Browsing Alone

Do media/entertainment technologies connect or disconnect people? That Americans have become increasingly disconnected from one another and the social capital that binds people since the rise of TV and the Net is an idea much debated since Robert Putnam published Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community two years ago (the book is now out in paperback). The Net -- ironically the world' s most connective medium -- could be radically advancing that trend. Putnam cites numerous surveys that show that interaction with family, friends, and neighbors, and participation in social activities -- from joining civic groups and bowling leagues to voting -- has declined as Americans find more reasons to stay at home. Online, fragmentation abounds. People turn increasingly inward. The big open spaces of the Net have either been corporatized, flamed to death or shut down, and communications steadily turned to exclusive p2p "me media," the fragmented, often self-censored, personalized and specialized weblogs, IM programs and mailing lists that dominate much of online communications.

In his book, Putnam argues that our access to the "social capital" that is the payoff for community and civic work is shrinking. Though the reasons are complex, technology and mass media are primary factors, Putnam says. We spend more time at home watching TV (and, increasingly, working and amusing ourselves online) and less with other people. Our detachment from communal efforts -- and opportunities to meet other people -- grows. In l960, 62.8 percent of voting-age Americans went to the polls to choose between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon; in l996, after decades of slippage, just 48.9 percent chose Bill Clinton over Bob Dole. The inverse correlation between the rise of screen-driven entertainment technologies and civic disconnection is persuasive. So is the epidemic hostility online.

Although Putnam's book focuses on TV more than the Net (since TV is older and its use has been more widely studied), it's impossible not to think about the new ways networked computing may contribute to this disconnection. The Net is the world's greatest communications medium, but the notion of cyberspace as providing a social connection -- remember the virtual community? -- has turned out to be a fantasy. In many ways, the intensely connective Net is helping people become more disconnected all the time. It's the new TV.

This is of no small consequence, Putnam argues. Social bounds are the most powerful predictor of life satisfaction. Communities with low social capital have poor schools, more teen pregnancies and child or youth suicide, and higher prental mortality. Social capital is also the most reliable indicator of crime rates and other measurable quality-of-life issues. Such disconnection has happened before in American life, Putnam writes, especially during periods of great migration and immigration, but it was reversed by periods of stability and the rise of organizations like the Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, and thriving religious organizations.

Of all the many dimensions along which forms of social capital vary, writes Putnam, perhaps the most important is the distinction between "bridging" (or inclusive) and "bonding" (or exclusive). Some forms of social capital are, by choice or necessity, he writes, inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups -- fraternal organizations, church-based women's reading groups, snooty country clubs. Other networks are outward looking and encompass people across diverse and different social networks -- youth service groups, civil rights organizations, ecumenical religious associations.

The Net, it was originally believed, would be a "bridging" technology, one that would connect the planet. But the most interesting evolution in software in recent years has been code that permits people to narrow, not expand, their universes. Blocking and filtering software has become epidemic to product against flamers, crackers and spammers. The explosion in weblogs, specialized mailing lists, instant messaging and other so-called p2p media means that people online increasingly talk only to one another, not to people who are different or unfamiliar. The rise of this narcissistic communications is understandable, but it hardly is inclusive. People all over the Web routinely block and filter points of view they don't like or don't want to hear (or buy), so nobody online really ever has to encounter all that discordant diversity that digital technology makes possible. More disconnection.

Thanks in part to the Net, Americans have never had so many reasons to stay home, so many entertaining or useful options when they do. I remember an e-mail I got from a grandmother last year lamenting all the TV ads showing AOL grandmas getting pictures of their grandchildren. "That's nonsense," she says. "My kids don't visit me nearly as much because they feel they can just e-mail me. I love digital pictures, but I rarely get to see my grandchildren in person." Her lament -- the illusion of connection, while facing the reality of tech-spawned separation -- was intriguing.

The rise of the Net would seem to have exacerbated this tendency. Americans had already been spending an enormous amount of time watching television. Putnam found that 80 percent of all Americans watch some TV every evening, while only about 60 percent talk with their families nightly, let alone neighbors, strangers or others. Watching TV has become one of the few universal experiences of contemporary American life.

