Can a Virtual World be a Culture?

It seems that technology has allowed for new ways for people to socialize, form and maintain relationships, and access information. Now, virtual worlds have far surpassed any means of alternate communications. Though the foundation of virtual worlds is mainly fictional, these alternate worlds provide practically everything the real world provides. This is possibly why these worlds have the tendency to become so life consuming for so many people.

I was able to find a blog post that comments on the extent of virtual worlds and the people who frequent them. “Millions of people around the world today spend portions of their lives in online virtual worlds.” They go on to explain the endless possibilities that virtual worlds offer including buying property, falling in love, and going to bars or concerts to name a few. These possibilities are more or less the same as those of real life, but they are accessed though a computer and are often fictional. Still, many people become greatly involved in virtual worlds. So much so that Tom Boellstorff studied the virtual world, Second Life, in the same way that anthropologists studied traditional (real world) cultures; by entering Second Life, experiencing the virtual world and observing interactions.

I am intrigued that virtual worlds have become so predominate that they are actually being studied by anthropologists. Though I am beginning to grasp how extensive virtual worlds can be, I have never viewed Second Life as its own culture. This shows that the involvement in virtual worlds is growing, and people are taking notice. I would argue that face to face interaction should hold precedence to socializing via the internet, but for many people Second Life is far from secondary.

Related Link: http://www.experientia.com/blog/category/virtual-world/

Defining Community

Lately, our class has been putting a lot of focus on virtual communities. To best understand virtual communities we first look at the term community in general, and how it is defined. It is important to question what essentially makes a community different from any other group. To do this, our class made note of various characteristics of communities. Also, we debated the differences between groups, social networks, and communities. However, the qualifications for what differentiates a community from other groups are still unclear.
I decided to look for some help defining the word community, and according to Wikipedia, the way we refer to the word community has evolved. Rather than being defined as a group with social cohesion, common values and shared location as it once was, it is now considered a group of individuals who share characteristics, but not necessarily a common geographical location (Wikipedia). This broadens the definition of community quite a bit. The lack of importance on location allows for virtual groups to be considered communities since virtual group members often live far apart. However, I wonder if this definition is too broad.
If similar characteristics are what make a community then people who have no actual relation to one another can be considered a community simply for their similarities. I would argue that a community takes much more than similar characteristics in its members. In class, we felt that shared interests, frequency, and sense of belonging were the most major traits of a community, not similar characteristics.
There are many opinions of what makes a group a community, and they vary greatly. Because of this, it is difficult if not impossible for only one objective definition of community to exist. There is only one trait that seems to appear in all definitions of community, and this is the sense of all members having something in common. What this common factor is, and whether or not there are other essential characteristics of community is debatable. It is undeniable that we can all identify communities, but truly defining the word community is certainly no easy task.

Online Class Versus Traditional Class

Through out my time at Westminster College, all of the classes that I have taken have been traditional with specific meeting times and in-class lecture and discussion. I’ve grown pretty accustom to waking up, walking to class, participating in discussion, and forming relationships with my professors and classmates. This week was different because our class did not meet. Instead we had online course work. For me, this was an entirely new experience. The online course, though probably not a completely adequate online class experience, gave me the opportunity to find out what an online class is like, and to assess the two different class experiences.
At first I was thrilled that I did not have to go to class. However, I was a bit nervous about getting my work done on time and understanding all of the assignments because usually I can rely on seeing my professor in class to ask questions. It’s pretty common to feel this way as I discovered from an article titled, “Pros and Cons of Online Courses vs. a Traditional Classroom” by Julie Wenzel. In this article I found that not having the convenience of seeing your instructor in class to ask questions, or to help with understanding is an issue for a lot of people who take online classes (Wenzel, 1). A few other “cons” that Julie mentions is the possibility of lacking the self discipline that an online class requires, and the disadvantage of not being able form relationships with professors and classmates as easily (Wenzel, 3). I can relate to these disadvantages, but there are a lot of advantages involved in online classes too.
Similar to what the article discusses, I found that online classes are much more flexible than traditional classes. With an online class, you are able to do the course work in your free time, and have the convenience of planning your time without the restraints of class meetings. Furthermore, not having to make the commute to class is always a bonus. Overall, I enjoyed the online class experience, but I still like having the more personal experience of traditional class.
I think that the most favorable option would be a mixture of the two. After all, it is not necessary to meet every day for class with so much technology available to us, but having relationships with classmates and teachers is an important part of the college experience. I’m glad to have had the experience of an online class so that I know all there is to know about my options for classes in the future.

Online Cruelty

After our discussion on flaming, cyber bullying, and inappropriate online communications, I went online to see what “google” had to say about the matter. I found and article titled, “Students Scorched by Online Flaming.” In this article the intensity of flaming, referred to as Online Disinhibition Effect, was portrayed through students who have been victims and even one who confesses to being the bully. In addition, this article discusses why this occurs, and some studies that were done to support their theory.
Similar to what we discussed in class, the origin of this online misbehavior is said to be that people are less worried about the consequences for their actions. In other words, not having to see the victim’s reaction makes them more comfortable saying things that they ordinarily would not say to their face. A study was done which supports the theory that people are more apt to cruelty if they are unable to see the person that they are inflicting it on. People involved in the study were told that the correlation of pain and memory was being tested. The “teachers” in the study were asked to shock their “student.” Teachers who were not able to see their student were more likely to continue with the experiment, and shock at higher voltages than those who were able to see their student. Some teachers even went to volts of 450 because they were not able to actually see that consequences of their actions. This can be related back to flaming because in both cases people are more likely to be cruel if they cannot see the target of the cruelty.
It interests me that people are capable of such behavior simply because they cannot see the expression on the victims’ face. I am guilty of sometimes hiding behind my computer to send messages, or ask questions that I may be less comfortable with in person, but I am able to realize that I am held responsible for my actions even when those actions are online. I am surprised that so many people do not share this sense responsibility when it comes to the internet.

