Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Mark Graham
Oxford Internet Institute
University of Oxford
www.geospace.co.uk mark.graham@oii.ox.ac.uk
In this commentary, I argue that many of the ways in which we discuss, imagine, and
envision the internet rely on inaccurate and unhelpful spatial metaphors. In particular, the
paper focuses on the usage of the cyberspace metaphor and outlines why the reliance by
contemporary policy makers on this inherently geographic metaphor matters. The
metaphor constrains, enables, and structures very distinct ways of imagining the
interactions between people, information, code, and machines through digital networks.
These distinct imaginations, in turn, have real effects on how we enact politics and bring
places into being.
The commentary traces the history of cyberspace, explores the scope of its current usage,
and highlights the discursive power of its distinct way of shaping our spatial imagination of
the internet. It then concludes by arguing that Geographers should take the lead in
employing alternate, nuanced, and spatially grounded ways of envisioning the myriad ways
in which the internet mediates social, economic and political experiences.
In late 2011, The London Conference on Cyberspace was organised by William Hague and
the UK Foreign Office. The conference, held in the heart of Westminster, brought together
powerful and influential names such as UK Prime Minister David Cameron, US Vice
President Joe Biden, UNDP Head Helen Clark, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt,
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and many others in order to tackle what even the
organisers admitted was an ambitious goal: "to develop a better collective understanding of
how to protect and preserve the tremendous opportunities that the development of
cyberspace offers us all."
A range of visions were presented for the future of the Internet, but what might interest
Importantly, the attendees at this conference are not the only contemporary decision
makers to employ the cyberspace metaphor1. Fifteen years ago, Graham (1998) already
argued that Internet metaphors like cyberspace mask many patterns and practices enacted
and brought into being through the intersections between ICTs and society. But since then,
cyberspace has not disappeared as a way of describing the Internet and the interactions
that occur through it.
In other words, the term is not solely a relic from an earlier age of the Internet.
Cyberspace remains present in the ways that many powerful actors talk about, enact, and
regulate the Internet. Governments around the world have policies, laws, and departments
dedicated to regulating cyberspace. The United States, for instance, has a Cyber
Command dedicated to ensuring US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the
same toadversaries.2 South Korea, China, the United Kingdom, and other countries all
similarly have their own cyber commands3 (e.g. Sung-ki 2009).
The media in much of the world contains daily stories that make reference to cyberspace,
and even academics have continued to employ the metaphor as a way of referring to the
internet4. Work grounded in the fields of law5 (e.g. Spinelo 2011), politics (e.g. Bernal
2006 or Deibert and Rohozinski 2010), sociology (e.g. Daniels 2011), education (e.g.
Irving 2011), religion (e.g. Badahdah and Tieman 2009), psychology (Suler 2004), health
1
While the term is perhaps less widely used in the general media and in academia now than it was a decade
ago, it does remain widely employed. Perhaps more importantly though, it is used more than ever in the
public sector and state security services (as illustrated by the very name of the London conference).
2
arcyber.army.mil (accessed Oct 19 2012).
3
News stories about the role of these defense agencies tend to be replete with quotes that build on the
perceived spatiality of the internet. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, recently quoted American General
Keith Alexander as saying that we do have to establish the lanes of the road" for what governments can and
can't do in cyberspace (Gorman 2010)
4
I admittedly have even employed the term in my own work until relatively recently.
5
In fact, there is even an entire branch of the study of law termed cyberlaw.
3
(e.g. Fernandez et. al. 2007), anthropology (e.g. Carter 2005), and especially geography
(e.g. Couclelis 2009; Devriendt et. al. 2011; Kellerman 2010; Zook and Graham 2007)
continue to use the metaphor.
In all of the cases mentioned above (and indeed many others), the idea of 'cyberspace' is
deployed as an inherently geographic metaphor. We know that metaphors reflect, embody,
and, most importantly, reproduce ways of thinking about and conceptualising our world
(Lakoff & Johnson 1980). As Stefik notes: When we change the metaphors, therefore, we
change how we think about things... The metaphors we use suggest ideas and we absorb
them so quickly that we seldom even notice the metaphor, making much of our
understanding completely unconscious (Stefik 1996, p. xvi in Andrade 2010).
