On 30 Dec 97, Fred Nickols replied to Ben Compton writing:
>I think the main reason that we on the LO list do not constitute a
>community is that we are, for all practical purposes, disembodied. Few of
>us know many of the rest of us by sight nor have we had any direct,
>physical and social interaction.
In a large community, do many people actually know one another and see
themselves on a regular basis? Though the opportunity is greater in
larger cities, is it any more prevalent than in smaller ones? I don't
know the answer to that, but doubt that people stop thinking of themselves
as a community based on their physical and social interactions. (However,
I'm certain they wish their tax collectors did! *S*) Something needs to
be said about this list allowing ALL members to interact on a one-to-all,
one-to-few, or one-to-one basis; whereas ALL people in physical and social
communities can interact only on a one-to-few or one-to-one basis.
People who work in cybermedia environments probably do change socially,
but do they actually lose more than they gain? Cybermedia allows the
social network to expand, albeit via electrons, but more people are in
touch with each other than ever before. In this sense, hasn't the
"professional community" expanded?
Additionally, family and friends can be spread out over thousands of
miles. Cybermedia permits regular and timely conversations, both written
and verbal. Though distant from one another, aren't they still considered
a "family community?"
If lifestyles utilizing cybermedia are missing the "key elements" of a
community, then aren't they just "out of the box?" Can't we just either
redefine those key elements, redefine "community," or invent a new word?
Do we have to or is it even something we need to be concerned about?
What's the value added?
>Our communications are absent the quick turnaround of spoken
>words and the nuances and shadings provided by facial expressions,
>intonation, body posture, gestures, and other nonverbal factors. In this
>venue, at least, we are truly symbol processors.
People can express themselves using a lot of "smileys" :-) or
abbreviations *LOL*--at least until interactive video becomes a standard.
[Host's Note: LOL = Laughing out loud. ...Rick]
>I am assuming that what I've just written is true for some on this list
>and not true for others; in other words, there are people on the list who
>do know one another and who do, regularly or infrequently, interact with
>one another in corporeal settings.
I do know one person on this list, and will probably hear from her about
this post *G*. But, have others who use this list seen their
"communities" expanded through its use? Has it allowed you to feel a
part of something that you're interested in and provided you with a venue
to express your thoughts and ideas to those who might care to listen?
Have you learned from this "community?"
>I'm not sure -- at least from my perspective -- that a life spent 100% in
>an electronically mediated environment is a life worth living. Nor do I
>think we will be able to establish real communities in cyberspace (for the
>reasons mentioned above). Direct interaction with other human beings
>seems a vital part of the human condition, and so I'm inclined to believe
>that electronically mediated environments and cyberspace communities will
>remain metaphors and adjuncts.
Our present and future era are probably viewed in the same light as our
grandparents and great grandparents viewed theirs when automobiles,
telephones, radio, and televisions invaded their lifestyles. They may
have said many of the same things that you've mentioned above, (in their
context, of course). IMO, a very interesting book to read is called "The
Death of Distance" by Frances Cairncross (review can be found at:
http://www.deathofdistance.com/ ). Ms. Cairncross sheds some light on our
era and excites her readers in a very positive way about what may be
coming!
>...Much of the work of a consultant can be (and is) done at
>distance. Not everything has to be done on site. Yet, without personal
>contact and relationships, distance consulting is not likely to succeed --
>except as an extension of a traditional practice. Physical networking,
>perhaps through conference attendance, site visits, and other means seems
>absolutely necessary.
We may be surprised at what distance consulting does permit people to do.
Families may remain closer together because people won't have to
necessarily move to their company's location. Friends and colleagues may
stay in contact longer because it's cheaper and more practical to do.
"Personal contacts" may actually grow because of the ability to remain
close. Instead of drawing conclusions or advocating positions, we should
remain flexible and create as many opportunities as possible, so that the
"right" paths may be chosen. As with radios, televisions, and computers,
future generations will grow into global communication and their
perspectives will be different than those before them.
We should all look forward to what the cyber community has to offer and
how we may all grow from it. Each of us will have to develop and maintain
our own sense of balance; no one can ever live on anything 100 percent.
We should remain confident that most of those who travel down the
cybermedia path will find that balance and show the rest of us the way.
Regards,
--Bill Hancy United States Air Force obfusc8@erols.com
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>