Back to Last section of this paper

To next section of this paper

Back to New Media Communications Home Page

Back to Index for this Theology Paper

My initial Web Theology Page

Send Me Comments, Suggestions, Resources or links to resources for this study

The Virtual Community vs. Face to face "real life"

There are others who sound the warnings about the "hype" surrounding the growth of the Internet. They rightly observe that lofty promises were heard concerning previous media's potential for vastly improving education, accessibility of knowledge, and human community. They are correct to be cautious, but I feel that they also miss the vital differences between this medium and prior media. In "Silicon Snake Oil", Clifford Stoll expends great energy in trying to convince us that real life is better than virtual life; flesh and blood vs. the "imaginary". It seems to me that he wastes his breath and misses the point.

There is a lot of talk about how "Virtual" Community is replacing "real community". Stoll says: "Computer networks isolate us from one another, rather than bring us together........Sitting around a porch and talking is becoming extinct, as is reading aloud to children" (p.58)

But is Stoll looking at life as it exists for most of us? Would there be the possibility of this "porch discussion" were it not for our turning to Computer Mediated Discussion somewhere in Cyberspace? Would I find this if I were to switch off my computer and walk outside? I think not. It looks to me like people are flocking to online meetings due to a lack of such in their real, face-to-face social lives.

My own isolation from the institutional church these days illustrates this point most concretely. My own experience of the ecumenical world has been heightened by my experience beginning with Ecunet over the past three years. It came at a time when I had been most distant from the church, feeling very dissatisfied with the lack of intentionality toward community within the church. I had begun to lose hope that I would have anything to contribute. I felt no one was listening. Even worse, I saw no viable structures in the church that would invite me to share anything worth listening to.

Where there is no vision, people perish. The containers for that vision must be the keepers of that vision; if there are no human carriers of the vision, the vision perishes. Where there are no people, the vision perishes. There must exist a dynamic between the people, and the vision which they share. That is the major dynamic element: It must be shared to be a vision. There must be some human impact; sharing of stories so that we have feedback to nourish the vision which life has a tendency to assault.

When I began to dream aloud via Ecunet, I received confirmation, indeed "validation" of the legitimacy of my dreams. I recognized a common journey, and my own rightful place in articulating that journey. It so happened that this happened over a computer network. This would not have happened in a face to face gathering, because for one, there were no such gatherings that could have taken place over this period. Also, I would not have felt as uninhibited as I did in the pseudo-anonymity of online discussion. I was free to ponder and pose my ideas in the way I felt most at ease, and I received feedback from those who felt most akin to what I was expressing.

It seems as though the blocks to freer expression of self are mostly removed in online discussion. And elements that make for more accurate expression are mostly present: Time to think, No negative reinforcement staring us in the face, and the tools of writing that can make us feel more confident and eloquent. This seems to especially be the case for those who are comfortable with writing.

Stoll makes a habit in his book of drawing some rather lame comparisons between computer generated tasks and the more traditional tools. He complains about computer generated graphics, saying that the ideas they were there to enhance carried him along, not their graphics. This misses the point of graphics. Of course the idea is the more important feature.....good graphics do not detract from the idea but illuminate it. Stoll makes me wonder how aware he really is of the finer subtleties of the social impact of computer use.

Yes, there are indeed "no simple technological solutions to social problems", and " the most important interactions in life happen between people and not computers. " These statements are utterly simplistic, and obvious. The point IS to explore how computer mediated communications can make possible further communication between persons, or create the possibility for some interaction where there could formerly be none at all, or at best, communication made less efficient by loss of time, expense, or lack of illustrative power.

It is obvious that a real volcano is more awesome to see than a computer image of one. It is obvious that it is more healthy to take a walk than to sit at a keyboard, reading about exercise. The point he misses is that there are times when physical life does not afford us the latitude to experience something in the flesh. While it seems obvious that it would be better to talk to an expert face to face than in an online forum, the fact remains that Computer Mediated Communications offers an alternative way to experience something rather than nothing. And often, the medium makes it easier for some to participate at all, where before it may have been physically, socially, or psychologically improbable or impossible.

