Showerpress

So I forgot about sociology…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_the_Internet

Sociologists study society.  With a mandate as broad as that, of course they are interested in how internet functions within human interaction.

I like to think there’s more to it than that, though.  There’s so much more to be said, which should not be restricted to the social sciences.  Given that the internet allows self-publication, the traditional model for distribution of art has radically changed.  Witness the problems the music industry is having with illegal downloads.

There is now even less distinction between ‘art’ and text.  The World Literature course I’m taking uses the phrase creative practice in place of ‘Art’, referring to any creative endeavor – this is probably explained much better elsewhere, but it’s appropriate here. Every action online is a work of creative practice, when formulated in the traditional sense.

I think the entries on Wikipedia are a good indicator of how widely talked about an issue is online.  The article “Sociology of the Internet” still misses the point: (emphasis added)

The Internet has made possible [1] entirely new forms of social interaction, activities and organizing, thanks to its basic features such as widespread usability and access.

Social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace have created a new form of socialization and interaction. Users of these sites are able to add a wide variety of items to their personal pages, to indicate common interests, and to connect with others. It is also possible to find a large circle of existing acquaintances, especially if a site allows users [2] to utilize their real names, and to allow communication [3]among large existing groups of people.

Sites like meetup.com exist to allow wider announcement of groups which may exist mainly for face-to-face meetings, but which may have a variety of minor interactions [4]over their group’s site at meetup.org, or other similar sites.

This is all very true, and very interesting.  But it is examining ‘the internet’ as something apart from society that has allowed new ways of communication to take place.

[1]
What I’m trying to say is that sentences which are constructed like this treat internet as an external imposition or tool on a ‘fixed’ humanity.  In reality the internet is a collective development of human consciousness; it’s not just about the cables and wires, internet is thought.

[2]
This is very interesting.  Is a ‘user’ a person, a type of person, a particular persona….we have never had ‘users’ before.  This is an entirely new construct, yet exists in the vocabulary of almost everyone. Does a ‘user’ have the same rights as a person? Is a user connected or disconnected from the person sitting at the desk, typing on the tube…

[3]
Communication itself has changed.  What does it mean to communicate now?  Something which you posted a year ago is suddenly picked up by some program / algorithm online, split up and displayed uniquely on someone else’s home page.  At what point did you ‘talk’ to them?  When were the words ’said’ and who do they belong to?  Many, many other questions exist.

[4]
The article is forgivable vague because we have no way of discussing these small interactions.  We must resort to saying ‘interactions’, because it is not even clear if the communication is speech, text or thought.

Internet is not a noun, it is the method through which our ‘collective unconscious’ manifests.  This is internet.

It doesn’t have to be mystical (meaning irrational), however.  I find it useful and appropriate to talk about internet in terms of spirituality, but these effects can also be accounted for in more academic terms.

I’m not sure I’m quite up to the task. Firstly, I’m no proponent of scientific rationalism.  Secondly, there isn’t yet a dialect which allows us to speak of internet in objective, methodological terms.

~

In short, the mistake current studies of internet are making is to view it in terms of how it expands on previous methods of communication and interaction.  I believe internet itself is so fundamentally new that it has changed people – totally altered how we conceptualize ourselves and interaction.  For this to be true, internet has to be an awakening of that which humans have longed for – a kind of telepathy or collective unconscious that on the surface appears irrational.

How this theory is proved depends on the field of study – I have no clue for example how neuroscience might reveal changes in cognitive response when someone spends hours at a time on message-boards or chat rooms.

~

Dan Brown made the audacious claim that all the world’s problems can be solved using the internet.  I’m looking forward to seeing how he realizes that dream.

There is a growing attitude amongst our generation, a demand expressed through disillusionment with education or even ‘adult society’ as a whole;

Why is internet not at the very center of debate in every theoretical academic discipline?