Through a computer, we form relationships, consume
information, use it as a vehicle for communication, and as an outlet for
expression. While watching the movie “Noah”, I found the framing of the video interesting,
as it exemplified how our lives revolve around computer screens. While
watching, the video I questioned my own behavioural patterns through communication
over the internet.
According to Liebes (2003), Herzog describes consumers as “self-aware
[and] use media in a goal oriented manner” (p. 39). By assessing my mannerisms online,
I argue that these behaviours are not all within my consciousness: as soon as I
turn on my computer, I automatically type in my password, open up a tab for my
email, log onto Facebook, check for notifications, and then get to work.
Issues outlined by media studies scholars in Columbia, as
early as the 1940s, remain “alive” today. “From hegemonic to narcotizing power
of media to their ability to maintain social norms and shape popular taste”
(Simonson & Weimann, 2003, p.13), modern technology and digital platforms
are still argued as demonstrating these ideas. Private uses and public morality
using technology is demonstrated in this film, through what the user does on
his computer, and what activity he makes publically available other people in
his network.
Castells (2005) speaks to the “network society” which form
relational power imbalances between “nodes”. I related these nodes to “articulations”
and networks to “assemblages” in Slack and Wise’s discussion of territorializing
and de-territorializing connections through lines of tangential forces, between
articulations in greater assemblages (2005). These ideational theories are
described through a physical process, much like the materiality and
phenomentality of media described by Hansen (2006). He claims that “media conditions
our situations” (p. 298) and requires us to adopt a new way of thinking and
speaking. As our “sensory and perceptual” (p. 299) human experience is altered,
I argue that Facebook shifts connections from physical to virtual to a stronger
physical/emotional bond with others.
The mediated lens that Facebook creates, demonstrates
this process of a "cyborg" manifestation between human and machine. Social media sites affect our physical perception, as altered by
the computer/cellphone screens, and the social construction of how people
present themselves, or our own perception of self.
By arguing that all “human life is mediation..a concrete
actualization of the living via exteriorization in an environment, the medium”
(p. 301), Hanson supports Slack’s claim that “technologies do not exist as
tools..wholly outside and indecent of our bodies” (2012, p. 150). They both
link “the social and the material” (Lievrouw, 2014, p.26) to strongly tie the
development of technology to that of a human being.
I admit to periodically being a "Facebook stalker". I look up profiles on Facebook and go review people's profile pictures as if they would indicate what that person is like, and who they are – a type of personality assessment based on profile pictures alone!
Packer and Wiley claim that the “acceleration in the
mobility of people, goods, money, and media…deepen…the interconnection and interdependence
of disparate networks, places, processes, and social relations” (2012, p. 109).
By discussing communication as a material process in the production of space
and place, these virtual networks have to potential of creating material value
in physical and emotional connections to other people.
I agree with you when you speak to our affective relationship with social media and/or the virtual self. What I have a hard time grasping is the idea that our virtual lives extend to our material identities and create material value. It's not completely clear how this mediation actually takes place. I think of how difficult it is for academics to make grand assumptions about how an audience will react to certain storylines, characters and discourses. This critique extends to the idea that our virtual lives shaped our material lives -- how can we actually measure this? If indeed you want to take Castell's notion of the network society, then we must assume that not every person experiences technology and social media in the same manner. We may be people-watchers on Facebook (or creepers) but this does not necessarily extend to our daily lives with the same people. Or does it?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see these two ideas as separate sites of interaction and different constructions of the self. I think as this course progresses, I realize how intertwined these two realms of our identity are intertwined and can be seen as one, more wholesome understanding of ourselves. I think you make a great point about how we could actually measure the effects of virtual lives and material lives but I would push this even further and claim that it would be impossible to do so because they cannot be extracted as a mere cause and effect relationship. The way in which I live my life, I have social media and technology embedded and even dictating physical actions and physical actions showcased on social media, that it becomes an intangible web to which I cannot untangle. This was discussed heavily in Frith's book "Smartphones as locative media" to which users heavily rely on technology to dictate patterns of physical transportation and also affects people's memory and unnecessary need to store information that their technology can provide to them.
DeleteIn terms of facebook creepers, I could personally say I don't stalk people in the physical world; however, on facebook I do feel a distance or disconnect with people and observing their private lives made public on the web. Hence, this distance allows me to make a spectacle of the person, rather than a personal, face to face interaction with them.