Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Christopher Ayala
Dr. Dietel-McLaughlin
FYC-13100-28
9 December 2010
Over the last few centuries, different technologies have changed several facets of society
in small, incremental steps that led resulted in creating more refined systems in the future. The
industrial sphere of society was revolutionized when Eli Whitney introduced the practice of
creating interchangeable parts for mass production of rifles and other manufactured items. The
interchangeable parts and also incorporated Henry Ford’s idea of an automobile assembly line.
These two developments helped American industry to grow to levels beyond anyone could have
fathomed several centuries ago. Just as groundbreaking developments like interchangeable parts
and the assembly line changed industry, so too have developments in social technologies over
the centuries changed the way society behaves and communicates. Human societies have
progressed from an age relying solely on the word of mouth and a seemingly boundless memory,
to a society that relies both on the importance of spoken and written rhetoric, and finally to an
age that relies on the triumvirate of spoken rhetoric, the written or typed word, and digital
fluency. These transitions have not been seamless, however. Just like every revolutionary change
that ultimately affects how society functions as a whole, the development and usage of social
The debate on developing social technologies has heightened in the last decade due to the
massive increase of social technologies available. One such technology in question is Facebook:
Ayala 2
that is, whether or not the social interactions made possible by this website are a legitimate
means of social interaction, even with its lack of real-world contact. Whether it is this very lack
of real-world contact or the growing number of applications available, the widely popular social
networking website released in 2004 has become a household word in the world, as is evident by
its reaching 500 million members in the summer of 2010 (Clemmit, Social Networking). Another
such technology that has its pros and cons is Twitter, a social networking website that is
frequented by people of all ages around the world. Even though posts or entries on Twitter are
incredibly limited, it has also reached new heights and has proved to be useful in different
spheres, such as the political sphere. Several politicians, such as Barack Obama have utilized this
program to reach out to the younger generations that frequent the metaphorical airwaves of the
Internet. Yet, even with evidence of social networking’s success, the claim can still be made that
Internet media hasn’t been in existence for a long enough time to be considered a source of great
credibility, unlike newspapers, a medium that has been in existence for centuries. It could also be
argued that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as Internet interactions in
general, have put society in a period of regression: one in which people have lost the mastery
over spoken rhetoric once prized by humanity. Though several great minds have argued that
these newer technological breakthroughs and trends have negatively affected the ability for
people to communicate, the very phenomena they criticize, such as instant messaging, blogging,
and social networking websites, have actually gifted society with forward progress through
improved communication with others and improved internal communications with the self.
Unlike a century ago, when society relied on the written messages that inevitably came
with the daily mail services, the social technologies of today allow for people to make contact
with each other in a moment’s notice through means such as internet social networking websites
Ayala 3
like Facebook, instant messaging, or blogging. These recently developed phenomena have the
potential to foster a vast virtual community, one that provides a vehicle for durable online
friendship, love and altruism” that can create an “aspect of affective cooperation” (Fuchs 127).
That is, a community that can have more than just purely business related or shallow
conversations. What is possible is a digital and virtual community that houses people of all kinds
to have meaningful conversations. For example, Scott Caplan, an associate professor for
communication at the University of Delaware, says that a transition to online socializing may
help “people on the autistic spectrum” and people with “a plethora of medical and psychological
conditions” because it eliminates social cues they have difficulty with (Clemmitt, Social
Networking). In a digitized social world, these people could have day-to-day interactions, just
These digital communications are not limited to the normal, everyday social interactions,
however. They may also be used for the discovery new and lasting friendships that can either be
formed or maintained through websites such as MySpace or Friendster. Although skeptics might
argue that relationships formed and maintained online are almost always likely to fail, it would
be important to note that this phenomenon is merely a different manifestation of a practice that
has been present for centuries. Consider the case study by Barry Wellman, Jeffrey Boase, and
Wenhong Chen. Teaming up with researchers from the University of Toronto, they found that
residents of a housing development with high-speed connections had more informal, friendly
contact with neighbors than residents who were not on the Internet. Residents with broadband
service knew the names of 25 neighbors on average, compared to the eight that non-wire
residents knew. The wired residents also visited their neighbors 50 percent more than their non-
Ayala 4
wired counterparts (Clemmitt, Cyber Socializing). This challenge of creating new connections is
also made easier with Web 2.0, the media for human communication, and Web3.0, the
Just as the development of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 phenomena provides swift and copious
contact between freshly made connections, both Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies provide a
catalyst for strong online communities that support invaluable educational outlets. Educational
outlets provide a medium for civilians to branch out and explore educational possibilities that
weren’t present for the previous generation. The invention of blogging encourages a healthy
questioning of what is going on in the world, to question why things must be they way they are
and to imagine what the world would be like under different circumstances. Blogging spurs the
concept of Citizen Journalism vs. Corporate Journalism: the ability for politically marginalized
voices to be heard over the political majority (Fuchs 134). This idea is becoming more
ubiquitous and real as politically marginalized voices continue to create their own voice through
websites such as Twitter. One recent incident is one in which the Iranian citizens that were being
suppressed by the Iranian government during and following the time of the most recent
presidential election spread word of the situation seen from their eyes in order to make their
Intelligence”, a term coined by Pierre Levy that is defined as “the sum of the knowledge of the
contributors” that “has a shared perspective to which all the contributors agree” (Fuchs 135).
