the internet giveth and the internet taketh away

8/6/2019 The Internet Giveth and the Internet Taketh Away

1/6

Running Head: THE INTERNET GIVETH AND THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY1

The Internet Giveth and the Internet Taketh Away

Joi Chadwick

Gonzaga University

March 28, 2009


2/6

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 don t know who lives next door to me.

Who s in the next flat? Who s 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 it s 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 don

t 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


3/6


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) Couldn t 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

world s 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


4/6


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


5/6


and report on issues important to them such as women and the environment to the

results emerging from international forums on women s 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

1990 s. (, 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.


6/6


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

the internet giveth and the internet taketh away

Documents