--since I suppose we are technically part of one, what do we all think of them?
I have felt for some time that the utopian conception of online communities [and of "cyberspace" in general] is a bit misguided. for example, in my experience, online or virtual communities often develop the same hierarchical structure that many real-life communities have [for this of us who have problems with hierarchy, this is a drawback]. sometimes this structure is even more rigid than in "real life".
what are your thoughts?
posted by:
|
-
Re: virtual communities
Sat, December 11, 2004 - 9:08 PMExpand on this a bit...define hierarchy as you are using it here.
I think that is the first step. I do not like to make assumptions. I am interested in the type of hierarchical structures; psychological, social etc. Are you trying to deem if there is a relationship between said hierarchy with that which appears in the non-virtual world(s).
Rigid...is this due to rules imposed? What is the source of the rigidity? -
-
Re: virtual communities
Sun, December 12, 2004 - 7:27 AMHierarchy in the sense that certain members have highe levels of privilege and authority than other members.
This is reflected in various ways, in my experience: most related to the more privileged members being able to make relatively outrageous or even rude comments about other members, with no fear of being chastised. I found this interesting...though I am not sure what kind of a hierarchy you would call it, in this kind of situation I feel as if there is a definite structure in place that allows those people to say what they liked, while other members could not do the same thing without being reprimanded. -
-
Re: virtual communities
Sun, December 12, 2004 - 12:19 PMWere you or are you a member of the 99%ile tribe....
This would be a perfect example. I think it has to do with the relationship of ego to the topic. Some of the topics/tribes reveal our vulnerabilities (lets call these emotional, sexual and deficiency tribes - ADD, addictions etc.) in some ways and by doing so seem to garner more camradery. Intellectual forums tend to be ravenous and ego based. But not all... there are some amazing tribes where ego does give way to an actual sense of humor and maturity.
I have a short attention span....ADD tendencies rock....more later -
-
Re: virtual communities
Sun, December 19, 2004 - 6:47 PMI wasn't a part of the 99% tribe...what happened there?
I was part of a zine community for a while on another web site, then got tired of the dynamics between the administrators, the moderators, the "favourites" and the rest of us. I think your point about ego fits in nicely there; a lot of the things that were being discussed in that group were of a very touchy nature, like abortion, depression and "bad" relationships. These topics do tend to provoke very strong, often emotional responses. What often happened was that one person would not agree, or would sometimes simply not agree as strongly, with the rest of the group, and would be openly chastised for it.
Eventually I dicussed my experiences there with a few people, and we wondered if people sometimes behave in a less respectable way "online" because they do not have to face interpersonal, in-person conflict as a result of their behaviour. I think there are probably a few tribes where we can witness that kind of behaviour.
I think there are positive and negative aspects to online anonymity/lack of direct personal contact. One positive is that people can feel free to express opinions that they would not normally feel comfortable revealing. One negative thing is that people do not necessarily learn how to have a civil or at least reasonable discussion in which they can express those opinions; in "real life" I think there are simply different consequences to conflicting opinions.
-
-
-
-
Re: virtual communities
Sun, December 12, 2004 - 9:57 PMInteresting topic. I think it's important to examine what sort of social structures get transferred or replicated from the 'real' world to the internet. I don't believe that there is any getting away from hierarchical social structures or that "cyberspace" is somehow utopian. As much as I love Tribe for being a quite liberal and openminded internet community, there is racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression here. I'm not sure that the structure here is any more or less rigid than in real life. Hmmm...how do you think it is more rigid? -
-
Re: virtual communities
Thu, December 16, 2004 - 1:03 AMI think one thing to consider here is that people in their 'tribe' personnas tend to be much more 'free' than they ever would be in real life....well some people...me, this is me 24/7. But I do know a number of people come here to express what they can not openly express in the real world.
Another interesting thing....I just had my first experience with tribe rage.....I consider this to be similar to road rage. It was quite interesting actually....and well, made me quit a tribe I really did like....I just came here for the twinkies and juicebox....and to share a pbj samwich with the friendlies.
-
Re: virtual communities
Sun, December 19, 2004 - 6:55 PMI'm not sure about "more rigid"--I take it back! :-) Maybe less nuanced. Depending on the people involved and the purpose of the group.