Increasingly, the Net is one too. It promises consumer use as great as television's, if not greater, since work connects with home. This seems especially ironic, since the Net was supposed to be one of the most powerful devices ever for connecting with humans. Mostly, it connects us with bits and links. In a sense, it is a connective medium. We can stay in touch with friends, colleagues and family members all over the planet. But Americans use the Net to get free data from music to weather, send messages, play games, shop and talk about sex. So the Net could exacerbate the techno-trend that television began. We're e-mailing and browsing alone as well as bowling. The Net could have an ever more striking impact, since it enables users to do things TV doesn't -- like play games and shop for nearly everything. Those, among others, were activities that people once had to go outside to do, where they might glimpse or even speak with a neighbor -- or go bowling.

America was founded partly on the notion of common civic spaces -- taverns, greens. A lot of cyber-idealists thought the Net was becoming our new common space. That hasn't happened. Nasty teenagers, spammers and greedy corporatists have made common turf on the Net either too expensive, hostile or annoying for most people to spend much time on.

Putnam's idea about social capital might be even more timely relevant than he understood.

Comments

The lack of localization of the net

[ergo98]

As is evident in my sig, I have a problem with the lack of localization of the net: Basically, despite the fact that about 95% of our lives are still local, and always will be (whether it's entertainment, restaurants, grocery stores, etc, or it's issues like potholed roads, a new park going up, etc.), there is exceedingly little localization on the net: There was more of a sense of community when I was on a small town BBS->We all shared common issues and could discuss things that affected our lives locally.

Re:The lack of localization of the net

[Knightmare]

That is one of the exact things that got me interested in the Internet way back when. The fact that it doesn't matter where you are located, what age you are, your skin color, etc... It gives the opportunity for a group of people to exchange ideas that normally would walk by eachother on the street and have no interest in talking to eachother. Be it for reasons of descrimination, type casting, lack of knowledge that you might have something in common. But if you happen to see the person in a chat room about there is a damn good chance they are interested in that subject, so the ice breaker is out of the way. You just start talking and have fun.
But if you want localization you can seek it out... For example there was a large issue around here awhile back with some bus drivers, and sure enough browse to the local news channel and they have a public forum up where people are discussing their views on the subject. If you feel that there is no vent for your local subject matter, make one. spend the couple of dollars on a domain that would make sense to people in your area and start a small site with what you think is missing in your area. With programs like frontpage and dreamweaver and the zillions of script archives out there it's really not that hard to put together a beginner site anymore... So don't complain about it on slashdot, do something about it.

Rhetorical question

[crumbz]

The premise is too complicated to be answered in a binary manner of yes or no. The answer is probably both, yes AND no. I don't interactive with my neighbor when I am on Slashdot. I am interacting with you as you read this. Instead of a flesh and blood interaction, it is mediated through distance, time and the cool glare of phosporus or LCDs. Is it better or worse? Humans evolved to interact on an small scale personal level like most intelligent animals. No we are evolving to interact via discoporeal means. Do mediating technologies throw our psycology off of balance. Probably. Is it bad that kids are getting fat sitting in front of TV and computers? Yes. Is it dehumanizing to interact with my girlfriend over the phone? Probably.

Things change. Life changes. My life changes daily, weekly and yearly through my aging, my growth and my development. Changing technology certainly affects my life. I used to call my folks all the time. Now I email. Less bandwidth. They don't hear the inflections in my voice. Good or bad? I write better than I speak, so my email to them tends to be more thoughtful than my speech. Good or bad?

Life is meant to be enjoyed. Mediating technology can be "value-free" with regards to this endeavour. Use it or not. The choice is yours.

Re:Different Net uses

[JanneM]

Actually, I'm inclined to think places like Slashdot are a part of this problem as well. We're a fairly homogenous group of readers on this site, with a lot of shared interests and opinions. Although we come from most parts of the world, we're not much more different from one another than would be the people gathering in a LUG meeting or attending a hardware swapfest.

I wouldn't go so far as saying /. is insular, but the choice of topics and the language used on the site certainly does not welcome 'outsiders' to stay and become active. The same of course goes for many othe communities on the net (whether about computing, free software, right-wing or left-wing politics, religious matters and so on). A political site, for example, will tend to attract a like-minded crowd that will rapidly freeze out or otherwise ignore opposing viewpoints.

