zheng, J., Veinott, E., Bos, N., Olson, J., & Olson, G. (2001). Trust without touch: jump-start trust with social chat. Retrieved 1 June, 2007, from http://www.crew.umich.edu/Technical%20reports/Zheng_Veinott_Bos_OlsonJ_OlsonG_Trust_without_touch_12_10_01.pdf