This cooperation stems from the primary sources of collective intelligence on the Internet called
Wikis: bodies of knowledge similar to encyclopedias in that its content is decided through
however, are not held in high academic standing at most universities and high schools. In fact,
the vast majority of teachers on most levels discourage the use of sites such as Wikipedia
because anyone can create or edit entries. As a result, Wikipedia consumers are never certain if
the information is true, valid, and academically valued. However, if Wikipedia enacted a stricter
editing process in which only hired educated staff could edit entries of their own expertise and
reliable professors from different universities helped write scholarly entries, Wikipedia could
important element of what makes Internet communication distinctive, another important but
more personal and private element exists: the self-discovery that with successful attempts at self-
expression. Personal activity on the Internet creates an environment that has unique features that
help facilitate self-expression and self-discovery that isn’t present in real-life social interactions.
The first feature is “the ability for one to be relatively anonymous or non-identifiable in the
individual or group interactions on the Internet” (McKenna 211). With the social pressures of
real life interaction absent, an individual is allowed to act in whichever way he or she wants, free
from criticism from those whom the individual considers dear. This allows the individual to
experiment with different personalities, engage in other different activities, befriend anyone,
regardless and form an identity without any hindrance, resulting in an overall happier individual.
Another feature is that the Internet “provides people the opportunity to easily find others who
share important aspects of identity” as a given individual (McKenna 211). Rather than mingling
in a social setting in which one cannot relate to the other people in a group due to their divergent
interests, one can instead choose to interact with people through cyberspace that one considers
more interesting due to their convergent interests. As a result of their shared values, a more
Ayala 6
comfortable environment is created that alleviates the creation of a new friendship, even without
One could argue, however, that the lack of face-to-face interactions in a friendship
ultimately weakens the authenticity of the relationship. Without the facial cues present in face-to-
face interactions, such as sarcastic smiles, raised eyebrows, and the nervous discomfort that
arises from an individual when one lies, how is it possible for one to decode such social cues on
the Internet, where no such cues exist at all? Certainly, the difference between the interactions
between people in real-life and interactions between people on the Internet is quite tangible.
Awkward silence sometimes exists in face-to-face interactions when one doesn’t know what to
say, something that doesn’t exist online because there is an unwritten social code that says one
can take one’s time when responding to a question or statement. Actually, the absence of face-to-
face interactions is invaluable for those with extreme social anxiety (McKenna 211). In addition,
interacting “in the absence of physical cues and features on the Internet” may enable extremely
anxious people “to develop relationships that otherwise would not have started in the first place”
due to the removal of many situational factors that spark anxiety (McKenna 211). Without the
pressure that exists in face-to-face interactions, those who engage in primarily Internet
interactions can respond in a more tactful, engaging way than they could have otherwise.
others based on appearance alone (McKenna 211). As a result, typically stereotyped people like
the obese or racial minorities can approach a conversation with more poise and confidence when
meeting someone for the first time online rather than face-to-face.
It could be argued, however, that the development of more recent technologies has
ultimately caused a decline in social behavior, past a point that formerly marked social progress.
Ayala 7
Take for example, Zygmunt Bauman’s concern with newer technologies’ increased participation
in love. He worries that “that online chat is replacing relationship with the endless circulation of
messages, and that this undermines commitment, longevity and trustworthiness. While online
relations appear smart…[it has the potential to] transform the other into a deletable object”
(Secomb, 110). Bauman’s argument is legitimate: what are we to make of love if our society
drowsy trance in which we blindly continue on through life as technology adjust the very way we
live (Winner).