This is not strange, of course. We come to /. precisely because we want to read the news and opinions that catches our interests. But it does have the inevitable consequence that we will not be exposed to different points of view.

Another matter is of course, that on a site like this, you never get to know other people; it's little more socializing than following and contributing to the 'Letters' section in a daily paper. I've only seen truly social interactions on some less-popular chats or IRC channels, where the same bunch of people meet each other every day; or on some social mailinglists. They tend to suffer from the fact that many people know each other in person already, or are invited by someone already in that group. This does not promote diversity either to any appreciable degree.

/Janne

Social bonds dispersing not breaking...

[sterno]

While it may be argued that the influence of the Internet has reduced the social bonds between people at a local level it has arguably made distant bonds with people even stronger. I routinely communicate with people whom I consider close friends that live nowhere near me anymore. In the "good old days" I might get a letter from them every once in a while, but overall would really be able to have the kind of social interaction that I can thanks to this new fangled technology.

To add to this, I have seen numerous people find communities on-line that they would never have found otherwise. These people can become as close to these on-line friends as they would with people nearby, and some of these relationships may evolve to being an in-person relationship when distance constraints fade.

Basically the internet eliminates a lot of the geographic constraints on socializing. This has positives and negatives. It means that an in the closet gay person in a backwater intolerant town can find supportive peers. It also means that people don't need to talk to the people next door very much. At least with the Internet as opposed to television, socializing is one of it's biggest facets. Rather than being hypnotized by the magic box, you are out there seeing what people think and frequently interacting with them.

Not a new idea, though.

[flufffy]

interestingly this idea - that new information technologies cause people to become less social - has been a topic of conversation for 2 to 3 thousand years ... plato talked about the damage that the introduction of writing did to social relationships, and of the difference between hearing someone speak in person and reading (second-hand) something that they have written (see the 'phaedrus' and also the 'cratylus'). you can read histories of the printing press that make the same argument, and it has also been made of the telephone, radio, tv., etc.

there's a mile of similar commentary on the internet (such as neil postman, clifford stoll, etc.). robert kraut carried out the 'internet paradox' surveys that became the sociological proof of this effect, although the earlier findings were later recast.

i'm not saying that there are not social changes caused by the introduction of new information technologies. we are information driven beings, after all. however, we have to be wary of assigning values to them that are either ultimately 'good' or 'bad,' as despite all these changes, we somehow seem to be able to cope with them ...

Re:Different Net uses

[Tim C]

The same of course goes for many othe communities on the net

And also, of course, of offline communities.

I used to live in North London, and a route I often took to and from home lead me past a number of annonymous looking establishments along the high street, all of which were members only "socail clubs". These are places where like-minded individuals can go, to chat, smoke, drink, play pool, whatever.

They are all for members only, and membership is presumably (I never checked) by invitation only.

The way I see it is that the net has only served to increase the popularity of this sort of thing, and to enable people who are not geographically close to each other to interact. It certainly didn't cause it to happen.

Cheers,

Tim

Choose Examples Carefully

[Kwil]

Sure, for the industrial revolution, it turned out that the changes worked out okay.

Of course, other societies haven't been so lucky. The Romans are the prime example. A society that grew so wealthy, fat, inward looking, and of particular relevance, internally divided - they didn't see the invaders at the gate until it was too late, literally.

There is little to suggest that the same can't or won't happen to us.

Like the Romans, we are the most powerful economic and military force in the world. Like the Romans, we use that to get what we need and want - often with no care for any of the consequences that don't immediately affect us.

Like the Romans, divisions between those with power and those without are growing, those without are kept busy with bread and circuses, those with are kept busy creating better circuses and controlling their own power structure.

Like the Romans, participation in the larger
civilization systems are dropping, and increasingly small and diverse groups are forming, strengthening, and working against other similar groups within our society.

Like the Romans, the power held over people's every day lives is growing, and people in the society are increasingly resenting the ways power is being used.

Meanwhile, we in Western Civilization are vastly outnumbered, and those in other civilizations are increasingly turning their eyes toward injustices (real or percieved) that we have perpetrated on them.

Every generation some Malthus predicts doom and gloom, and is wrong and short sighted.

It's kind of like the parable of the boy who cried wolf. The thing that most people forget is the wolf did come at the end.