It is important to point our that even before the coining of the cyberspace metaphor,
commentators were speculating that synchronous communication technologies like the
telegraph would bring humanity together in some sort of shared space. For instance, in
1846, in a proposal to connect European and American cities via an Atlantic telegraph, it
was stated that one of the benefits would be the fact that all of the inhabitants of the earth
would be brought into one intellectual neighbourhood and be at the same time perfectly
freed from those contaminations which might under other circumstances be received
Marvin 1988, 201). Twelve years later after the completion of the Atlantic telegraph, The
Times proclaimed the Atlantic is dried up, and we become in reality as well as in wish one
country (quoted in Standage 1998, 80). In the 1960s, Marshall McLuhans philosophy of
media posited a future not too different from proclamations about the power of
communication technologies a century earlier. He noted, electric circuitry has overthrown
the regime of time and space and pours upon us instantly and continuously concerns of
all other men. It has reconstituted dialogue on a global scale...Time has ceased, space
has vanished. We now live in a global village (McLuhan and Fiore 1967, 63).
But it was almost three decades ago when William Gibson (1984, 51), who coined the term
cyberspace, defined it as:
4
A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every
nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts... A graphic representation of data
abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable
complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations
of data. Like city lights, receding.
John Perry Barlow built on Gibsons concept in his Declaration of the Independence of
Cyberspace, in which he boldly asserts that cyberspace does not lie within your borders
and ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies
live. William Mitchell (1996, 8), similarly asserted that the internet is profoundly
antispatial. . . . You cannot say where it is or describe its memorable shape and
proportions.
Many of the reasons for the power and prominence of the explicitly spatial metaphor of
cyberspace are likely borne out of the early days of the internet, when it was
understandably hard not to imagine the network as a portal to another dimension. It was
fully detached from mobile material realities (i.e. access had to occur through clunky fixed
infrastructure), but offered up almost infinite possibilities for information and
communication. For instance, Rey (2012), describing Sterlings (1992) book on hacker
subculture, argues that the idea of a cyberspace was needed by people to make sense of
the space in-between instantaneously and yet non-proximate communications (such as
telephone calls):
The telephone creates a feeling of cognitive dissonance. How can the other person on the
line be so far and yet seem so near? To overcome this disconnect, we create for ourselves a
little expository travel narrative. We begin to imagine information as occupying space and
then imagine this space as something that can be traversed and experienced, an alternate
geography that provides a new path to reach the other person on the line. And though we
know we are indulging in a fantasy, we cant help but take it seriously.
Both the metaphor of cyberspace and the distinct social and spatial practices that it
described allowed the virtual to take on an ontic role (Adams 1997; Graham 2011).
'Cyberspace,' in this sense, is conceived of as both an ethereal alternate dimension which is
simultaneously infinite and everywhere (because everyone with an Internet connection can
enter), and as fixed in a distinct location, albeit a non-physical one (because despite being
infinitely accessible all willing participants are thought to arrive into the same
5
marketspace, civic forum, and social space). 'Cyberspace' then becomes Marshal
McLuhans (1962) global village.
The ontic role assigned to cyberspace6 is likely also reinforced by the grammatical rules
associated with the internet in the English language. Common prepositions associated with
internet use (e.g. to go to a website, or to get on the internet) imply a certain spatiality
associated with the internet. In other words, they imply the need to move to a cyberspace
that is not spatially proximate to the internet user. Similarly, it is common practice to treat
the word Internet as proper noun (hence the trend to capitalise the word). In doing so, the
notion of a singular virtual entity or place is reinforced. A combination of a long history of
dualistic philosophy in Western thought (Wertheim 1999), and the reinforcement of the
ontic role applied to cyberspace in popular media (e.g. Neil Stephensons Snow Crash,
films such as The Matrix, or the famous Dave Chapelle comedy sketch titled What if the
Internet was a place that you could go to?) all further serve to reinforce these roles.