Let's see. I'm currently exploring the idea that problems such as racism, homophobia, sexism and so on, are based in "bodily" experience and therefore, when we come online these should not be issues. While I disagree with that idea, I'm wondering--if we don't technically "bring" our race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation online [let's pretend], if there's no visual or informational clue to those aspects of ourselves, then how do we behave? Does our our behaviour reflect those things in some way? How much of our gender, for example, is something that can't be "escaped" even in a virtual world where gender does not *technically* have to be an issue? I feel personally that our experiences in the "real world" are so much shaped by these bases of bias that we cannot abandon them even when our bodies are not "present" to others.
Anyway, there do seem to be a lot of people out there who see the internet as a new, "utopian" zone of expression. And that is a subject for another whole thread! -
-
Re: virtual communities
Sun, December 19, 2004 - 10:39 PMI do believe that the internet has the potential to involve less prejudiced or oppressive views or behaviors, but that is only because it is possible to shield our identities. Here on tribe, I think that people's pictures and profiles depict our gender, race, sexual identity, age, etc. When that is the case (as opposed to a profile in which the person's cultural markers cannot easily be identified), all the issues and conflicts are easily transferred over from real life to the internet world. As much as I'd like to escape gender oppression and conformity pressures, I bring my socialized gender to the table (or keyboard) and also my biases as a result of that socialization. It's frustrating, but perhaps having less of a "direct" interaction may help us to examine how cultural markers affect our interpersonal interactions online. -
-
Re: virtual communities
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 7:16 PMI agree that the shielding or controlling of one's identity can avert oppressive behaviours on the internet. I suppose I am wondering if there will ever be a time when we don't need to "shield" our identities in "real life".
Isn't it always interesting to see how much people are willing to reveal about themselves in their "Tribe" profiles? The non-"marked" photos always intrigue me. Do you think people join certain tribes or avoid others, knowing that the tribes to which they belong can be scrutinized by anyone viewing their profile? Just a thought. Does it matter less if the people here are strangers? would you alter your profile if you knew that, for instance, your boss was able to view it?
Do you think that belonging to certain tribes and/or taking certain standpoints within those tribes can be as revealing as a photograph, in some cases-? For example, I belong to the "bisexuals" tribe--would I be there if I wasn't bi? -
-
Re: virtual communities
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 11:06 AMExcellent excellent questions. I have wondered how much to include on my profile. Sometimes I wish that I could belong to certain tribes but not have it show up on my profile. In my field/profession, there is much more at stake and many more reasons to protect personal identity. Eventually I will probably have to take all my internet profiles down and possibly start new ones that make it impossible to figure out who I am. It's too bad, since this is how I keep in touch with lots of friends. So yes, for professional reasons, I feel that having such personal or revealing information can be dangerous.
And yes, tribe discussion posts can be extremely revealing. I have shared a whole lot. I haven't really regretted it at this point.
Hmmm...that's interesting about the bisexuals tribe. I used to identify as bisexual, and at times I have considered joining it because people in the tribe probably have to deal with a lot of the things I deal with as a queer person who is open to dating all genders. My problem with bisexual is that it assumes a binary view of gender, so I don't identify as bisexual anymore. Just queer. -
-
Re: virtual communities
Sat, December 25, 2004 - 10:57 AMFunny, I had somehow never considered the full implications of having a profile here and having it viewed by anyone other than friends or others/strangers on Tribe. I don't really have a career, so I don't feel that there is any danger other than having people see that I have interests that are, um, off the beaten track...
I have never really regretted sharing my opinions in internet posts; though I have a certain awareness of the effects of thse opinons, this tends to extend only to the others who may be viewing my posts. I think there is an interesting line that is being drawn and redrawn, between the "real" and "virtual" worlds and the effects we can have on each of those worlds--but not always the effects that the one can have on the other, as you have mentioned when discussing your profession and the potential risks of online revelation.
The bisexual thing...I actually despise the word, and usually use it as a reference point for others, because "queer" [my personal preference] has sometimes seemed to alienate others who have less of a knowledge of the issue of gender binary and problematic terms. Basically, I'll refer to myself as "bi" to people who have less experience in dealing with queer issues, then try to introduce my own, preferred terms, later on. I just dislike the word "bisexual" anyway--I mean, do others have to refer to themselves as "homosexual" all the time? It seems like an alienating, technical term to me. -
-
Re: virtual communities
Sat, December 25, 2004 - 11:28 AMyeah, try "pansexual"! i used that for awhile as an alternative to bisexual, and that sounds super technical, clinical, and kind of airy-fairy at the same time. actually, it was "lesbian-identified pansexual". ha ha ha. no, just queer now. keep it simple.
-
-
-
-
-
-