Face-To-Face as a Last Resort?

It is amazing how much computer mediated communications (CMC) has impacted our lives, and how dependent people have become on it. Ironically enough, I was reminded of this by a Facebook bumper sticker. (Bumper stickers are a Facebook application which allows members to send “bumper stickers” usually of pictures or messages to friends.) This particular bumper sticker is a picture of a comic strip that says, “If we can’t solve it via e-mail, IM, texting, faxing, or phone calls, let’s resort to meeting in person.” I realize that like most Facebook bumper stickers it was meant to be silly. However, it is often the truth for a lot of people, at least to some extent, or it would have not have been subject to humor.
It seems more and more often that face-to-face communication is becoming a last resort. This may be especially true for many young people. I have personally experienced this because many of my friends exclusively use text messages to communicate with me. Also, I’ve noticed that most students, myself included, are more comfortable e-mailing their professors rather than calling or meeting them in person. I agree that it is often more convenient to use text messaging or e-mail, but how do you know when it becomes too much?
While in person communication becomes less and less common, I wonder what sorts of things are being sacrificed in order to have more instant computer mediated communications. Personally, I think that conversations tend to be less personal, and less efficient when there is not face-to-face or at least phone interaction. This is not to say that all computer mediated communication is bad, but I do not think that it should be used to replace face-to-face communication.

Online Vs. Face-to-Face Relationships

In class, we were asked to complete a survey to indicate what traits are most important to us in a person when forming a relationship. Soon after the completion of the survey, the issue arose of whether these traits can also apply to cyber, or online, relationships, and what is the difference between a cyber relationship, and a “real,” or face-to-face relationship. What are the benefits or disadvantages to these relationships, and can one really tell what a person is like without meeting them.

Before giving the topic much thought, I assumed that having an exclusively online relationship (no face-to-face communications) would be very dysfunctional. The reason I jumped to this conclusion is because with an online relationship, is it difficult to truly get to know a person. The person that you may be forming a relationship with is able to lie about even the most basic things about them such as their appearance, age, beliefs, occupation, and social interactions. All of these things are very possible to share via the internet, but can easily be falsified. In contrast, it is nearly impossible to lie about such traits in face-to-face relationships.

However, as I look all of the traits listed as important to me on the survey, I discover that many of them are difficult to discern even in a “real” relationship. For example, while it is easy to determine one’s age and appearance in a face-to-face relationship, it is usually impossible to know if a person is deceptive, jealous, unemotional, trusting, or supportive even when meeting them in person. If this is the case, then are face-to-face relationships really superior to cyber relationships? It seems that whether a relationship is online or in person it is still very difficult to truly get to know someone well enough to determine whether or not the relationship will be functional. While it may be a bit easier to be deceived in an online relationship, it is also very possible with face-to-face relationships.

This does not dismiss the other possible disadvantages to online relationships, such as a lack of personal contact, but it certainly is important to consider when comparing “real” and online relationships.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Computer Mediated Communications

When I think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, computer mediated communications is the furthest thing from my mind, but in this particular episode CMC is a dominate theme. The writers of Buffy address an issue that is very relevant in today’s society. This is the question of whether computer mediated communication is an important and helpful tool, or a menace to society.

According to the librarian, who is a bit of a traditionalist, CMC is certainly a major threat. His opposite may be the woman that he works with who informs him that computers are a rapidly growing source of information and communication. Still, the librarian refers to the computer as an “idiot box” and uses terms like “skin it” as apposed to scan it. This highlights his distaste and lack of understanding for these technologies. He may be an extreme case, but he has a valid concern about how CMC is changing human interaction.

These fears become a reality when Willow develops an online relationship with Malcolm. Buffy has apprehensions about this exclusively online relationship because she does not know what Malcolm is like face to face (in this case, a demon seeking world domination). Willow shows the worst case scenario of what could happen when online relationships become dangerous. She chats with Malcolm so much that she stops hanging out with her friends, and skips class just to sit at a computer. Though Willow is an extreme case, she can be compared with a lot of today’s youth who sometimes miss out on face-to-face social behaviors for online socializing.

The writers continue to highlight fears of technologies when they show how easy computers have made it to find personal information about virtually anyone. This is noticeable when Malcolm finds Buffy with a web camera, and looks up her information within minutes.

The entire episode, while highly impractical, is based on a very real issue. An online friend probably won’t turn out to be a demon, but online relationships can be very dangerous if you don’t know who you are talking to. Also, with fast and almost infinite information readily available, it is frightening to think what could happen if the wrong person were to obtain certain information. I’m not saying that I agree with the librarian on his “idiot box” theory, but I think that these technologies should be used to enhance communications, not replace them.