I know from personal experience that there is most definitely an element of pressure lifted when the audience is "virtual"…..and yet it actually, in reality, consists of minds that tune in to the subject because they want to be there. There is a "forum" gathering motif, where people gather in online space because of some advertised common ground. There is give and take of ideas, validation and affirmation of feelings and ideas, and there is personal value derived from this "community".

I heard Neil Postman, a sociologist and well-known critic of the mediocrity of TV, expressing concerns about "loss of community" due to this fascination with computers, in much the same way he does about TV. What I feel he does not recognize is that computer mediated communications is representing for many, a move back to discourse that is no longer readily available in this society where such social opportunities for discourse are disappearing. Rather than leading us further into isolation, I see the growth of computer mediated communications as a medium for striking back and reaching out for some relationships that have become so much more rare in this electronic entertainment age.

Many have pointed out that similar hype and promise were present in the early days of television, but striking differences stand out. There is the very looming possibility of reaction and exchange. It is two-way, and many to many. With television, the interactive element lies in the time after, laying the load of responsibility for exchange and opinion on discussion after the content, which may or may not take place, and often does not.

For me there is actually some considerable question as to which kind of community is "real" and which is not. I have experienced, with more consistency online, elements which I feel are part of true community, than I have in the "real", Face-to-face meetings where community supposedly takes place. To experience a "sense of place" can often happen in a place which, physically speaking, is no "place".

If persons exchange information illuminating their ideas and their feelings, and a sense of commonality emerges, is this not a significant measure of community; more so than face to face gatherings where it is not so easy to "read" an individual's thoughts or ideas, much less to elicit them. Many online communities exist around a particular common interest, and other "peripheral" personal paraphernalia creep in and become the basis for relationships often exceeding the original purpose.

Whereas, in the church, we find that we have started from the general idea that we must be in this together and must work back to particulars. At least it is my perspective that it is important to work our mission back into the lives of those of us who are on this journey. The elements of who we are inseparably intertwined. What we are about is wrapped up in who we are, and vice versa. It is both an Inward and an Outward journey. If Computer Mediated Communications helps us to get at how to better know one another, or if it can help us do the work of mission by helping us communicate needs across geographical and chronological barriers, or help get the word out about help needed or tell a story, then it can be a proper tool for our theological community.

In "Silicon Snake Oil", the author urges people to "get a life" (TIME magazine review)

CMC Magazine Review of "Silicon Snake Oil"

Rheingold responds on his page

Not either or

Some would have us believe that we choose between face to face and computer mediated communications. But why is this? It is perfectly reasonable to assume that we can do both, just as most of us carry on some portion of our overall communication via telephone and USMail, we also can add to the mix with online communications.

Much of what happens in these "non-physical" communications adds to the relationship which has an impact on any further face-to-face exchanges with the people in question.

Which is more "real"? Or more "virtual"

The idea of "virtual" has come to be synonymous with "not really there". This is due to the hype surrounding "virtual reality" games where the goal is to simulate experience to the senses.

I propose an alternate sense of the word. In fact, alternate is a good term for it. It is not a matter of "almost" or not really, but something entirely different. A different personality can be presented, or a new form of it. What someone looks like is irrelevant as long as it is unknown. This can be advantageous to the beginnings of a relationship that might otherwise never get off the ground because of who knows what; people turn off other individuals for a variety of reasons from circumstantial to psychological ; from physical appearance to particular habits or manner of speech or tone of voice. These are matters that are often unfair to the "victim" of the prejudice or inopportune expression, smell, look, or body language.

Not to dismiss the value of some of these physical space elements to relating, but sometimes their absence from the equation enables a more complete hearing of what is on the mind of the speaker/writer/participant. It also provides many with a heightened sense of confidence that would otherwise be absent if the same readers were to be present in body, looking at the writer/speaker, casting looks at them that can be interpreted in a way that hinders the expression of the thoughts of the speaker/writer