Running Head: THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY 1

The Internet Giveth and the Internet Taketh Away

Joi Chadwick Gonzaga University March 28, 2009

THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY

The Internet Giveth and the Internet Taketh Away Since its inception in the late 1960's and popularization in the 1990's the Internet has influenced (and been influenced by) society and how people interact with each other. As with many social phenomena, different views on this relationship between the Internet and community have emerged. Psychoanalyst John Hillman and journalist Michael Ventura say: I live everywhere and nowhere. But I dont know who lives next door to me. Whos in the next flat? Whos in 14B? Community to me means simply the actual little system in which you are situated, sometimes in your office, sometimes at home with your furniture and your food and your cat, sometimes talking in the hall with the people in 14B I think its absolutely necessary for our spiritual life today to have community where we actually live. (Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004, p. 110) In contrast to that statement, Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic offer: You dont have to be living next door to someone - or even in the same country to feel close to them, to share an interest with them or a sense of belonging. (2004, p. 109) The first statement opens the door for the argument that Internet has contributed to the destruction of community while the second statement by the authors opens the door for the acceptance of the idea that Internet can/has contributed to the construction of a global village. In this paper I take the stance the Internet is a tool that can and has been used to both ends. Positions and accusations The authors sketch two positions for us. The first is the negative position that blames communication technology for the loss of offline communities while creating

THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY

entities that are not proper communities. The second is the positive position that these technologies make new communities possible and help reinvigorate or enhance existing offline communities. (Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004, p. 108) The problem with both of these is that they tend toward reductionism and idealizing either offline or online communities. In the negative position the Internet is viewed as an evil entity accused of contributing to the decline of society - while you sit chatting with your cyber-buddies, the people next door may be being robbed and a house a block away is burning down! (Thurlow et al, 2004, p 110) Couldnt the same unfortunate situations occur if you were sitting in your living room chatting with other neighbors? Certainly the positive position has its share of idealism, too. The Internet has opened a whole new frontier that has brought every person in the world together in one place. [] No longer do personal differences separate the seven billion citizens of the worlds 244 nations; we are now one people united together. (Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004, p. 108) This is a bold claim. It paints a picture that the Internet is responsible for eradicating division, war, racism, sexism, age-ism, and all the other schisms of society. But not every person in the world has access to this technology. As the United Nations estimates that 4 billion people around the world will probably never get online. (Thurlow et al, 2004, p. 85) How could the Internet have created such a utopia when more than half the world population does not even have access to it and these schisms still exist? Both of these positions are too boldly polar, but they do each have merit. Breaking down The Internet has provided another medium for people to carry out ills as well as perpetuate cultural divides. Gambling has found its place online, thus gambling addiction and other unhealthy gambling habits have found another way to claim addicts

THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY

and abusers. One disturbing scenario involves online gambling sites in 2003 who exploited the international situation by allowing participants to place bets on the Iraq invasion going so far as to gamble on how many would be killed. The main concerns rising from this was that these games were easy to find and use, and that they promote antisocial and even fanatical behavior. (Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004, p 156) The Internet contributes to the gender divide, as Schumacher and Morahan-Martin state, in The majority of computer games contain exaggerated representations of gender [] Music, images, and actions all embody a sort of super macho hyper masculinity. Throughout the games, submissive, sexualized women are featured. (, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004, p 131) The Internet also helps heighten other already existing inequalities. One example is that only 5 percent of US Internet users are African-American while Latinos are less likely than African-American, and far less likely than Caucasian, US households to own a PC. African-Americans and Latinos are roughly 12 percent of the US population each, thus these statistics showing less than half of each group being Internet users illustrates a further marginalization of these minority groups. (US Census Bureau, 2000) Building up The Internet also is a useful tool in building and positively affecting society. As the authors point out, running a search on the term sex in Google you are likely to find pornography but also equally as likely to find sites promoting sexual health and education. This could be crucial for people who may not otherwise be able to access sensitive or potentially face-threatening information offline. (Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004, p. 142) In addressing the gender divide, some sites, such as JosieTrue.com, have been created to incorporate styles of communication that women are more comfortable using. Women can also use the Internet to voice their concerns

THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY

and report on issues important to them such as women and the environment to the results emerging from international forums on womens rights. (Thurlow et al, 2004, p 134) The Internet also provides a public sphere for discourse about critical concerns with those of other cultures. Zamir Transnational Net became one such virtual space for discussing complex civil and ethnic conflicts which led to the Balkan wars during the 1990s. (, Lengel, and Tomic, 2004, p. 88) Such spaces allow connection, alliances, and the sharing of information to raise awareness that may save lives. Our network around the world is linking the people of the besieged city of Sarajevo to the Internet community. One of the greatest restrictions felt by the citizens of this city is the inability to communicate with the outside world. (Thurlow et al, 2004, p. 88) They deliver capacity to speak to the outside world to otherwise disenfranchised groups thus allowing more connection for an international community. Conclusion The competing perspectives discussed illustrate how we cannot safely claim the Internet is solely destructive or constructive without omitting many vital facts. We need not go into a moral panic that the Internet will obliterate offline community and must be stopped, nor should we attribute messianic qualities to this medium. It should be viewed wholly for all its good and bad potential and not let ourselves be duped into hysteria or complacency. As Postman argued, We need to proceed with our eyes wide open so that we may use technology rather than be used by it. (Postman, 1998, p 10) Like any form of communication - speech, music, visual art, print, etc. - it has contributed to and expressed the advancement and the decline of community.

THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY

References Postman, N. (1998). Five things we need to know about technological change. Retrieved March 17, 2009 from http://www.cps.gonzaga.edu/~depalma/courses/cpsc421/resources/postman.pdf Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. US Census Bureau. (2000). Summary file 2 (SF 2) and summary file 4 (SF 4). Retrieved March 28, 2009 from http://www.factfinder.census.gov