Speech vs Online Interaction

TheoBlogical Community
The Blog that took over New Media Communications A place to reflect and connect on the subject of Theological Community and Online Community

My Resume

NMC Home Page

Home

TheoBlogical

Church of the Saviour

Speech vs Online Interaction

Review of the Forward (Habits of the High-Tech Heart) | Schultze Preface | Intro: Identifying the Techno-Moral Crisis | Discerning Our Informationism | Moderating Our Informational Desires | Instantaneous vs Infoglut | Speech vs Online Interaction| Too Quick to Judge | There's Really a 'There' There | Good Stewards of Online Community

Schultze makes several arguments raising the value of physical speech far above the "communal quality" of online interaction. It seems that he hasn't experienced very much "online community". If he had, there would be no need nor desire to set up such comparisons. Online and ftf speech differ; they have similarities and differences, but there is no question that online communication, for those who can write and express themselves, is a liberating experience. It places "out there" on the table some siginificant pieces of a person's story, which WOULD NOT BE HEARD in many traditional settings, simply becuase there isn't enough time in gatherings to cover as much ground as can be covered via writing. Writing also removes many social pressures --- many of our thoughts occur as we reflect --- if we write of these things, we can fashion something more accurately expressing what we wish to say, instead of speaking it haltingly as we take care to say it clearly and fluently.....and feel some level of performance pressure....and this is often related to the size of the group addressed in a face to face setting.

Schultze does not acknowledge this difference. It is often the difference between whether or not something gets revealed at all. And then some people simply feel more comfortable writing. If reactions come, and others express support and gratitiude for the ideas and feeling s expressed, then this serves to encourage physical speech on the topic. The writing is sort of a testing ground. The social response provides a way for the person to receive "permission" to elaborate, often in person as the community reacts and encourages the conversation. It was this way with much of my initial thinking about Online Community and the Church. I found an audience on Ecunet, and was further encouraged into dialogue there, and further enboldened to speak my mind. It all led back to more sharing on these things in the traditional meetings. I've had people who I'd barely spoken to in Church come up to me and engage me in dialogue on something I had written on our Church Web site, and that would likely have never occurred were it not for breaching the subject in an online forum. Online led to offline dialogue. This happens over and over.

Yes , speech is important. But so is dialogue in whatever form we can achieve it. Wherever there is a local community which can discuss things in person, such online stories can be fodder and encouragement for offline dialogue. It seems to be the natural next step to "validate" the online dialogue with personal acknowledgement. Where there is not such geographic proximity, then the vlaue remains. There is a "link" created that is a form of "palpable ecumenicity"...a sense of being connected to those we have never physically met, and yet there is a personal link established that we often return to time and time again. I often visti and participate and initiaite discussions on these same topics in an online community started by Howard Rheingold called "Brainstorms". I've never met Howard in the flesh, but in reading "The Virtual Community" in 1993, and just recently "Smart Mobs", and then in several online threads on Brainstorms, interacting directly via the meditaion of the Brainstorms system, a personal link is established.

Arguments such as what Schultze is attempting here tend to overstate the differences between "Face-to-face" (ftf) and Online community. Online community enthusiasts are often accused of wanting to "replace" traditional community. This is hogwash. It is always , with me, a matter of "extending"; of "supplementing" any local community that may be associated with any online system. Where geographical proximity is not there, then SOME link is certainly better than none at all. "Disembodied" messaging DOES communicate SOMETHING, incomplete as it is in terms of various physical cues. But as I said earlier, some physical cues are barriers, to some more tan others. SOME things can get expressed more clearly and accurately without the "pressures" of the social situation. Standing in Church talking after a Church service, there is the constant pressure to edit ourselves out of courtesy to others, so that they can get to where they're going, or give someone else an opportunity to "engage".

Schultze does not address these deeper issues of how writing can be liberating and thus end up allowing something MORE ACCURATELY PERSONAL to emerge in an online setting, which can then lead to further encouragement to "verbalize" in a ftf setting. The groundwork laid by prior "homework" online can break the ice and allow things to flow.

comment []