This argument can be taken further with the results of the Carnegie-Mellon HomeNet
study that states, “those who used the Internet most reported lower levels of family face-to-face
communication and interaction in social circles, as well as greater loneliness, depression, and
stress” (Rice, Shepherd, Dutton, and Katz 7). This suggests that technology actually pushes
people farther apart rather than bringing them together, the point of new social technologies
brought to existence by Web 2.0. What good is a technology that “arms every citizen with the
means to be an opinionated artist or writer” if the communities are falling to shambles as a result
of technology pushing people farther apart (Keen)? Why should this new technology be allowed
These are all realistic arguments that make incredibly valid points. However, in response
to the question as to why whether technology should grow or not, one ought to cite similar
historical examples in which the defining medium of society changed dramatically. After all,
there “are examples of technical genius from every age, in the inventions that enable men and
women to perform the tasks they need to accomplish in order to make life easier, more
Ayala 8
comfortable or more enjoyable” (Poupard 37). Did Gutenberg’s contemporaries proclaim that we
needed to redefine the way we describe ourselves because humanity made a dramatic shift in the
way our society functioned? Certainly, there was opposition to widespread printing of
information over the centuries. Several philosophers of Ancient Greece, including Plato, who
emphasized memorizing information, certainly opposed the printed word, convinced that it
would be their society’s ultimate demise. In a way, these historical shifts of informational media
can be applied to the issue of today: the general shift of society’s attention from the printed page
to the digitally displayed pdf, the shift from physical to digital. Just as the lower and middle
classes gained the ability to own their own books during Gutenberg’s time, the growth of
technology provides a body full of information and communication that has the potential to bring
about revolutionary changes. Yet, just as Gutenberg’s innovations changed the traditional
consumers of books and the use of writing in Ancient Greek culture changed the ideals of
philosophers at the time, the consumption of social and communication technologies invokes a
sense of loss in the technological age. We veer away from our traditional parties and casual
conversations at bars to group video chats and text messages on the computer. Although the way
we communicate is changing, the fundamental nature of our interactions and feelings such as
The points regarding love, “technological somnambulism,” and the HomeNet study all
address the issue of an absence of morality in technological affairs: that is, the general treatment
of newer technologies as a means to an end. Cardinal Poupard cites Pope John Paul II’s
encyclical Fides et Ratio, to present a solution to the way society ought to behave, specifically
those responsible for creating the newer social technologies by telling them to “ ‘continue their
efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological
Ayala 9
achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and
indelible mark of the human person’ ” (Poupard 40). He says that the user and the object in a
technological interaction are tied, that the object is an extension of whom the person is rather
than merely a tool. It seems as if the people of society are more afraid of putting themselves out
in the open, in a vulnerable position, as a result of admitting that their actions are inherently their
In order to overcome this fear, the usefulness of social technologies and its impacts on
social behavior ought to be looked at more closely, especially because of its prevalence in our
society. Social technologies have decreased the amount of time people are away from each other
with programs like Skype and have facilitated the speedy delivery of wonderful news such as the
delivery of a baby. If social technologies and technology in general are left unchecked, we may
never fully understand the implications of their existence on our own existence, and as a result, a
morality or social code for developing technologies may not be developed. In addition, if we
continue to walk in a drowsy haze through our society, we may not be able to realize the true
potential of our developed technologies, and consequently, may not be able to realize our
Works Cited
2010.
Clemmit, Marcia. “Cyber Socializing.” Lirary.cqpress.com. 28 July 2006. Web. 8 Dec 2010.
Dutton, William H. and Katz, James E. and Rice, Ronald E. and Shepherd, Adrain. “Social
interaction and the Internet: A comparative analysis of surveys in the US and Britain.”
The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. Eds. Adam N. Joinson, Katelyn Y.A.
McKenna, Tom Postmes, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. New York, NY: Oxford University
Fuchs, Christian. “Social Internet Dynamics”. Internet and Society: Social Theory in the
Keen, Andrew. “Web 2.0”. Weeklystandard.com. The Weekly Standard. 15 Feb 2006. Web. 28
Oct 2010.
McKenna, Katelyn Y.A. “Expressing and validating the true self.” The Oxford Handbook
Postmes, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007. 205-
219. Print.
Poupard, Karl. “From Fear to the Beauty of Mystery.” Technology and Transcendence. Eds.
Michael Breen, Eamonn Conway, and Barry McMillan. Blackrock, Co Dublin: The
Secomb, Linnell. “Barthes: A Lover’s Internet Discourse.” Philosophy and Love. Bloomington,