Such imaginations of cyberspace all claim an aspatiality for the collective hallucination
of internet: a disembodied place, but a place nonetheless, paradoxically imbued with
another type of spatiality allowing for a global coming-together of humanity. They give
their imagined cyber- space an ontic role. It becomes a fixed and singular, but also an
ethereal and ubiquitous alternate dimension. It is this spatial imagination that has remained
with us in the cyberspace metaphor until the present day.
6
This is not to deny the fact that space has always been a contested and complex term. Kern (2003), for
instance, argues that space is a historical construct and has necessarily evolved concomitantly with other
cultural elements. Sack (1986) demonstrated that space can understood in myriad ways and is an essential
framework for all modes of thought (from art to magic to physics to social science). Space can also be many
things and is far from always described as fixed, homogenous, universal, and coherent. Current thinking in
Geography, in particular, imagines space as relational. In other words, it emerges out of interactions rather
than preceding them. This paper, therefore, recognises that people do not experience a cyberspace in the
same way, and that it cannot pre-determine particular ways of bringing spaces into being.
6
of material and imaginary geographies which include, but are not restricted to, on-line
experiences. Burells (2009) nuanced way of describing her fieldwork sites (Ghanian
internet cafs) as networks rather than bounded places, similarly functions as a way of
avoiding assumptions of material proximity or co-presence. In other words, they challenge
the now famous adage that on the internet, nobody knows youre a dog.
Many geographers have also moved away from envisioning the internet as a technology
that can bring into being any sort of detached cyberspace. Stephen Graham (1998)
importantly warned against the dangers of employing determinist metaphors of
technological change, and Martin Dodge and Rob Kitchin have written extensively about
the intersections between the virtual and the material. They distinguish between
code/space (in which 'code dominates the production of space') and coded space (in
which code is influential, but incidental, to the production of space (Dodge and Kitchin,
2005, 198). This distinction is important specifically because it highlights how technology
can produce or 'transduce' space via continuously reiterated digital practices that create
space anew (Wilson 2011).
Information in and communication through the internet can be thought to take place as part
of the many palimpsests (or layers) of place (Graham 2010; Crang 1996). It is also
important to note that the internet has been shown to have distinct spatial biases that
greatly influence possibilities for voice, representation, and communication that are
mediated through the network (Graham and Zook 2011; Crutcher and Zook 2009). These
broad and individualized geographies of enablement and constraint also then shape the
ways that we bring our internet mediated (or augmented) presences into being (Graham et
al. 2012; Graham and Zook 2012).
Ultimately, places can never have ontological security and they are always "of-the-
moment, brought into being through practices (embodied, social, technical), always remade
every time they are engaged with" (Kitchin and Dodge 2007, 335). Therefore, even if we
did choose to employ a spatial metaphor for online interactions, the singular global
village entailed by most popular imaginations of cyberspace would remain unsuitable as
a way of imagining the relational and contingent ways that those places are enacted,
practiced, and brought into being. We might of course simply pluralize 'cyberspace' (as we
do with knowledges, materialities, spatialities, genders, subjectivities,
7
positionalities, etc., but that this doesn't resolve more problematic assumptions that are
mobilized with the word that are addressed in the following section.
Beyond cyberspace
Source: Robert Thompson, The Guardian, Online section, 29 March 2001, page 4. In Dodge (2008, 106)
As noted in the section above, many people have moved beyond the idea of a singular
ontic entity of 'cyberspace' that we can enter into to transcend our material presences, and
recognise the hybrid and augmented ways in which the internet is embedded into our daily
lives. That is probably why few of us imagine a movement into 'cyberspace' when we
access Wikipedia, log into Facebook, send an email, or watch a video on YouTube7. So
why do the global leaders present at the London Conference on Cyberspace, national
defence agencies, and many academics insist on using this term?
8
It is much easier to imagine that they simply happen 'out there' in Carl Bildt's dark spaces
of the internet.
Another reason is likely the extensive literature on the information revolution and the
'networked society.' Most national governments have departments, task forces, plans and
policies set up to address issues of digital exclusion. Because of the existence of the global
village ontology of cyberspace, there is often a pollyannaish assumption that once the
material digital divide is bridged, the many problems attributed to digital divides will
also vanish (Graham 2011). Or, in other words, once people are placed in front of
connected terminals, the digital divide becomes bridged and the previously disconnected
are consequently able to enter 'cyberspace.' As such, those without access to 'cyberspace'
and the global village are therefore seen to be segregated from the contemporary socio-
economic revolution taking place. This idea of exclusion is powerful8, and some, such as
former US Secretary of State Colin Powell9, and the chief executive of 3Com10, have on
separate occasions gone so far as to term this exclusion digital apartheid.
But the most duplicitous explanation is that a dualistic offline/online worldview can
depoliticise and mask the very real and uneven power relationships between different
groups of people. We cannot simply escape what Doreen Massey (1993) aptly terms
power-geometries by accessing an imagined cyberspace. While many people and
projects have demonstrated that the internet can indeed be harnessed to challenge
entrenched economic, cultural and political interests, it remains that it is not a utopian
space that allows us to automatically transcend most of the real and place-based constraints
that we face. This is not to say that virtuality cannot provide a site for the alternate
performances that have been so immensely important to queer studies, cyberpunk
literature, and various online social movements. Propositional spaces of possibility and
idealism can be left open by avoiding denials of contingency and recognising that spaces
can be augmented (rather than transcended) with a range of technological mediations.
9
or digital global village, but rather a network that enables selective connections between
people and information. It is a network that is characterized by highly uneven geographies
and in many ways has simply reinforced global patterns of visibility, representation and
voice that were used to in the offline world.
Geographers are well placed (both theoretically and methodologically) to take the lead on
employing more suitable and appropriate ways of talking about, and materializing, the
internet. But, too often, we have lazily employed old and tired metaphors. Imagining the
internet as a distinct, immaterial, ethereal alternate dimension ultimately makes it more
challenging to think through the contingent and grounded ways in which we consume,
enact, communicate and create through the internet. The internet is characterised by
complex spatialities which are challenging to understand and study, but that doesn't give us
an excuse to fall back on unhelpful metaphors which ignore the internet's very real, very
material, and very grounded geographies.
Bibliography
Adams P C 1997 Cyberspace and Virtual Places Geographical Review 87(2) 155-183
Bernal V 2006 Diaspora, cyberspace and political imagination: the Eritrean diaspora
online Global Networks 6(2) 161-179
Burrell J 2009 The Field Site as a Network: A Strategy for Locating Ethnographic
Research Field Methods 21 181-199
10
Couclelis H 2009 Rethinking time geography in the information age Environment and
Planning A 41(7) 1556-1575
Crang M 2010 Cyberspace as the new public domain in Urban diversity : space, culture
and inclusive pluralism in cities worldwide Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 99-
122
Crutcher M and Zook M 2009 Placemarks and waterlines: racialized cyberscapes in post-
Katrina Google Earth Geoforum 40 523-34
Dodge M and Kitchin R 2005 Code and the transduction of space Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 95 162-80
11
Gibson W 1984 Neuromancer Harper Collins, London
Gorman
S
2010
U.S.
Backs
Talks
on
Cyber
Warfare
The
Wall
Street
Journal
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487033409045752849642159657
30.html)
Accessed
24
August
2012
Graham
M
2010
Neogeography
and
the
Palimpsests
of
Place:
Web
2.0
and
the
Construction
of
a
Virtual
Earth
Tijdschrift
voor
Economische
en
Sociale
Geografie
101(4)
422-436
Graham
M
2011
Time
machines
and
virtual
portals
Progress
in
Development
Studies
11(3)
211-227
Graham
M
and
Zook
M
2011
Visualizing
global
cyberscapes:
mapping
user
generated
placemarks
Journal
of
Urban
Technology
18(1)
115-132
Graham
M
and
Zook
M
2012
Augmented
Realities
and
Uneven
Geographies:
Exploring
the
Geo-linguistic
Contours
of
the
Web
Environment
and
Planning
A
(in
press)
Graham
M
Zook
M
and
Boulton
A
2012
Augmented
Reality
in
the
Urban
Environment.
Transactions
of
the
Institute
of
British
Geographers
DOI:
10.1111/j.1475-
5661.2012.00539.x
Graham
S
1998.
The
End
of
Geography
or
the
Explosion
of
Place?
Conceptualizing
Space,
Place
and
Information
Technology
Progress
in
Human
Geography
22(2)
165-
185
Irving
C
J
2011
Community
in
Cyberspace:
Gender,
Social
Movement
Learning,
and
the
Internet
Adult
Education
Quarterly
61(3)
262-278
Kellerman
A
2010
Mobile
broadband
services
and
the
availability
of
instant
access
to
cyberspace
Environment
and
Planning
A
42(12)
2990-3005
12
Lakoff
G
and
Johnson
M
1980
Metaphors
we
live
by
University
of
Chicago
Press,
Chicago
Leander
K
and
McKim
K
2003
Tracing
the
everyday
sitings
of
adolescents
on
the
Internet:
A
strategic
adaptation
of
ethnography
across
online
and
offline
spaces
Education,
Communication,
and
Information
3(2)
21140
Marvin
C
1988
When
Old
Technologies
Were
New:
Thinking
About
Electric
Communication
in
the
Late
Nineteenth
Century
Oxford
University
Press,
New
York
Massey
D
1993
Power
geometry
and
a
progressive
sense
of
place
in
Bird
J
Curtis
B
Putnam
T
Robertson
G
and
Tickner
L
(Eds)
Mapping
the
futures:
local
cultures,
global
change.
Routledge,
London
McLuhan
M
1962
The
Gutenberg
Galaxy:
The
Making
of
Typographic
Man
University
of
Toronto
Press,
Toronto
McLuhan
M
and
Fiore
Q
1967.
The
Medium
is
the
Massage:
An
Inventory
of
Effects
Penguin,
London
Mitchell
W
1996
City
of
bits:
Space,
place,
and
the
infobahn
MIT
Press,
Cambridge,
MA
Rey
P
2012
The
Myth
of
Cyberspace
The
New
Inquiry
(http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/the-myth-of-cyberspace)
Accessed Sept 25 2012
Spinelo
R
A
2011
Cyberethics:
Morality
and
Law
in
Cyberspace
(4th
ed.)
Jones
&
Bartlett,
London
Standage
T
1998
The
Victorian
Internet:
The
Remarkable
Story
of
the
Telegraph
and
the
Nineteenth
Centurys
Online
Pioneers
Weidenfield
and
Nicolson,
London
Stefik
S
1996
Internet
Dreams:
Archetypes,
Myths,
and
Metaphors
MIT
Press,
Cambridge,
MA
13
Sterling
B
1992
The
Hacker
Crackdown:
Law
and
Disorder
on
the
Electronic
Frontier.
Bantam,
New
York
Suler
J
2004
Computer
and
Cyberspace
Addiction
International
Journal
of
Applied
Psychoanalytic
Studies
1(4),
359-362
Sung-ki J 2009 Cyber Warfare Command to be Launched in January The Korea Times
(http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/12/205_56502.html) Accessed Sept
25 2012
Wakeford
N
1999
Gender
and
the
landscapes
of
computing
in
an
internet
caf
in
Virtual
geographies:
Bodies,
spaces
and
relations
(Eds)
Crang
M
Crang
P
and
May
J
Routledge,
London,
pp.
178201
Wertheim
M
1999
The
Pearly
Gates
of
Cyberspace:
A
History
of
Space
from
Dante
to
the
Internet
Virago
Press,
London
Wilson
B
2006
Ethnography,
the
internet,
and
youth
culture:
Strategies
for
examining
social
resistance
and
onlineoffline
relationships
Canadian
Journal
of
Education
29(1),
30746
Wilson
M
2011
Data
matter(s):
legitimacy,
coding,
and
qualifications-of-life
Environment
and
Planning
D:
Society
and
Space
29(5),
857-872
Zook
M
and
Graham
M
2007
Mapping
DigiPlace:
Geocoded
Internet
Data
and
the
Representation
of
Place
Environment
and
Planning
B:
Planning
and
Design
34(3),
466482
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Martin Dodge, Bernie Hogan, Ralph Schroeder, Matthew Wilson, and
Matthew Zook for helpful comments and stimulating debates (and arguments) that helped
to improve this paper.
14